Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2010

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

---

List of current National Basketball Association head coaches

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to take it to a Featured List status.

Thanks, Martin tamb (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Although this list requires more attention than others as the content can change quickly.—Chris!_c/t 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. Sorting needs some tweaking. Once a column is sorted, it is not possible to go back to the original order.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've rearranged the column and made teams as the default sorting order. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick Comment: Per the title, what is meant by "current"? Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the list of person who is currently serving as head coaches in the NBA. I've made a slight change in the lead, hopefully it's clearer now. — Martin tamb (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I made another change on the lead, following a format from similar "current" lists that already promoted to FL status (List of current NHL captains and alternate captains and List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment). — Martin tamb (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what "current" means - it means as of now. Is it the intention that this list should have no fixed point in time, and that every change in head coach appointments will be recorded here? Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Looks pretty good except for small grammar mistakes and proofing errors. I fixed a few of them and listed others below, but I'm not sure I caught them all.

Lead

• "The National Basketball Association (NBA) is major professional basketball league in North America." - Missing word, "the" or "a"?
• "The league adopted its current name at the start of 1949–1950 season when it merged with the National Basketball League (NBL)." - Missing word, "the"?

• "They typically hold a more public profile... " - Since "they" refers to "head coach" in the previous sentence, the two words do not match in number; "coach" is singular, but "they" is plural.

• "The list includes the head coaches' appointment date with the teams and their coaching record." - Suggestion: "The list includes the date of hiring and the performance record of each coach."

• "Sloan has also coached most games (1,755), won most games (1,096), and lost most games (659)" - Missing words, "the" in three cases; e.g., "coached the most games"? Ditto for the similar Don Nelson sentence slightly later in the lead.

• "the second longest stint among the other current head coach" - "Coaches" rather than "coach".

• Names like Jay Triano and San Antonio Spurs should only be linked once in the lead. There may be other duplications as well. These two are just examples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reviews, it is certainly very helpful. — Martin tamb (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Backbreaker (video game)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I just recently had the article promoted to GA, and I would like to know what I need to do to get it up to Featured Status, if at all possible.

Thanks, A8x (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The structural essentials seem to be here, but the prose is not yet of FA quality. Small errors should be fixed, the prose tightened, and the Manual of Style adhered to. I have specific suggestions below, but the main one is to find someone to carefully copyedit the article.

Lead

• One of its highlights is the use of the Euphoria engine; a game animation engine that determines animations dynamically rather than depending on canned animations." - I would rephrase this to avoid repeating "engine" twice and "animation" three times.

• "Backbreaker does not use teams from the National Football League due to the exclusive license Electronic Arts has to produce NFL games in its Madden series." - A bit awkward. Also, National Football league is correctly spelled out on first use, but the abbreviation should also appear on first use. Suggestion: "Backbreaker does not use teams from the National Football League (NFL) because Electronic Arts has an exclusive license to produce NFL games in its Madden series."

• "The game ended up being delayed until mid-2010." - Perhaps tighten to "However, the game was delayed until mid-2010."

• "The Xbox 360 version of the game" - Wikilink Xbox 360? Ditto for the other versions?

• "an overall rating of 54%" - The Manual of Style suggests using "percent" rather than the symbol in simple cases like this. It's advisable to hold the digits and the word "percent" together with an nbsp code to keep them from being separated on computer screens by line break; i.e., 54 percent. WP:NBSP has details about the no-break code.

Gameplay

• "compete against the CPU or another player" - Spell out and abbreviate on first use.

• "due to the fact that Electronic Arts" - Tighten to "because Electronic Arts" and maybe change the "because" in the next sentence to "aware" to avoid repeating "because"?

• "Due to this, developers pushed to advertise that "no two tackles are the same" - Maybe "This flexibility allowed developers to advertise that... "?

• "The physics system was rated well by the reviewers, who commented that the integration of realistic physics created a very life-like interaction between the players on the field." - Passive voice. Also, the meaning of "physics system" is unclear, and the sentence largely mirrors the preceding sentence. Suggestion: "Reviewers liked the realism and gave the system good ratings."

Singleplayer

• "In this game, the player controls a running back who starts in their own endzone." - "His" rather than "their" since "player" is singular. Also, "end zone" is two words.

• I'll stop commenting line-by-line at this point on each small point except to say that the article could use copyediting from top to bottom.

Images

• It's doubtful that all three fair-use images are needed. The first is not a problem, but I have doubts that the other two add information that's not already conveyed by words in the text.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Billy Liddell

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

It's been extensively copyedited this past week as a prelude to a (hopeful) nomination for FA status. I'd intended to submit it for consideration almost 2 years ago, but that was postponed indefinitely after I curtailed my activity on Wikipedia. It's a relatively niche article that would really benefit from fresh assesment.

Cheers, SoLando (Talk) 21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I grew up in Liverpool, and though Liddell was before my time, his name still resonated in the 70s and 80s, particularly as Liverpool were then the top football team of the era, no question. So it was interesting to read the article. Here are some issues that require attention, although I have not attempted a full prose check.

Lead

• The last part of the opening paragraph is a little confusing. I'm not sure why Ted Sagar gets mentioned, since he played for Everton, nor is it clear what record Sagar held that was beaten by Liddell. Can you clarify?
• Defeat "by" rather than "to" Arsenal?
• "Liddell's versatility enabled him to play comfortably on the opposite flank, as a centre forward, and inside forward." The meaning here is obscured by the punctuation. Clarification necessary

Early life

• Watch for the POV-ish effect of adjectives/adverbs such as "resolutely"
• Could you say more about his education? How did he get to Dunfermline High School - did he pass a scholarship exam? If he had realistic career choices in accountancy, the civil service or the Church, he must have had been academically successful at school - any details?
• "Scotland Schoolboys": is that a formal team name? Otherwise "Scotland schoolboys".
• What is "Lochgelly Violet"?
• "defender Matt Busby" is insufficient description. Don't force your readers to use links. Likewise re Alex Herd - say who he was.
• What "explanation" was Busby asking for? Some part of the story seems missing here.
• What was the nature of the "studies" that Liddell was allowed to continue?
• I believe that this section should be divided after the second paragraph. The last two paragraphs don't really describe "Early life", and would be better as a section of their own, perhaps called "Wartime career" or some such. Alternatively this could be the first subsection in the Career section
• It seems curious that Liddell was not mobilised until December 1942, more than three years after the outbreak of war. Any reason?
• "He was recalled to Moncton..." Where/what was "Moncton"? (again, don't rely on links)

Career 1946-54

• "Liddell's official debut..." Add "for Liverpool's first team".
• This is a long section in a long article, and I'm a bit concerned about the inclusion of peripheral detail. For example: "Liverpool were unable to replicate its league success in the 1947–48 season, occupying 11th place on its conclusion in May 1948.[25] The club subsequently embarked on a second exhibition tour of North America, playing against domestic sides and Sweden's Djurgården. Guaranteed $30,000 for the tour, Liverpool became the first side to play another foreign club in the United States." This concerns the club's history rather than Liddell's. There are other instances where I believe that material could be excised, e.g the allocation of Cup Final tickets. You also need to decide if "Liverpool" is singular or plural: "Liverpool were (plural) unable to replicate its singular)..." doesn't work.
• "His wife Phyllis..." When did he marry? This is basic biographical information

1954-61

• Caps inconsistency: "Second Division", "first division" in same sentence. But again, the first three sentences are club history, and ought to summarised in a single brief sentence to keep the focus on Liddell. This criticism applies generally to the section.
• "Liddell elected to stay rather than accept a lucrative transfer." I don't know what this means. There was a fixed maximum wage that applied to all clubs, and it was the clubs, not the indivduals, who received transfer fees. So the sentence makes no sense.
• Capitals? "league and cup"
• I think you should mention that at the time of their offer, New Brighton were not members of the Football League.
• Again, as per the lead, what exactly was Sagar's record? It certainly wasn't for the most League appearances by a player. It may have been most appearances for a single club. Whatever it was must be made clear.
• "Shankly selected Liddell to play Derby County..." An "against" is missing.
• Fourth highest goalscorer: he was the club's second highest goalscorer at the time of his retirement.

International

• How are goals "nullified"?
• "He gained several more wartime caps and four goals..." Surely, "scored four goals"? Other prose glitches suggest the need for at least one more copyediting pass.
• "On 19 October 1946, Liddell officially represented Scotland..." Unclear. Try: "On 19 October 1946, Liddell gained fis first full international cap for Scotland..."
• All the stuff about the 1950 World Cup is far too detailed for this article; needs summarising.
• "Qualification for the 1954 World Cup remained identical" Do you mean that qualification rules remained the same as in 1950?
• "humiliating" is POV

Later life and legacy

• How did Liddell become a shareholder? Did he buy the shares or was he given them by the club? Was it a large or a nominal holding?
• The No. 11 shirt story seems a bit of a damp squib.
• Give date for the formation of the Billy Liddell Memorial Group, and name the home village.

I have not picked up on everything, and I reiterate my view that a thoughtful copyedit by fresh eyes would be of benefit. As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please leave queries/messages on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate the suggestions and it's heartening to learn of your awareness of Liddell. I'm still in the process of implementing your recommendations, but most of the superficial issues highlighed have been resolved.

• Sagar: Clarified?
• Sentence structure in lead: Clarified?

Early life

• There isn't that much exposition about his education, although Keith's biography does give reasonable attention to it. I've mentioned the subjects Liddell studies at Dunfermline.
• I haven't been able to definitely ascertain whether "Scotland Schoolboys" is indeed a formal noun. There seems to be a lot of inconsistency, but examples of it being used as a noun are here in The Times and The Scotman, while the BBC and the Daily Mail illustrate the discrepancy.
• Military service: There's no elaboration on the reason, only that service was deferred.

Career 1946-1954

• I found that the passage on the volume of submitted applications put into an appropriate perspective, the significance of the club's achievement - and Liddell's importance to that. I've tried to contextualise its relevance. Is it worthy of retention?
• While the level of detail probably does render elements of the prose peripheral, I'm convinced that much of it is still pertinent to the article. It provides context for Liddell's experiences and achivements on the pitch. I'll try to address it with a moderate expansion of Liddell's contribution to each season...even if that only entails mentioning his season tally. I've also begun to consolidate a few sentences, to address any imbalance. This also applies to the following section.
• Thanks for alerting me to that. I'd begun to transition to the singular in my more recent copyedits, which I guess compounded the inconsistency.
• I've rephrased the transfer sentence. He'd have certainly benefitted financially had he transferred to a more successful club or even moved abroad (where wage restrictions either didn't exist or were less draconian). Success with an English first division club would have been lucrative because of bonuses, etc, but unfortunately no sources could substantiate that...

1954-1961

• I've added dates in paranthesis for the goalscorers. Cumbersome?

International:

• In the process of rationalising the detail.

Later life

• Unfortunately, there's no indication of how substantial it was. It was likely nominal...it may have been granted to him as a gift by the club in recognition of his services
• I've contexualised the significance of the shirt. Hopefully it validates its inclusion.

Again, thank you! SoLando (Talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

James Milner

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article became a good aricle almost three years ago and since then the subject's career has greatly escalated with him playing for his country at the world cup.

I think this aricle needs another proper review to make sure it covers everything.

Thanks, BUC (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "Milner's talent in football, cricket, and long-distance running was recognised when he was a child. He represented his school in these sports and played football for amateur teams from Rawdon and Horsforth. " doesn't read great.
• "only" POV
• it reads like he stills plays for Newcastle. please expand/rewrite last section.

Early life

• what's "11 GCES"?
• "Milner took as much interest in watching football as he did playing it. " OR
• "Peter and Lesley," unimportant
• "played for the Republic of Ireland at under-14 level" doesnt match infobox
• "against Italy, Czech Republic and Brazil, scoring a goal against Brazil.[8]" reads poorly

Club career

• More pov:
  • with a deft first touch of the ball and manoeuvre
  • Milner continued to impress
• :
  • He could be deemed a traditional English winger.
• the whole style of play reads really poorly.

References

• Don't mix date formats, keep to DD MONTH YYYY

Decent article. I might do some more, but that should get something going. Consider reviewing History of FC Barcelona. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Ninette de Valois

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

• I am seeking a comprehensive review of every aspect of the article, as am aiming for Good Article, then Featured Article status.
• Ideally, need someone to help me put together a 'job-list' for the article.

Thanks, Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• The references, particularly the many related refs to the ROH collection, need further tidying up. Tpbradbury (talk · contribs) has improved the refs recently. I am also thinking about how they can be better structured and will probably make (and/or suggest) further changes. Mirokado (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I realise the references need a lot of work. I have added most of them myself since working on the article, but I don't know how to format them correctly, so any help or advice would be much appreciated.Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments This is a good start on an article about an interesting and highly successful person. To make it broad enough in coverage for GA, I think you must include discussion in the text of the three books by de Valois that are listed in the section called Bibliography. I know nothing about de Valois except what I just read in this article, and I know almost nothing about ballet. However, I would guess that those three books are probably filled with information that would be useful here. What is in them? What does de Valois have to say about herself and her art? I note also that the Telegraph obit used for citation 14 mentions that her selected poems were published in 1988. This deserves at least a mention in the text and perhaps more than a mention. What were the poems about? How were they received by the critics?

Lead

• "one of the leading ballet companies in the world today" - Tighten by deleting "today", which is non-specific?

• "as one of the most influential figures in the history of ballet and as the 'godmother' of English ballet" - When using quotation marks in this way, use double rather than single quotes; i.e., "godmother" per WP:PUNCT.

Biography

• "She remained with the company for three years, being promoted to the rank of Soloist" - Lower-case "soloist"?

• "Students of the school were given professional stage experience performing in opera and plays staged at the Old Vic Theatre, with de Valois choreographing several short ballets for the theatre." - It's not clear what the source is for this claim and the rest of the claims later in the paragraph and in the entire next paragraph and, indeed, other parts of the article. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, every set of statistics, every direct quote, and every paragraph. If a whole paragraph is supported by a single source, the citation can go at the end of the paragraph.

• "with the intention of it's becoming a sister theatre to the Old Vic" - "It's" means "it is", and the "of its becoming" is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "with the intention of creating a sister theatre to the Old Vic."

Done. Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• "and was appointed Prima Ballerina" - Lower-case "prima ballerina".

• "engaging Frederick Ashton as Principal Choreographer and Constant Lambert as Musical Director in 1935" - Lower-case "principal choreographer" and "musical director".

• "Eventually, the company became one of the starriest in the world" - "Starriest" looks like a made-up word. Suggestion: "Eventually the company included many of the most famous ballet dancers in the world... ".

Done. Mirokado (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1949 the Sadler Wells Ballet was a sensation when they toured the United States. Margot Fonteyn instantly became an international celebrity." - Claims like these need in-line citations to reliable sources.

• "De Valois was not one to rest on laurels, though." - The paragraph starting with this sentence needs a source or sources. Ditto for other paragraphs with no sources.

• The last four paragraphs here are extremely short. The Manual of Style generally advises against extremely short paragraphs or sections. Two options for making the material less fragmented are to expand or merge.

Choreography

• The opening paragraph seems to repeat material already covered in the Biography section.

Job (1931)

• The list seems unconnected to the subhead or the head, "Choreography". Perhaps instead of a bulleted list, you could create a regular prose paragraph saying, "Her other works include... " and then list all the ballets except Job and any others already mentioned earlier in this section.

The section on Job is the first of what I would hope can be sections for several of the dances: we would then have do decide how to mention any remaining dances. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added an Other works section so the article is a bit more coherent during this work-in-progress. Mirokado (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Honours and awards

• I'm not sure it's necessary to list all of these. Could the lists be compressed to essences and rendered as straight prose paragraphs? WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests using prose where feasible.

Replaced by paras. Listing is chronological by general category where that seemed helpful. Foreign distinctions are in a separate para (because they are interesting for a extra reason, not an issue of status.) In this case I did not count Irish as foreign. I also added some background for one of the awards, corrected the Turkish description and included the original Turkish title (the ROH page has typos in both its Turkish, as you can see from the photo of the certificate, and English text.) Although "Honour of Merit" would not be chosen by an English-speaking organisation it is a reasonable translation for the Turkish "signs of merit" and what is used on the ROH site. Mirokado (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also

• Categories are normally not included in a "See also" section. Probably all of the items in the category are already included as direct links in the main text.

References

• Citation 1 should include the author's name, Lewis Segal, and the publisher should be listed as Los Angeles Times rather than the url. Ditto for citation 3 and perhaps others.

Done. Converting clear newspaper articles to use cite news, which says use work= for the newspaper name (thus producing italics.) Some others are from web articles related to newspapers, I'm not sure how best to handle those yet, currently using cite web with the domain as publisher. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• What makes streetfighters.blog.net a reliable source per WP:RS?

I don't think it is (in fact the page seems to have disappeared from the current incarnation of that site) but I have not yet found a suitable alternative source for that information. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Other

• It's often helpful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. I'm not sure any ballet biographies are FA, but you can find biographies of other kinds of artists in some of the subcategories at WP:FA.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will add some responses and make some of the minor changes, leaving substantial content changes mostly to Crazy-dancing. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley I enjoyed reading this article. It certainly has the makings of a good article, but requires more flesh on the bones, and more scrupulous citations. I agree with most of the remarks above, some of which are duplicated here – I add my duplications to reinforce the point.

• General: At first mention in each paragraph you should refer to de Valois by name and not by a pronoun.
• Lead: you need three more paras or so, giving a brief overview of the article. See WP:lead and have a look at a few recent front page featured articles.
• Biography
  • Lt Col Stannus – you should add his given name
  • promoted to the rank of Soloist – upper case needed?
  • ballet company and school would be the predecessors – just "were the predecessors"?
  • Principal Choreographer … Musical Director – upper case needed?
  • the company became one of the starriest in the world – citation needed
  • School of Music & Ballet – is the ampersand part of the official name? If not, I'd replace with "and"
  • De Valois was not one to rest on laurels, though – this is rather too much a personal interpretation: if you can find a quote to the same effect that would be suitable. Also, there is not a single citation for the large number of statements in this paragraph, each of which should be backed with a reference. The same applies to the next four paragraphs. Those paras are rather stubby: some merging would help.
• Turkish State Ballet
  • Despite Turkey having no prior history – earlier you most admirably use a gerund for "with the intention of its becoming a sister" (albeit with an otiose apostrophe in it), and I'd do the same here – "Despite Turkey's…." (A really picky person might quibble about "prior history" on the grounds that that's the only sort of history there is.)
  • Does the citation at the end of the second para cover all the statements made in it?
• Choreography
  • Job (1931), was the first ballet to define the future of the British ballet repertoire – citation needed
  • recognised as cornerstones of British ballet – by whom? Citation needed
  • The section reads very awkwardly, with a decent size para on Job, and then an unadorned list of the other ballets. I think you should add a few words about the more important of them. Generally, bald lists of this kind are not the stuff of featured articles.

The section on Job is the first of what I would hope can be sections for several of the dances: we would then have do decide how to mention any remaining dances. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Honours and awards: it is unusual (and, I'd say, superfluous) in such sections to see the names of the heads of the awarding state.

Removed. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few comments are helpful. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will add some responses and make some of the minor changes, leaving substantial content changes mostly to Crazy-dancing. Mirokado (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe the article is possibly good enough to achieve Feature Article status but I wanted to receive some feedback before nominating it. Thanks, Themeparkgc  Talk  00:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi automated peer review [1] Yousou (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief note: While awaiting my detailed review (hopefully ready tomorrow) you should check the adjacent toolbox and fix the disambiguation links. Also, the links in refs 5 and 14 do not go to the sources - please investigate. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  02:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments With an ultimate goal of FA, there are some important issues to be addressed:-

• Lead: This needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the whole article, rather than a brief introduction to the individual attractions in the Harry Potter area. The lead should briefly mention the background and other stuff. The opening phrase of the article needs to be stronger; describing the Wizarding World as an "addition" to something makes it sound secondary, unimportant. Perhaps: "The Wizarding World of Harry Potter forms part of..."  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Article construction generally
  • The article has two significant omissions. The first is that there is nothing about the three-year period of construction. We move in a single step, from an announcement on 31 May 2007 to an opening on 28 May 2010 - evidently a year late, but no explanation or details given. You need to research these three years and give us the story of the construction, if you are to meet the comprehensiveness criterion.  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  04:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The second omission concerns reception/reaction. The facility has been open for a couple of months, so there must be many press and other media reports about it, and its public impact. None are mentioned here. What has been the public's reaction - favourable, ecstatic, disappointed? What are the figures for the numbers of visitors in the first weeks of the attraction - I guess they must exist somewhere?  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the latter part of the article there are far too many very short subsections. I can understand you wanting to discuss the three principal rides separately, but the "Dining" information isn't worth a section of its own, let alone a division into subsections. Likewise the section headed "Shopping and other attractions". This sort of information could be conveyed in a couple of short prose paragraphs; spreading it over so many minisections is not justified.  Done Themeparkgc  Talk  00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In short, although I don't like to sound discouraging, it looks as though a great deal more work is necessary if you are serious about achieving featured article status. In addition to the basic problems I have identified, the prose needs some atttention, e.g. "re-creation" not "recreation", and it's a mistake to introduce J.K. Rowling as "Rowling". There is no such word as "broadcasted". However, at this stage prose issues are secondary to the major overhaul and expansion that the article requires if it is to be considered as a FA candidate. It will be a challenge, but I would certainly encourage you to give it a go. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Themeparkgc  Talk  04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

EVERYTHING {{{DONE}}}. After a few more checks I will nominate it for a feature article. Themeparkgc  Talk  06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Things Aren't Simple Any More

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating it at FAC. The article is now pretty comprehensive, and has recently undergone a copyedit by a member of the Guild of Copyeditors. I would like any further guidance of what could be improved, to help FAC run smoothly.

Thanks, The JPS^{talk to me} 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A nice, slightly sad article on a well-liked programme. Here are a few suggestions for improving it:-

• "He decided to kill off the character so that he would not be persuaded to write any more episodes in the future." The last three words are redundant. Done
• Synopsis: the opening words "The story is told in flashback" are misleading since, as the first paragraph makes clear, the episode opens in present time and then, as you later say, switches to flashback. Done
• Link sunscreen Done
• After first mention, "Richard Wilson" should be plain "Wilson"
  (Full name now only appears twice: lead, and first mention in article proper. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
• "However, the details of the accident were less likely to be reported". I'm unsure of the purpose of this sentence.(Re-worded, Hopefully makes sense now. The point is that the reports would focus upon Victor's death, not how he died, of Gordon's character. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
• the "tonal aspects" of the script - what does this mean in plain language?
  (Re-worded, Just to 'tone' The JPS^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
• "She retired due to ill health..." A better flow would be "She then retired through ill-health..." In my view, "due to" is one of those overused phrases that often spoils good prose. Done
• Hyphenate "read-through" Done
• Having mentioned the lump in Renwick's throat, it seems a bit odd a couple of sentences later to say that "Renwick was too concerned with the complexities of filming to be emotionally affected by the filming of the final episode."
  (Added "Unlike the location shoot," The JPS^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
• The last sentence of the "Filming" section seems misplaced, as if added on later. Perhaps relocate?
  (True. Sentence removed - superfluous in the absence of no similar material. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC))
• "Salmon agreed to avoid Christmas broadcast" Perhaps "a Christmas broadcast", or "broadcasting the episode at Christmas"? Done
• "The episode peaked at 11.6 million viewers when it was directly up against its ITV rival." Does this mean that, during the time that the programmes ran concurrently, the episode's viewing figures peaked at 11.6 million? If so, I would reword to make this clear. Done
• "the scene in which pilgrims descend on the Meldrews' home". Not covered in the synopsis as far as I can see.  Done

As I am not able to watch peer reviews, please leave any query about this review on my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

FK Qarabağ

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think article lacks something to get status of good article

Thanks, NovaSkola (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Sandman.

Lead

• no parenthesis please.
• It badly needs a copyedit.
• "The club is one of the three teams in Azerbaijan, along with Neftchi Baku and Turan Tovuz which has participated in all Azerbaijan Premier League championships so far." -> "The club is one of the three teams in Azerbaijan who have never been relegated from the Azerbaijan top-tier, the other two teams being X and Y".

References

• All references must have accessdate, publisher, author, date and title. See template:cite web for help.
• There are no books used, which is quite bad, surely something must exist in the local language.

Main

• Doesn't split history into so many sub-sections.
• what is satellite club?

• all in all this is far from GA status I'm afraid. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

---

La Masia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
If anyone could give this a quick copyedit, I think it would helps it's way to GA. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules say to wait 14 days after a peer review before opening a new one. You waited one day. This is PR 3 and PR 2 waited 5 days. I am archiving this. PR is a place to point out problems with articles like the need for a copyedit, but is not the place to get a copyedit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Russell hantz

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because for some reason, Russell Hantz had his Wikipedia page deleted for not being notable enough. Nearly every other player in Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains has a Wikipedia page about them, but Russell was one of the most popular players to ever appear on the show and had won the "Sprint Player of the Season" award twice. Right now, the term "Russell Hantz" redirects to "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains", even though he also appeared in "Survivor: Samoa".

Here's a biography of Russell Hantz's experience on Survivor and his personal life. Please confirm that Hantz's notability and the content in this article is good enough to not be deleted. I will format this better and list the references once this is approved:

Thanks, RandJshow (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review is not the place for entire draft articles, it is for articles in article space that are of decent quality to start with. I have moved it to User:RandJshow/Hantz for now and am closing this PR. I can tell you that the draft contains no (zero) references and needs them to prove notability. The article also reads like a fan club page now - it goes into way too much detail. Please see WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a digest of the plot of a tv show) and WP:Your first article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Exelon Pavilions

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my co-author (Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs)) want to nominate this at WP:FA.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Tony would also like to nominate this at FAC ;-), but I said we should get another set of eyes to look at it here first. Please note that the External links checker shows two cityofchicago.org links as dead, when they both work. Not sure what is going on there. Please also note that I am still copyediting the Reception and recognition section, and need to work on the lead. Thanks in advance for any feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ruhrfisch asked I give the article a look-see, so I am.

• The first thing that stands out to me is the File:Millennium Park Map labels.png greatly smooshes the text between the infobox and the image. I would suggest this be moved to really the only place it can be, under the infobox.
  • Moved to bottom as in the FA BP Pedestrian Bridge, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• What I was told in my GA/FA reviews, the lede shouldn't have references in it. All that information should be kinda of a "short version" of the article body. I would recommend doing away with those. Give a look-see at Stephens City, Virginia for how I did mine for something to copy off of if you like.
  • Well, WP:LEAD does not forbid refs in the lead, though it does note most readers prefer an uncluttered lead. Direct quotes, contentious BLP issues, and extraordinary claims always require refs, even in the lead. My preference is to have the refs in the body of the article, while Tony likes to cite everything in the lead (which I am fine with). The other Millennium Park FAs have fully cited leads too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am wondering if the "South Exelon Pavilions" infobox is necessary. Could that be removed, but that picture left? Does it really offer any information that couldn't be put in text form or put in the first infobox?
  • It is included because these are architectural structures with different architects than the North Pavilions. It could all be put in text like any infobox content, but is in the infobox for the same reason similar content is in any architectural infobox. Not sure about combining the two. It is a possibility.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I had already combined the infoboxes before I saw Tony's comment. The old South Pavilions box only had five unique things: the image (retained), coordinates (lost), street, completion date, and architect (all moved to the combined infobox). In the combined infobox I also added the tenant and floor count for the South Pavilions. I have made a map that shows three of the pavilions already (the dot for the fourth NW would be generated by the infobox) but I am having trouble with the template used. I have asked Dr. Blofeld if he can help. I have alo thought of adding the coordinates of each pavilion at the bottom of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• I would take the "Notes" section and turn that into "References" and the current "References" turn (and move above) to "See Also".
  • The way it is formatted now is consistent with the rest of the WP:FT (maybe GT since it is suppose to have been demoted on Sept 1). The topic includes 8 FAs with this formatting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I was just going by the way I was taught, but if other pages are in the same format, don't goof this one up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I see a good article with good pictures and good sourcing. Well done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again for your comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sure, not a problem. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall, very nicely done. Just a few minor comments:

• In the lead, "star-rated" should really be "Energy star rated," and perhaps link deeper to Energy Star#Energy Performance Ratings
  • Fixed in both places, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• No need to link parking garages.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• The Kamin critique could use a bit more explanation. Just saying he didn't care for the North Pavilions seems abrupt.
  • I used brief quotes from Kamin's review for each set - better? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the Background, the phrase "Chicago's front yard" seems like something someone said. Who said that?
  • Thanks, I know that it is in Gilfoyle's book, but I have seen it elsewhere too, so I am not sure if it needs attribution. Tony probably has a better feel for how common a phrase it is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A quick Google search on "Chicago's front yard" and Grant Park gets over 80,000 hits. I think it is in such common usage that attribution is not needed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• The image map sandwiches the text between the infobox, which creates a layout problem.
  • Moved to bottom as in the FA BP Pedestrian Bridge, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• "Foresighted citizens, who wanted the lakefront kept as public open space..." Not sure this phrasing works. Maybe "Citizens with the foresight to..."? Better yet, who were these citizens (if we know)?
  • I used your Citizens with the foresight formulation. Not sure who they were. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• "forever open, clear and free" Is that from the same commissioners declaration?
  • Yes, just capitalized differently. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• United States Secretary of War. Pipe down to Secretary of War?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• " the courts affirmed his arguments." Slightly unclear. You mean the argument about the easements?
  • added that the Field Museum was built elsewhere (i.e. not in the center of Grant Park) Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• In Structures, unlink wheelchairs?
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Italicize the title of the sculpture? You italicize Crown Fountain earlier.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I am not the sourcing expert, but the article relies heavily on ref 6, which is an Exelon Press release. It would not surprise me if that was an issue. Maybe there are news sources that picked some of this up?
  • Thanks for catching this. It is used in two ways. There are a fair number of things that are multiply sourced, so it is used as one of two or more sources in several places, which seems OK to me. Where it is used as the only source, it is mainly for specific technical details of the pavilions (like the number of solar modules on each, or total electrcicty production, or details on the sculpture in NW), which again seem OK. A few of the things where it is the only source (like the gift shop in NE) could be sourced elsewhere. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• The second infobox seems incongruous to me. It just seems out of place. It took me a minute to figure out what it even was. Is there a way to combine them into one? Most of the information is same...
  • When both you and Neutralhomer said this, I combined them - please see detailed response above. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• In Reception and recognition, maybe explain briefly what the LEED silver rating is about, as well as the ASHRE award and the Million Solar Roofs initiative.
  • I added an introductory sentence to the paragraph. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the Notes, use the cite court template for ref 17 and 19?
  • Used the template - I note two of the cases have years and two do not. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I put the missing dates in. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Is there an online version of ref 39? Could it be challenged as unverifiable?
  • There is no ref 39, not sure which one you mean. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I meant ref 27 (which cites page 39). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Linked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 23 does not open for me.
  • It opens for me and the link checker shows no problems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Opens for me too - not sure what the problem is. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I tried again and it works in IE. One of those quirky things, I guess. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• It seems like the maps are already in the article, so you don't need the External Links.
  • I think the remaining ELs are consistent with the rest of the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• My sincerest thanks to both Neutralhomer and Nasty Housecat - I am a bit busy right now, but will work on these points later today. Have asked one quick question above, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks again to Neutralhomer and Nasty Housecat. I think everything in the PR has been addressed. I added the new map that shows all four dots, and added the coordinates of each pavilion beside the Image map. Do they look OK? Tony, when do you want to take this to FAC? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • We can nominate it now if you think it is ready. Do you want me to nominate it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I think it is ready and am closing the PR - thanks to Nasty Housecat for adding the dates of the cases. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Illinois (album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... the article was promoted to GA status several months ago with some suggestions for improvement. I have since made those changes and submitted it to WP:FAR, where it received feedback on the prose. While I was in the process of copyediting it, the nomination was closed. I would like someone else to take a look at the copy and see where it could use improvement so I can submit it again with some more professional language in the article. I would be happy to do the work of rewriting or collaborating with someone else to rewrite. Furthermore, I have some suggestions of my own on how to improve the article, but they are more straightforward and shouldn't be an impediment to FA or at least FA candidate status.

Thanks, —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I don't have time to review this in as much detail as I would have liked, but here are a few pointers which I hope you find helpful:-

• The article is way too listy at the moment. The Personnel section should be shortened (too much small detail - WP asks for summary style) and written in prose rather than bullet-point form. It should be located earlier in the article; I would suggest immediately before the Reception section. The three tables (Sales performance, ratings and track listing) should be at the end of the article, preferably in the same or similar format.
  • Not done This is consistent with WP:ALBUM and other featured album articles (with the exception of 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?).) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Soundfiles and images
  • Soundfiles: The 3 sound clips are all of non-free material which might be thought excessive bearing in mind WP's commitment to free material. I will leave the fair use police to decide on this.
    • Done Removed 1 sound file that seemed to have the least value in the article. Jujutacular ^talk 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Images: It may not be justifiable to have two non-free album covers under fair use rationales. Why not use the image of the four album covers as the lead image and drop the other? Bearing in mind the etent to which the article is presently cluttered with images and soundfiles, I think the Bellow image is of marginal relevance and could be dropped.
    • Partially done Per WP:ALBUM, we should show the album's cover in the infobox and any alternate depictions can be placed in the rest of the article or at the end of the infobox using {{Extra album cover}}. You are right about the article being cramped with media, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Prose: Even with a fairly quick skim-through I found a number of instances of dodgy prose. Examples:-
  • "In preparation for creating the album..." ("Before the creation of the album...")
  • Present punctuation makes this impossible to fathom: "..with most of the material recorded in the Astoria, Queens studio The Buddy Project studio and Stevens' Brooklyn apartment" Suggest: "with most of the material recorded at The Buddy Project studio in Queens, and in Stevens' Brooklyn apartment"
  • "Like his previous albums, Stevens recorded in various locations," Begin "As with..."
  • Amongst → among
  • "...including the "Multiple Personality Disorder Version" was produced during a subsequent tour." (missing "which" before "was"?)
  • Accessibility: The paragraph beginning "Stevens employed low fidelity recording equipment..." is written in technical prose which the general reader cannot reasonably be expected to understand.
  • "swapped out" - informal/slang
    • Done I have amended all of these as you suggested and made the technical section more straightforward. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• A few general points
  • The Background section should say something about the "grand concept" of an album for each of the fifty states, mentioned in the lead but not in the main article.
  • "Most notable is Stevens' use of large orchestral arrangements..." Whose view is this?
  • "Illinois" should not be used as a subsection title, since it is the title of the article.
    • Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

---

List of places named after Robert Byrd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a peer review because I feel it offers a complete illustration of the infamous role of United States Senator Robert Byrd in bringing Federal funding to projects in the U.S. state of West Virginia. I'd like to solicit any and all comments, suggestions, and guidance on how to improve the article's overall quality, organization, and substance.

Very respectfully, Caponer (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: What a great idea for a list - thanks for your work on this. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• In the Toolbox in the upper right corner of this page, there is a disambig links checker which finds two dabs that need to be fixed.
• There is also one dead External link found with that tool - since it is a newspaper source, the ref can stay in the article without the external link.
• List articles no longer start with "This is a list..." and do not have to exactly repeat the title. So the first sentence could be something like "There are many places named after Robert C. Byrd ..."
• I also wonder if this might be better titled as "List of things named after Robert Byrd" - I also note that all the things named for him seem to be named "Robert C. Byrd" thing, so should the title be "List of ___________ named for RObert C. Byrd"?
• I also note that the article has a standard incomplete list disclaimer, then the article itself asserts in its first sentence that The List of places named after Robert Byrd lists all places named in honor of United States Senator Robert C. Byrd ... Which is it? All or some?
• I also wonder if there are places or things named after him outside of West Virginia? I would be surprised if there weren't something in Washington DC that bears his name.
• Please watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Pork barrel is linked three times in the lead, and should only be linked once there. It is also not necessary to link common terms like dollar or place (which is ia dab). Federal funds is linked but has a different meaning than its use in this article would indicate - also why is Federal always capitalized?
• I would also try to be as consistent as possible in how entries are given and formatted. At least one does not indicate where it is located "Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center" and some use in before the town, while others use a comma.
• Ref 10 is supposed to be to WRTF, but is to the Byrd National Technology Transfer Center website instead. Please check all the refs to make sure there are no other similar errors.
• It might be useful to make this into one big sortable table, perhaps with columns for the name, any associated organizations (like colleges or universities) or alternate names (like highways), the city and state, and perhaps add the type in its own column (Commerce or Transportation, etc), followed by comments.
• The comments could include or it might also be useful to add a column on when the thing was built or named, and how much it cost (though that would take a lot of work). Pictures of each thing might also be a goal (in the table).
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. A WP:FL with a lot of places and a sortable table is List of Pennsylvania state parks - might be a useful model

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Nappytabs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a major rewrite to it and it needs a good copy edit/grammar check. Please help. I would appreciate it.

// Gbern3 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement, with the assumption that you will eventually try for WP:GA or even WP:FA.

• Any review proicess like WP:GAN or WP:FAC will ook at the images. I am not sure that the article meets WP:NFCC for its use of multiple WP:FAIR USE images.
  • The Nappy tabs logo seems justifiable as a fiar use image to me, but I would discuss it in the text and not just the caption.  Done
  • The magazine cover and image from the music video shoot both seem to me to fail NFCC #1, which reads in part "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.) While it is not replaceable, I do not see how a simple description in the text could not convey the same information. The reader already knows what they look like from the free infobox image, so the magazine cover seems solely for illustration. The video and artist and his Tshirt are not explicitly discussed in the text that I could see. I think that they would both not be seen as valid fair uses.
  • Could the infobox image be cropped so there is less background and more of them? Ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this. As it is, their faces are pretty small in the picture.  Done
• The language is decent, but could use a copyedit - unfortunaltely I do not have time for one (PR is more a place to have problems pointed out, than it is to fix them). One thing I noticed is lots of sentences with verb plus ing. For example in the lead: After moving to Los Angeles in 1999, they began back-up dancing for musical artists, teaching at both dance studios and conventions, and choreographing for professional sports' dance teams. Many reviewers at FAC will strongly object to constructions like this. It could also read somethimg like After they moved to Los Angeles in 1999, they were back-up dancers for musical artists, taught at both dance studios and conventions, and were choreographers for professional sports' dance teams. I am not sure of the possessive apostrophe on professional sports either.  Done
  • Removed apostrophe, working on the [verb]-ing.
• I know biographies often do not include the birth dates again after the lead, but since this is the biography of two people, I would include their birth dates.  Done
• Are they really Filipno and Italian (which implies they are immigrants to me at least) or are they Filipino American and Italian American?  Done
  • Since there are separate parameters in the infobox for nationality (American) and ethnicity (Filipino/Italian), I left it as is; however, I changed the ethnicity links to the Filipino American and Italian American articles.
• Although this is generally nicely cited, some places still needs refs. For example It is very rare for them to work apart or this He was later joined by his wife Tabitha and they are now permanent faculty members. In addition to Monsters of Hip Hop, they still teach classes at The Edge Performing Arts Center. (and do we really need to be told again that Tabitha is his wife?) My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.  Done
  • Done, except for It is very rare for them to work apart because the entire article proves this statement to be true. They work together on everything. All of the sources I've used (except for the two about Tabitha's fitness DVDs which she did sans Napoleon) mention both of them.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example current ref 17 is just "Guest Choreographers". http://www.xtremedanceforce.com/directors/guestchoreographers.asp. Retrieved 2010-07-28." and needs the publisher. See WP:CITE and WP:V  Done
• I also am not sure that all of the sources used are reliable sources, but I am not an expert on dance so I do not know. This would be a potential issue at GAN or FAC especially.
• Under Critical reception, would it make sense to have a subheader "So You Think You Can Dance" and then have the seasons be subheads under that?  Done
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FA biographies that may be useful models, but I do not know of any of a couple.
• The WP:MOS says that numbers under ten are usally spelled out (Season seven, not Season 7)  Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, thank you so much for taking the time to review this. I will work on the verbs plus "-ing" in the article. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The World's Greatest Unsolved Crimes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it and have taken it as far as I think I can.

Thanks, Oliver

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article. Just so you are aware, the Notability banner at top would normally disqualify the article from peer review (as articles at PR cannot have major cleanup banners). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• As noted, one of the major issues with the article is notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says in part that A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] I do not know if this book meets that criterion - there are others listed at that page, but they seem likely not to be applicable here.
• Assuming that there are reviews etc of this book and that it meets notability guidelines, then the article needs more secondary independent sources that meet WP:RS (i.e. are reliable) - please see WP:V and WP:CITE
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many articles on books which are WP:FAs and would be good potential models. The World Without Us is a FA book article.
• Things present in most book articles and missing here include a section on how the book was written, the publishing history (I see this is a second printing), and a critical reception section. Note that the plot or synopsis is only a summary (and is barely mentioned in the model "The World Without Us").
• I worry here that the article goes into such detail on the contents that it is a potential copyright violation - see WP:COPYVIO and WP:NFCC
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The disambiguation tool in the upper right corner of this page finds two dab links that will need to be fixed.
• So basically you need to add additional sources that are independent of this book to establish notability and expand the article so it is more about the writing, publication, and reception of the book, and trim the current content so it is not a possible copyvio.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi,

I haven't been a major contributor to this article in the past, but it's been several years since the last GA nomination and I think most of the problems have been addressed. I'd like to nominate it soon for GA and perhaps FA, but I'd first like to know if there are any major (or minor) problems that I can fix. Any and all comments are appreciated.

Thanks, —ems24 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-automated peer review here [2] Yousou (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: As you have not edited the page previously, I suggest that you contact the regular editors of this page, via the article talkpage, and discuss this nomination with them. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandman - implement at will.

Lead

• the signature just floats, put it in thumb if infobox is nono. (I think it wd be reasonable to make a small infobox, as length seems to be the main concern of WP:COMPOSERS.
• "He is among the most enduringly popular of classical composers." rewrite
• "keyboard" -> "keyboard instrument" to disassociate with electr. keyboard.
• "Already competent on keyboard and violin, he composed from the age of five and performed before European royalty; at 17 he was engaged as a court musician in Salzburg, but grew restless and traveled in search of a better position, always composing abundantly." too much happening in this sentence.
• "While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position." why?
• "He chose to stay in the capital, where he achieved fame but little financial security" , before but
• There's just too much "brilliant and awesome" in the lede. POV, please. Scale it down.
  • "Mozart learned voraciously from others, and developed a brilliance and maturity of style that encompassed the light and graceful along with the dark and passionate. His influence on subsequent Western art music is profound."

References

• threequarters to "Solomon, Maynard (1996) Mozart: A Life" is this the canonical work on Mozart?
• I'm unaware of length criteria, but at 5500 words, its a bit long.
• "Appearance and character" <- is this section really needed?

Main

• " Getreidegasse" delink
• "there were many variants." reword to make it clear what is being wikilinked
• "His father Leopold (1719–1787) was from Augsburg and deputy Kapellmeister to the court orchestra of the Archbishop of Salzburg, and a minor composer. He was also an experienced teacher. In the year of Mozart's birth, his father published a violin textbook, Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule, which achieved some success." choppy, re-write to improve flow. "His father was a deputy kapellmeister to the court orcestra of the archbishop of salzburg. An experienced teacher, he published a textbook in the year of mozarts birth." <- more to the point.
• "Biographer Maynard Solomon[5] notes that while Leopold was a devoted teacher to his children, there is evidence that Wolfgang was keen to make progress beyond what he was being taught. His first ink-spattered composition and his precocious efforts with the violin were on his own initiative, and came as a great surprise to Leopold. Father and son were so close that these childhood accomplishments brought tears to Leopold's eyes.[6]" smacks of guesswork from some overzealous biographer.
• "taught his children languages and academic subjects " which ?
• "Mozart's formative years," what are those?
• "Köchel catalogue" delete section
• That's a start, at least. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 11:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm away from WP for a week, but would like to work on these if no one else does in the meantime. Opus33 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

WrestleMania (1985)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to know what I need to do to get this page ready to be a Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, ----Nascar king 22:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I can review this only as an outsider who thinks of pro wrestling as a kind of staged spectacle rather than an athletic contest. Just a few thoughts about how to improve the article:

• The article needs copyediting and proofing to catch and fix small errors. For example, here's a list of quibbles related to the lead:

The first sentence repeats the word "wrestle" five times.

The triple date in the second sentence needs a trailing comma, and it's not necessary to repeat New York since the city name alone is sufficient in this case.

Closed-circuit television should have a small "c" on "closed". The sentence would be better if re-written to avoid repeating "closed-circuit television".

"Nine professional wrestling matches were featured." - When it's easy to flip a sentence from passive to active voice, it's usually a good idea. "The show featured nine professional wrestling matches" would be snappier.

The word "event" is repeated eight times in the lead. Since professional wrestling is a form of theater, it would be more interesting to use "show", "performance", "spectacle", or similar words instead of the bland "event" in every case.

• Readers unfamiliar with this form of sports theater will not understand the jargon or technical terms unless they are explained. You've explained or linked quite a few, and that's helpful, but here are examples of others that might flummox uninformed readers:

"Hogan won the match after interference from 'Cowboy' Bob Orton." - What is the meaning of "interference" in this context?

"McMahon countered Jim Crockett's successful Starrcade pay-per-view" - Will everyone know what "pay-per-view" means? The phrase leads me to wonder whether professional wrestling existed before television was invented? Would a bit of background be helpful here?

"Vince McMahon began cross promoting with MTV" - What is "cross promoting"? For that matter, what is MTV? Would it be useful to briefly describe MTV, maybe as "an American television network specializing in music and other entertainment"?

"Prior to the event, Greg Valentine had feuded with Tito Santana over the belt." - What does "the belt" refer to?

What is a "ring apron"? What is a "count-out"?

• It's doubtful that you can justify four fair-use images in this article since they all show more-or-less the same thing: two big men wrestling or promising to wrestle in colorful clothing. I think you can justify using one, and I would pick the one in the infobox as most representative.

• The table in the "Events" section displaces an edit button on my computer screen. I would move the table up a bit to avoid this.

• The date formatting in the citations should all be the same.

• Some of the citations are incomplete. Citation 20, for example, lacks an author and page number and gives no clue about where this valley might be; on the other hand, the citation should not include "Monday" since the full date is sufficient. Citation 21 is a bit strange; how could a reader check a source like this?

• Newspaper names should appear in italics in the citations as well as the main text.

• The book data in the "References" section should include place of publication.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now can I get suggestions from someone whose from the Wikiproject Wrestling?----Nascar king 22:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Parrot Corporation Limited

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

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I would appreciate comments on the structure of the article, is it to the point, concise and ultimately is it of interest. It is my intention to contribute more to Wikipedia, so I would like to gauge my own contribution and see if I'm qualified to critique others and be of use!

Thanks, Mulletsrokkify (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia and well done on your first article! I'm not sure if you're just looking for reassurance, or if you want a detailed critique of the article. As most people come to peer review looking to take articles to the standard ow Good Article or Featured Article, I'll try and give you a more detailed review. Don't be discouraged by everything I mention though, because you really have done a good job for your first article! I'll go through section by section. General

• It's always worth comparing your article to other similar ones that are already good or featured. You can find some in Category:FA-Class Companies articles and Category:GA-Class Companies articles.
• You might want to add an infobox that summarises the main facts about the company in the right corner of the article. It's not obligatory, and some editors don't like them. You can see them in use at BAE Systems and Blackstone Group.
• Check out the automated tips in the box at the top of this page for some suggestions
• It would be good if the article had some images, but I can understand they might be difficult to obtain. Options might be the company logo (which would be acceptable as a non-free image, with an appropriate fair use rationale), or perhaps a photo of the location of the company

Lead section

• per WP:LEAD, the lead section (the bit before the table of contents) should summarise the main points of the article. It's not just an introduction, but acts as almost a mini-version of the whole article. Apparently, many readers don't even get past the table of contents before moving on elsewhere, so it's important to get the main facts into the lead. Likewise, the lead should not introduce any material that is not mentioned later on in the article. The lead can be up to four paragraphs long, depending on the length of the article.
• "Parrot Corporation Limited was a UK computer diskette manufacturer..." - I would probably call it "British" rather than "UK", since British is the adjective
• "Ultimately it would fail ..." - why conditional tense? I would simply put "Ultimately it failed..."

History

• "Set up in 1983 as the only British based, fully integrated manufacturer of floppy diskettes for personal computers. A start-up venture funded partly by the WDA." You have some incomplete sentences here. There's no space restriction on Wikipedia, so we use a prose style rather than short sentence fragments.
• WDA links to a disambiguation page, so make sure it points to Welsh Development Agency. I don't know if you know about piped links, but you can link to the right article by typing [[Welsh Development Agency|WDA]]
• Watch out for overlinking. For example, in this section, you have added wikilinks to the word "diskette" three times. In the next section, you've linked to WDA four times. This isn't necessary. You only need to add wikilinks to a certain word once in each section, and maybe less than once per section if the word is repeated quickly. Also be careful that you only link to words that are relevant and would help the reader to understand the topic more. You have done well with this, I can't see any words that shouldn't be linked.

Company Formation

• ECSC also links to a disambiguation page, so would be confusing for a reader. However, since you have already linked to European Coal and Steel Community in that section, there's no need to link ECSC at all at this point.
• Although you've done really well not to link words that shouldn't be (apart from the repeated links) I think you could actually add more links, to add context. For example, Northern Trust Bank
• Per the section headings guideline, heading titles should be in sentence case. So, Company formation instead of Company Formation etc.
• The history and company formation sections seem to be about the sam thing really, could you merge the two sections perhaps?

Financial Irregularities

• On the whole, the article is well-cited, but because you are using several different sources, it's not always clear where some of the information comes from, or if it is cited at all. Make sure you have citations for everything that could be challenged. one thing that stood out to me in this section was the statement "...it was discovered that £2 million of the ECSC loan was allegedly missing from the Parrot accounts." That needs to be verifiable. The next section, where you say that the man was fired and then arrested, definitely needs a citation. We have a policy on biographies of living people that in fact applies to all articles, not just biographies. Information on living people must be cited to reliable sources.
• "Peters was extradited by the United States to Great Britain in 1989" - shouldn't that be Britain, or the UK?

Political Controversy

• Ok, I can totally see why you have ten citations for this first sentence, because you are talking about "much discussion". However, that many blue numbers in a row is not easy on the eyes, and a little distracting. In the following sentences you summarise the discussions (I think) so it would be better to put the citations after the relevant statements.
• "The WDA were criticised for its involvement..." - "were" doesn't match "its"
• "poorly invested public funds in a "murky transaction"." - direct quotes need citations; I presume it's one of the 10 above
• "It was felt that the Welsh Secretary of State..." - try to avoid unsupported attributions like "it was felt". (see WP:WEASEL); who felt that?

Current events

• Per MOS:DATE, dates shouldn't be formatted as "On the 1st of August 2007", but "On 1 August 2007"
• Again, be mindful of WP:BLP, and make sure there are citations right next to statements about criminal charges

See also

• This section should only contain articles not already mentioned in the article (make sure you've linked them in the article!)

References

• For dates in the references section (and this is not required, but an opinion), dates formatted as yyyy-mm-dd can be ambiguous and confusing to readers outside the US, so I'd change them to day month year. (eg. 2010-08-11 → 11 August 2010)

Now, I know I've mentioned a lot of things, so please don't be discouraged at all. As I said before, you've done a great job and it's an interesting and informative article. One last thing I though of, is that it's mostly a historical overview of the company. Is there any more info available on the products? Anyway, please let me know if you have any questions, and good luck with developing the article further!--BelovedFreak 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments from Belovedfreak

This is looking much improved, so well done. The main things that stood out for me this time were:

• Some words are linked that don't need to be because they are quite common words, eg. investor, loan, allegation, convicted, charges, sentencing
• The fair use rationale for the logo says that it is self-made. How did you make it exactly? What I mean is that if you scanned it or downloaded it from somewhere, you will need to say from where
• There is a lot of the conditional tense, especially in the lead, which seems strange. You can just use the simple past tense. We're looking at the whole story of the comany form a point in the future, so simple past works best.
• In the lead, "the WDA's investment practises" - in British English practise is the verb, practice is the noun.
• The passive voice is used quite a lot, which can be viewed as a weak point in prose. For example, "Financial difficulties were experienced" rather than "The company experienced financial difficulties" and "As a consequence, changes were made..." - who made changes?
• In the " Bankruptcy" section, I would lose the "unfortunately" as it's not completely neutral. We (Wikipedia) don't really care if the company suffered further losses. The reader might, but they can decide that for themselves!

Those are the main points sticking out for me, you've done a good job though, well done! --BelovedFreak 21:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck

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

Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Background

• I believe a slight description of Potter's success with her first six books would make the article a better piece; otherwise, for readers less familiar with her circumstance would know of her simply as a successful writer, and not the creator of Peter Rabbit.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Composition and publication

• As the two ideas are placed together in the last paragraph, I am not too sure how Potter's remark of her similarity with a 1940 illustration of Jemima relates to her restraint with Aris. The disconnect between the two is quite big in my view.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Concepts separated into different paragraphs. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Merchandising

• The same here for how would the addled eggs (what is addled?) relate to kittens replaced by ducklings.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Critical response

• Some parts seem more like they should be in a Themes section (since they describe the themes rather than critical responses to these themes or such). In the end, the section seems more like a Critical analysis than response.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Section renamed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Adaptations

• Anyway to integrate this section into others, or can the content here be substianted further? Right now, it looks more like a list of trivia: basically, this was printed, that was made and such.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Section removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

• Not a fault of the article's primary editor, but File:Beatrix Potter1.jpg (the image in the navbox below) will certainly be a failing point if brought to FAC; no date, no source, no author, so what proves it is PD-old?

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, a well-written article, but some ideas seem scattered and not grouped very well (organisation). I think the above questions could help point to further improvement. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The above issues were addressed, but I have some more thoughts of the article's current state. There are some very short paragraphs in Composition and publication (I think as a result of resolving my above concerns). I think the section should be re-examined to see if these can be merged with others of a common theme, expanded, or eliminated. The effect of these short paragraphs gives a "list-y" feel, especially if a short paragraph is of a theme disconnected with its surrounding paragraphs. I think once this is resolved, the article will be in fine shape for FAC. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Evanna Lynch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it was recently listed as a good article and I would like to know what needs fixing before it is ready for WP:FAC. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1

Lead

• Is the fact of her being a fan relevant to the lead?
  • No. Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "she was a source of friendly intimidation on the Harry Potter set." Aside from the clumsy "friendly intimidation", this does not seem important enough for the lead.
  • Agreed. Removed. Also, removed the rest of the second paragraph of the lead, because the article isn't substantial enough to warrant it. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• "Her father works as a history teacher and deputy prinipal at Our Lady's College,[3][4] a Catholic school for girls in Drogheda, County Louth—which Evanna attended.[1]" Possibly rephrase to make Lynch the main focus: e.g. "She attended Our Lady's Catholic College in Drogheda, County Louth, where her father was (works?) deputy principal." (Not sure the fact he taught history is too important).
  • I have made Lynch the focus. And, removed the fact he taught history. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Lynch became a prominent fan..." Prominent implies that she was known or stood out in some way as a fan at the time. Maybe just call her a fan.
  • She did stand out. See the reference -- a 2003 Drogheda Independent article (before she was cast) -- Evanna let out of hospital to get Potter book. Should I keep "prominent fan" or change it to "fan"? Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't actually see the article as it is subscription. However, if she received a limited number signed edition, that may be worth mentioning. If you have access to the article, it may give a little more context, which may be useful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article; I don't have a credit card. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• "She read the books several times" Too much? Maybe re-write the two sentences: "As a child, Lynch read the Harry Potter series and became a fan, sending letters to the author, J.K. Rowling." Harry Potter books series is clunky; the fact that she read them suggests they are books.
  • I agree. Changed to your suggestion. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "was released from hospital for the release of the fifth book" This is strange. What is the relevance of being in hospital, and it reads like she was in for a long time and was specially released for the book.
  • I don't know how long she was in hospital, what it was for, or if she was specially released for the book. I agree its strange. I honestly don't know what do with it -- I've removed it for now. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See above, sounds important enough to include if you have all the info. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the article; I don't have a credit card. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Also in her childhood, she had performed in school plays, but she had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series" Maybe: She had never acted professionally before the Harry Potter series, her experience limited to school plays."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Career

• "In 2005, casting began for the role of Luna Lovegood in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,[10] the film adaptation of British author J. K. Rowling's bestselling novel and the fifth instalment in the Harry Potter film series.[11] The following year, casting agents found Lynch through a London casting call..." A little wordy. Perhaps "In 2006, agents discovered Lynch at an open casting call in London for the role of Luna Lovegood in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth film in the series adapted from the books."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Are there any more details about the casting process?
  • Yes and I can source probably all of it. At the casting call, she waited in the line for four hours and there were an estimated 15 to 20000 auditionees. She went into a room with a portion of the auditionees and they were all asked to say their name and "where we came from". Two unnamed women then chose which people who were to continue on the casting process. And she continued through the process; she then got a call from "someone" that told asked her not to shave her eyebrows and told her that David Yates would call her the following Monday. She then did a screen test with Daniel Radcliffe (which assumingly went well). David Heyman later said she was 'not acting as Luna, but being Luna' (or atleast to a similiar effect.) // Then, she flew went back to Termonfeckin and got a call while shopping on her mobile phone from Fiona Weir who told her that she got the role. She had to keep it a "secret" for a week or so (before it was officially announced to the public by Warner Bros.) After the official announcement, she was escorted around Our Lady's College by bodyguards. That's about all I know, off my head. :) But, I've never seen an FA, or any biography of an actor, go into that much detail on their casting for a role, so I am unsure what to do about it. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. What about including details of the process (i.e. what she had to do) and any comments that people made on her performance. I think it is worth including (even for FA) as it is a very important part in her life so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Above, is everything I've read, from reliable sources over three months, about Lynch's casting for the role. Are you sure the article should mention that Lynch "had say her name and where she came from", and quote David Heyman -- "We had three girls that we're going to act Luna, but they weren't going to be Luna" rather than keep 'Producers were impressed with her affinity for the character'? Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, keep the producers bit, but for instance, you could add the number who auditioned, how long she had to wait, who she did the screen test with, maybe the comment from Heyman, that she had to keep it secret before the announcement. Hmm, maybe not the last one, but I think a few more details would show what she had to go through to get the role and in my view, add to the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have (finally) added the number who auditioned, how long she had to wait, who she did the screen test with and the comment from Heyman to the first paragraph in the Career section. :) Alex Douglas (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...and producers were impressed by her affinity with the character.[12] After a subsequent screen test, casting director Fiona Weir told Lynch that she had been cast for the role.[8] Rowling supported Lynch from the film's production, calling her "perfect" for the role.[13]" Wordy again. Perhaps "Producers were impressed with her affinity for the character, and she was cast following a screen test. Rowling believed that Lynch was perfect for the role."
  • That sounds much better. Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Possibly clarify Rowling's role here as it reads like she was part of the casting process.
  • Added "Although uninvolved in the casting process, " to "Rowling believed that Lynch was perfect for the role" for clarification. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Lynch was appreciative of the role Luna played, calling her character "funny and really honest" and "a breath of fresh air".[14]" Possibly cut this to "Lynch enjoyed playing the role."
  • Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "($984.7 million in current year dollars)" I don't think it is necessary to add this as it wasn't that long ago.
  • Changed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Both the film[22] and her performance..." The information on the film is not necessary for this article.
  • Changed "Both the film[22] and her performance were well received:" to "Her performance was well received:". Alex Douglas (talk)
• "She was nominated for two awards..." Which awards and by whom? It names them in the filmography but really should say so here.
  • Changed to "She was nominated for the Scream Award for Best Supporting Actress and Young Artist Award for Supporting Young Actress for her performance in Half-Blood Prince" Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any info on who nominated her? i.e. the public, writers, critics, etc? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, only that she was nominated. Judging by the nomination process of the Young Artist Awards (1 and 2), I think Evanna or her parents might have nominated her. I'm not sure about the Scream Awards, perhaps Spike (TV channel) executives, perhaps not. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

• "Lynch attended Cartown National School, a public primary school in Termonfeckin, County Louth, until June 2004 and then moved to Our Lady's College, a Catholic school for girls, in Drogheda, County Louth.[31][1]" Move this to the Early life section, and make sure the refs are in numerical order.
  • Moved to the Early life section. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• What was she tutored in on set?
  • The reference does not state it and I've never seen any reference that has; presumably studying for GCSE or A levels though (as Emma Watson and Rupert Grint did.) Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "friendly intimidation" Can this be rephrased? Or removed?
  • Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "This knowledge also led to her being consulted by producers on the films' artistic aspects.[4]" This sounds slightly implausible. Which film? And would producers on such a big film consult a supporting character aged below 18? The ref doesn't really support it either: she had designed the ear-rings and the producers asked her about the house, but I'm still not convinced.
  • For Deathly Hallows apparently. It's sketchy. Removed. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• "helped design" Ref 4 does not really support this; does the DVD?
  • Pretty confident, the DVD says that she worked on designing the look of the CGI lion head hat that she wore in Half-Blood Prince. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Images seem fine but I'm no expert.
  • Cool. Also, I've removed the image from "personal life" because the content is not lengthy enough to support it. Alex Douglas (talk)
• Refs ok, but DVD/mp3 ones could do with a time reference.
  • Sounds like a good idea. But how? I've never seen anything like that done before. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure I have either, I'm confusing myself! Forget that one. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrite, sure. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 22 is a redirect.
  • Ref 22 removed as the fact that the film was well received is unimportant to this article. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• The article seems very brief, mainly as she is so young and her acting experience is so limited. It could do with more details of her life if possible.
  • It is brief, but it has everything (apart from casting and unencylopediac suff--like her pet names or bedroom wall color) that reliable sources have ever mentioned--I've been looking for sources for three months. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• A bit more on her acting would be good: has anyone done a more thorough review of her role?
  • Not that I'm aware of. Most reviews just mention her in passing (or note that she is a fan or cast from an open casting call), and so I've used notable film critics' reviews. It's not a "massive" or "minor" role by any means--her scenes are just 'engaging' because her character is eccentric, which is probably half the reason reviews even mention her at all. Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on the last two points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a bit more to do before FAC, but these are the main things I can see as a starting point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this article; I greatly appreciate it. It is the first article I have wrote properly, and I did it almost single-handedly; so I needed it. :) Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. It feels as though the article is moving somewhere. :) Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have resolved all your comments. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to reviewers: could you take a look at new sentences I've added and changes I've made, and their new sources.

• Added: the third sentence of the fourth paragraph in the Career section: "She will again reprise her role in the first of the film's two tie-in video games: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I." Note: whether or not she will reprise her role in the second of the film's two tie-in video games, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II (video game), hasn't yet been mentioned/sourced/commented/revealed/etc. Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Added: the second sentence of the second paragraph in the Personal life section: "She has also recorded an abridged audiobook version of Claire Keegan's short story Foster." It was broadcast in three parts from 31 August to 2 September 2010 on "Afternoon Reading" on BBC Radio 4. How much detail should we go into? Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Added: the fourth sentence of the second paragraph in the Personal life section: "She launched the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland's MS Readathon in 2010, a fundraiser that also promotes literacy." I thought it was unnecessary to mention that the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Ireland was a "non-profit organisation that helps people with multiple sclerosis" do it is obviousness and the common precense of multiple sclerosis societies internationally. Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Changed: the third sentence of the lead: "From 2007 to 2009, she starred in two Harry Potter films and their tie-in video games; she will return for the final film and the first of the film's two tie-in video games." Is that clear? Alex Douglas (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Family Guy (season 1)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I belive it is close to getting to an FLC stander and i wish to get it to it so i have added to the PR jope you can help me

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments; Much work has obviously gone into this. Unfortunately, it is clear that English is not the main editor's first language, and the prose needs a great deal of attention if it is to have any hope of achieving featured status. It needs a competent English prose writer to work with the main editor through the whole article to bring it to the required standard. You also need to check whether this qualifies as a "list" in WP terms. It has more prose that is usual for lists, and the list itself has only eight items.

I have made a partial list of prose problems, though this should not be taken in any way as complete; I have only read in detail down to episode 3, and even then didn't list everything. My list does however indicate the scale of the problem that needs to be addressed.

• "employment from the company" → "employment with the company"
• What is a "short"?

Done

• While working on the series, the characters of Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian" This reads as if the characters were working on the series

Done

• "Several premises were also carried over from several 1980s Saturday morning cartoons..." Repeated "several", also repeated "namely" hereabouts.

Done

• "If a majority of the writers agree on an episode idea, it is then approved..." Why present tense?
• "Season one also saw the introduction of several new recurring characters..." - "new" is unnecessary.

Done

• "...#1 in "Stewie's Top 10 Most Diobolical Evil Plans" Do not use the hash sign in prose.

Done

• "...the 1998–99 United States television season" - The United States has a television season? I thought it went on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
• You don't "receive" a total of viewers; you might "achieve" it.

Done

• List of episodes: Since the numbers in the first two columns are the same, and the heading "Total" is inappropriate, why not have a single column headed "Episode number"?
  • I would oppose this reccomendation, simply because it breaks from the seven other seasons who use the two columns. They are all hubbed on the List of Family Guy episodes article, and it would be somewhat awkward to have seasons 2 through 8 use your reccomended format. So although this task was performed, I've reverted it, and think the two column should remain. Gage (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Peter claims to compile with her statement," - "comply with her request"?

Done

• "and obtains a hangover" Not idiomatic; perhaps "acquires a hangover"

Done

• "newfound" → "new-found"

Done

• "Although distraught, Peter he resolves..." Delete "he"

Done

• "...and ensures Meg a new convertible once she gets her license in exchange for taking the blame for the power outrage". I can't ally work this out, but "outrage" should be "outage"

Done

• "in order to" used again and again

Done

• "Meg and Lois search for Peter and Shatner, killing the former and hospitalizing the latter in the process. As Peter recovers..." "Killing the former" means Peter, so how can he recover?

Done

• "as Cheesie Charlie's" → "at Cheesie Charlie's"

Done

• "he decides to return out of courage to face the "Man in White" alone." I've no idea what this means

Done

• "Peter invites their wife’s..." → "...wives"

Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• "at his on expense" → "at his own expense"

I'm sorry to bring up so many problems, but FLC and FAC are hard places, which in each case require prose to be of a professional standard of English. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not finished every one but please strike each one till now so i can explain, see what is left and you can add more. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment. You'd probably be better off putting the overall viewers in the episode table, in the last column. A separate table for it, especially when you only have 2 figures, really isn't worth it. That, not put them in any table since you already list them in the reception section and it's already redundant to relist them in a separate table. Since you don't have figures for every episode, it'll be a bigger problem in an FL review if you're missing more than half of the figures. It's better to probably keep them in the reception and just do away with the table itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, it looks good. I removed the image of the actor who voices Cleveland. You have an image of MacFarlane just above it, and it tends to crowd the text to have two images so close like that with not a lot of prose in between. I took out the listing of the writers and directors because it's almost insulting to the average reader to list them in that section knowing that they are listed again in the episode table. If there was context for them, then naming specific ones would be fine, but just listing them all is unnecessary. The reception section could benefit from more paraphrasing and less direct quoting. That's about it. There was apparently some dissention over my changes to the lead paragraphs, as another editor just blindly reverted them without explanation and even put back in grammatical and HTML issues. If there are questions about my changes, I'd be happy to defend them and make concessions where necessary, but the revert seemed to me like I had messed with "someone's work" and they didn't appreciate it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you big, i will fix the reception, do you think after these changes do you think it may have FL stranded --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done a lot of FLs, but it looks like most of the regular FL season pages that are coming out to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Hell Comes to Quahog

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is need of somewhat of an improvement.

Thanks, Gage (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I took it to FLC, where there was not much interest. The main problem was its size, and it was suggested that it be merged with those from 2000–2008 (into a decade list). I am not opposed to this, but was this just one editor's opinion, or should it be done (this FL is just one year)?

Other things I have thought about are

• Images – are they appropriate, and how is the alt text?
• References – I have recently worked out how to link to a specific week's chart on the RIANZ website, but are the Hung Medien ones sufficient?
• If a single retains its number-one reign from the previous year, is it counted as one of the number-one singles of that year (see beginning of second paragraph) – I guess it doesn't matter if the 10 lists are merged....

Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, would a history merge be appropriate? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should the date and references of each chart where a single of New Zealand single is number one stay coloured, or should just the artist name and song and album titles be coloured? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Should certifications be mentioned? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a userspaced User:NZMusicFTW/List of number-one singles from the 2000s (NZ). Is this a better format than the current one?

Comment Hung medien is the publisher not the work[er]. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry the review has taken so long and thanks for your work on this. One problem I had is that the review is essentially about an article that does not exist yet (the whole decade list), but here are some suggestions for improvement. First I will try to answer your specfic questions, then I will try to review the article for 2009

• I think the images are fine, though they would obviously be somewhat different for a decade list.
• I do not see any mention of WP:ALT or alternate text in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. It used to be that you were not supposed to identify people unless it was someone you thought everyone would know - I have not looked at WP:ALT in a while and see it has changed a lot. SInce it does not seem to be required for FLC, I am not sure I would worry about it.
• I assume you count the number one singles each year - if a single is in more than one year or decade, why not count it in both. I do think that records (weeks at number one) are complicated by this. If single A were number one for 6 weeks all in the year under discussion and single B were number one for 8 weeks, 3 last year and 5 this, I would say something like "Although single A was number one for 6 weeks, longer than any other in 2010, single B was number one for a total of 8 weeks, with 5 of those in 2010 and the rest in 2009."
• If the people in the FLC said to merge it into a decade list, I think I would do it. I also think that if you do this, the GFDL requires a history merge. I am an admin and can do this if needed. You might want to try and discuss this at appropriate WikiProjects - New Zealand and Record Charts come to mind.
• I think it is good to keep the whole row colored the same.
• I am not sure what you mean by certification - assume that is something like certified gold or platinum? I would mention it in the text, but perhaps not in the table (X records went platinum, defined as .... they were ...)
• The only difference in format I see is that the year (as well as month and day) are included, and there are no pictures.
• Now to review the article itself. First off, WP:LEAD says not to have more that 4 paragraphs in the lead, but this lead has 5 paragraphs, 3 of which are just one sentence and 1 of which is only 2 sentences. I would combine the short paragraphs to improve flow.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Jason Mraz only needs to be linked once in the lead and once in the table. Caption is your call - my guess is a link is not needed there.
• The MOS says if abbreviations like N.Z. are used ,they should be spelled out first (as is done with RIANZ)
• This might be part of the certifications issue you raised above, but I think it would be helpful to give some idea of how many copies were sold - I do not think this has to be done for each single, but if the record holder for the year 2009 were given, that would be useful. I know NZ has a smaller population than the US or UK, but I am not sure what a number one single sells there, typically.
• If the lists are merged the RIANZ charts navebox at the bottom will need some work.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Welfare's effect on poverty

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a worthwhile subject

Thanks, CartoonDiablo (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I see is a big fat banner saying the article has multiple issues. The guidelines for peer review say articles should not have major cleanup banners. Noloop (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Agree with the above comment. Thanks for your work on this, but it is so short that it would not qualify for WPDYK (only 957 B, so much less than the 1500 B minimum prose size needed for DYK, not counting tables or refs or captions), so there is not a lot to say about it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• More info is needed in some of the refs - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• This needs to be expanded a lot. Basic terms need to be explained briefly, as do the methods of the studies cited. How is poverty defined? WHen are the pre and post statistics from (as most countires have had welfare of some sort for a long time). How are the absolute and relative poverty rates defined and measured and what makes them different?
• I am sure that there are many more studies on this topic than the few cited here. One of them is presented only in the caption of a graph (child poverty and taxes).
• While the pro-welfare statistics are reflective of the developed world, the anti-welfare views are only from the USA. This could be seen as a WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV issue.
• What about the rest of the world?
• I am not sure the WP:Fair use grap image meets WP:NFCC
• The article is almost all short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - to improve the flow, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are quite a few WP:FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government that may be good models. Anarcho-capitalism may be a good model, though it is older and not as completely cited as is current practice.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Géza Gárdonyi

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it can still be a good article.

Thanks, 1s9s9s4s0823 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your interest in this article - I see you have never edited it, so I hope these suggestions for improvement are used by someone to help make the article better.

• The lead is too short and should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• Biggest problem with this becoming a GA is that it has no (zero) references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Another problem with this becoming a WP:GA is that it is not broad in its coverage - there is very little material in the Life section. The WP:FA criterion is that it must be comprehensive, which this is nowhere near.
  • What was the name of his college? When did he attend it and graduate? Where was he a teacher and cantor? What are some of the critical repsonses to his works?
• The language is also in need of a copyedit - GA and FA need very good to professional level English
• I see that the Hungarian article is a FA, but do not speak Magyar. It looks like it would be an excellent souce for expansion of this article as it is full of material and seems to be well-cited.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. In the ENglish WIkipedia there are several FAs on authors that would make potentially good models.
• It is hard to say much more as the article is fairly short and has no inline refs.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Hell in a Cell

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know if this article could become a Good Article and if there's anything I need to do to make it Good Article good.

Thanks, --Nascar king 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this - be warned, the article is going to need some work.

• Layout
  • First off I advise moving the image over to the right actually, I just did this. Much better
  • The image needs a caption. See WP:CAPTION
  • I advise adding more section headers to break the article up.
• Language
  • Language such as Their next match was meant to be a normal steel cage match, but the WWF took it one step further is probably not greatly appropriate. Try and rewrite the content using more neutral language.
  • There is a lot of use of the word "generally" and similar in the article. Avoid the use of -ly words because they aren't the best grammar (and are a little vague for an authoritative article)
  • The article needs a good clean for language and grammar
• References
  • The article relies on a single reference. You need a lot more reliable sources for this to be a good article. Sources should support as much of the content as possible
  • The list of incidents, specifically, needs sourcing

Further Comments

One thing that isn't clear is what events are within the canonical storyline of the wrestling - and which are real life mishaps. The list of times the fighters leave the cage is, for example, ambiguous. For example was the injury described in In the first Cell match, the door was unlocked to allow the removal of an injured cameraman real? or part of the story?

I hope this helps you improve the article! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Princeton Tigers men's lacrosse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am having trouble figuring out how to format the text in the NCAA section. Each year is very short, but the overall text should probably be broken up. I don't see logical breakpoints. Other text review would also be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reformated the prose as a table in the NCAA section but would still appreciate other feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment: The article's title looks incomplete. Why not add "team"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am just going with the convention. See {{Ivy League men's lacrosse}}. Also, it is common for season articles to have the word team but for general article to be without it. I do a lot of work on Michigan Wolverines football and Michigan Wolverines men's basketball. Season articles for those are 2009 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2009-10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally reads well. Here are a few suggestions.

• To reduce the number of short sections and subsections in the lower parts of the article, I would try using plain prose paragraphs and just one head, "Statistical accomplishments". No matter how you arrange this material, it's basically just a list of statistics, and it would look better, I think, as prose. Here's an example of what I mean:

Ryan Boyle holds Ivy League records for single-season assists (32 in 2003), career assists (86 in 2001–04), and career points (120 in 2001–04). The team holds league records for single-game goals allowed (1, vs. Penn in 1970) and single-season goals allowed (12 in 1957).

• • Converted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Using a combination of prose and tables or maybe just all prose might also work for the "Honors" section. You'd have to play around to see what looks best.

• Quibbles and nudges:

"They have since won ten consecutive Ivy League titles... " - I think you are correct to use "it" rather than "they" in the first sentence of the lead and that "they" should be "it" in this sentence as well. Ditto for anyplace else in the article where the singular "Princeton" or "team" is referred to as "they".

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"The school has 7 Ivy League Players of the Year and 9 Ivy League Rookies of the Year." - Since 7 and 9 are smaller than 10, I'd use "seven" and "nine" in this sentence per Manual of Style guidelines.

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of hyphens in the date ranges in the lower sections hadn't been changed to en dashes. I boldly ran a script to fix them.

Should the "Notes" column of the NCAA Tournament History be unsortable? The sort doesn't seem to have a use.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"by the NCAA who reprimanded him" - "Which" rather than "who" in this note?

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"first threepeat since 1988–90" - Link or explain "threepeat"?

done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not redlink Scott Bacigalupo twice. I'm not sure if any others are double-linked.

Is it likely that someone will write separate articles on all of the red-linked players? If not, I'd suggest reducing the number of red links by deleting the links.

I made 12 new articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Matt Bailer Face-off  % – 1 of 9 players to have won all of his face-offs" - The symbol, %, should be spelled out as "percent" here.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"where he participated in 10 or more (12, 4/15/00, vs. Harvard)" - The meaning of (12, 4/15/00, vs. Harvard) is unclear.

fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Seven of the citation links are dead.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

GrapedApe's review

• There doesn't appear to be an article for the Class of 1952 Stadium, which seems like a good candidate for an article.
  • That is somewhere down the list on articles to create. Thanks for pointing it out though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• The lead should be a summary of the main body of the article. Therefore, there shoudln't really be any references in the lead, since any facts there have sources in the main body. Make sure there's nothing in the lead that's not in the body. See WP:Lead.
  • The lead should address the history prior to 1990. All sections in the article should be dealt with in the lead.
  • The lead is confusing, since it starts with the 1990s and then moves to pre-1990s before going back to recent times.
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• The history section should be expanded, if possible.
  • From the online source that I am using I have maxed it out. It is quite thin on pre-1990 history.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "voted national champion six times" needs a cite. Actually, there are a lot of facts in this history that need references
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Under :"Honors," make it clear whether these are Princeton or national awards.
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Any pictures possible?
  • I have no pictures of any Princeton player playing as Tigers. The only two images I am aware of are of players playing as pros or of pro athletes out of uniform. Will look further.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Also, I think it's considered bad form to have a GAN and peer review running at the same time. Especially since there's along wait at GA reviews.
  • It is FAC and PR simultaneously that is forbidden.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • -_\-GrapedApe (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article of this type that I have worked on, and I would like to get to get it up to GA (and maybe eventually FA) standard. My previous work has all been on cricketer biographies, so I'd like some input on how this can be improved. Specifically, information on whether I need greater detail on each competition (ie more about the actual games), or whether the balance is mostly alright as it is. Generally, my use of language, grammar and the overall layout of the article.

Thanks, Harrias ^talk 11:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be good to know what their team structure was, eg 4/5 bowlers, 1/2/3? spinners....etc If the pitch at Somerset is more spin or pace oriented as well. Apart from that, their limited overs strategy is of interest, whether they go really fast at the start or accumulate all their resources for the last 20% of the innings. I think more detail in the FC is especially desirable, and in the T20 section it describes some important points in the matchs without explaining what the strengths and weaknesses of the team were YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from TRM.

• Lead is a little brief.

• Yeah, I was coming to this conclusion myself!

• Avoid bold links.

• What would you suggest to avoid it? Not linking Somerset County Cricket Club , or not having it in bold?

• Probably just unbold it. No need to get hung up on having bold in the lead if it's being forced... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The 2009 season also saw the retirement of Justin Langer from the team, relinquishing the captaincy to Marcus Trescothick for the following 2010 season." no need to say both "following" and "2010".

• Removed 'following'. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason that "Quarter-Final" is capitalised thus?

• Changed to "Quarter-final"

• Is NatWest Pro40 the same as Pro40? If so, why is the former red-linked?

• The red link leads to the specific article for the 2008 NatWest Pro40.

• Ok, understood. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Style" doesn't need capitalising in the table column headings.

• Fixed.

• Don't like leading zeros on single-digit days of the month.

• It's just the way that the template does it I think.

• Sadly it makes the article internally inconsistent... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are all the squad styles, dates of birth etc, referenced somewhere?

• No, I'll add them to the table.

• Tresco's caption needs a full stop

• Fixed.

• "The pitch at the County Ground, Taunton did not help their efforts, the imbalance in favour of the batsmen" reads a little ORish unless you have a specific ref.

• Will look for one, I know there's something about it!

• Added a reference for this now. Harrias ^talk 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bwl, not Bowl, is the heading for bowling points.

• Fixed.

• "Source: [26]" remove space and remove full stop.

• Added name of source.

• Are penalties/adjustments referenced anywhere?

• In the previous source, will clarify.

• Any reason why match log table isn't sortable?
• A key to the colours would be useful to a non-expert here.
• Would advocate a clear key for BBI, BBM, 5wi... I know they're linked, but it'd still be useful.
• Alfonso's caption needs a full stop.

• Fixed.

• Season standings, what does bold text indicate?

• I assume you're just referring to Somerset being emboldened; this is just done to make it clearer where Somerset are.

• "Won by 5 wickets: Duckworth–Lewis method used." no need for full stop here.

• Fixed.

• de Bruyn's caption needs a full stop.

• Fixed.

• So does Walter's. So does the stadium image.

• Fixed.

• "with the match scheduled for Tuesday 28 July 2009" any need for the day of the week?

• I don't remember, it felt necessary when I wrote it, I'll reassess.

• refs 3&4 have spare full stops.

• Fixed.

• And ref 37.

• Fixed.

• Ref 112 needs an en-dash.

• Fixed.

• Be consistent in the refs with either spaced or unspaced slashes.

• I've used whatever the source used, rather than applying my own formatting to their titles. Should I change them?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed some of your issues already, while others I will either do with other edits, or have a look at later. How do you feel the article works as a whole; your points so far have been technical in nature, but do you feel there is enough content, that the scope is about right, or should I include more (or less) detail on any issues? Harrias ^talk 15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Have responded directly to a few above. I think you've pitched the scope about right, don't think you need to do too much more in that respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

United States Constitution

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

It is

• a former featured article,
• in rather good condition,
• is very well-developed and uses many in-line citations,
• is listed as C-class by all of the several WikiProjects, though this was probably done by one editor,
• appears to pass the Wikipedia:B-class criteria without much difficulty (even on references),
• and could potentially be a WP:Good article very soon.

So please evaluate first for WP:B-class criteria and then WP:Good article criteria and note what could be improved, especially if there is something that I have noted here that you might think I have overlooked. All feedback is welcome!

Thanks, Adavis444 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

First off the article is obviously set on a firm foundation and structure. There has been a great deal of research and work done as evidence by the large number of in-line citations. The organization of the article is evident so I would be confident in pushing it to B-class. Any editor can do so unilaterally and usually there isn't much debate. As such I will review the article against the GA criteria and offer suggestions to help move the article to this level.

Lead

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of every point raised in the article. See WP:LEAD for thoughts on this. In my opinion the lead in this article is sparse and should be expanded. The reader should come away from the lead with a sekeletal framework of the article. The body then fills in the rest of the details. A four paragraph lead is fine for an article of this length and each paragraph is a good start for the major sections of the article. Please expand these paragraphs to add more summary on the main points.

History

• Avoid one sentence paragraphs wherever possible.
• Perhaps a word or two more on why the Articles of Confederation needed to be changed or scraped.
• People may take issue with the statement that the House represents the people while the Senate represents the states. Senators would claim they represent the people just as much as the Representatives.
• You want to avoid embedded lists within articles. See WP:LIST for thoughts on this. There are two lists outlining the opposing proposals for the constitution. I would break those lists down into prose.
• Was there much opposition to the ratification? What were some of the objections raised?
• More could be said about the Great Compromise. How were judges selected, were they life terms, how were they ratified, checks and balances like veto power etc.
• The first mention of the Bill of Rights is in a section on the influences on the Bill of Rights. I think an introduction into the drafting and adoptiong of the BofR would be in order before discussing influences on it.
• In reading this, it seems like more content could be added to meet the comprehensive criterium.

Articles of the Constitution

• Where does this quote come from, "is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people,"? Unless it is from the quote above it should be referenced. "We the People" does not need to be referenced since it is pulled directly from the quoted sentence above.
• There are links to the House and Senate here but the first mention of them is in the History section. Per WP:LINK the first mention should be linked, there is no need to link after the first mention in the body of the article is linked.
• Why is Article I Section 8 linked but not Article I Section 1?
• Why is there a Section analysis in bold in this sub-section?
• There are very few in-line citations in the review of the articles. Granted it is just a summary of what the articles say so I wouldn't expect a lot of sources but you should be aware that GA reviewers may have an issue with that. It would be good to reference this discussion of succession and the issue with Harrison and Tyler since that is not part of the constitution that you're summarizing.
• This sentence is a little awkard:

• Article Four describes the relationship between the states and the federal government and amongst the states. I would reword thus, "Article Four describes the relationship of the states with each other and with the federal government."

• Watch overlinking. You don't need to link terms like regulate. Words in common English usage don't need to be linked. More to come. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Judicial review

• I added a template to the end of this section. There should be in-line citations in this section since it is not a strict summary of the Constitution. It shouldn't be hard to find citations for judicial review.

Amendments

• Same can be said for this section. Very in-line citations. The fact that 10,000 amendments have been proposed is amazing and something I didn't know. It should be sourced. I put a template at the end of the first section only as a means to communicate that the entire section should be better referenced.
• As such, none of these are likely to be proposed under the current Congress, which is controlled by the more liberal Democratic Party.

• Probably want to keep speculation out of this article. Not really necessary and doesn't add to the content.

• Unlike amendments to most constitutions, amendments to the United States Constitution are appended to the body of the text without altering or removing what already exists, although nothing prevents a future amendment from doing so.

• How can it be determined that most constitutional amendments change the body of the text and why is that ultimately important? By the way, the paragraph that is linked to "amendments to most constitutions" has a template that has been on there since April 2010. This weakens the argument further. Consider rewording.

• Why do you have full text access for amendments 11-27 but not for the bill of rights?
• Quote found in the Unratified amendments sub-section: Ratified by eleven states, the last being Kentucky in June 1792 during Kentucky's initial month of statehood....

• Duplicative statement. Consider removing.

References

• Ref 1 is to a subsidiary of Wikipedia. Usually try to avoid sourcing to agencies connected to WP as it reduces credibility.
• Ref 53 is a dead link
• Ref 54 needs a publisher and accessdate.

Overall thoughts

• I think the article is well on its way to GA status. I'll summarize my thoughts below.
• The History section needs to be expanded, I listed suggestions in my review.
• The referencing is lacking especially in the Judicial review and Amendments section. This will need to be addressed before it can be successful at GAC.
• Imbedded lists should be broken down into prose.
• Images look good, references are for the most part credible and formatted correctly.
• If FA is your ultimate goal then there is quite a bit to be done. But GA is within easy reach and I wish you the best as you work on the article.

This concludes my review. If you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page as I do not routinely watch reviews. If you found the review helpful consider reviewing an article here or at WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Usher discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has the potential to be a featured list, but I want to know from you guys if it is good enough, has it got any errors, mistakes, please let me know in your reviews, as i'm not 100% sure.

Thanks, Rayman95 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

After a very quick look one thing sticks out like a sore thumb: the references are simply bare URLs. They need to be formatted, showing the titles of pages, authors, publishing dates and accessdates et cetera. See the how-to guide on citation templates for more.

Thanks for the advice, I'll see that it gets fixed. Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nice job so far in improving the article, but it has a long way to go and is no way a potential featured list right now. WP:LEAD, it should only have four paragraphs. Featured singles positions unsourced, album appearances unsourced, music videos unsourced, soundtracks unsourced, promotional singles and other charted songs and unsourced, and the biggest problem, the references are all out of whack. Look at another featured discog such as Rihanna discography or something, and make sure you learn how to format refs well. Right now out of 73 refs, only the Allmusic and the cert sources are cited correctly. Good luck, happy editing! Candyo32 17:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, i'll add in more references and i'll try to improve its formatting Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you give me your opinion on the article now, and tell me whether it's feature worthy please. I think i've fixed(with some help from Adabow) the refernces and filled in the missing ones, Thanks. Rayman95 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment NZ certs from the last few years can be found at [3], others can be found on the RIANZ website by manipulating the url (see the New Zealand entry at WP:GOODCHARTS). Also, as File:Usherraymond (300dpi).jpg is used as the main image in the Usher (entertainer) article, maybe use a different one in the discography. Have a look at Category:Usher_Raymond. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the image, i'm not finished yet but what do you think of the references so far?

The dates are a bit funny. Format using either '2010-08-20', '20 August 2010' or 'August 20, 2010'. Italics should only be used for works in print, such as magazines and newspapers (this may require you to use the publisher field in {{cite web}}, rather than the work field). The certifications references still need adjusting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by certifications references still need adjusting, could you be more specific?Rayman95 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the NZ certifications with direct URLs (note "Moving Mountains" also went gold in NZ, which I added).

• Was "Confessions Part II" released as a double A-Side with "My Boo" in the UK? If so, specify this. If not, why are the chart peaks in a single cell?
• Why do "U Don't Have to Call" and "Confessions Part II" have superscript numbers next to them?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure they were released as dual singles, where would I specify this though, should I label them and put it in the note section under singles?

• Yeah, add a note somehow, maybe using {{ref}} or similar. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why they have super script numbers next to them, but I took them off.

Rayman95 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you see any other problems with the article? Rayman95 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry, but this article is still no way ready to go up for FL candidate. In the lead several things are not sourced such as Usher being the first artist to have a #1 single in three decades. Make sure tidbits of info in the lead are all sourced. The Notes part in the singles section is redundant because the "-" notes if it wasn't released in a certain territory. Album appearances, and soundtracks are unsourced. According to WP:BADCHARTS, Acharts should not be used if there is another available source for chartings. Also in the references several sources are italicized that should not be. Allmusic, Allmovie, swedishcharts.com, charts.org are just examples of sources that are not publications and should not be italicized in the refs. This discog still needs quite a bit more work, good luck! Candyo32 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

List of characters in South Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article because I was wondering what it needs to be ready for FAC. I was wondering especially about leaving the list as a table, or if it is really necessary to switch it into paragraphs as some people suggested at the previous FAC.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Sandman888
• First it's FLC, not FAC.
• I think tables works fine, but perhaps paragraphs wd give it a more prose-like feel.
• the role column doesn't seem to be referenced, neither is the first appearance. Suggest re-write using references and give me a nudge and I'll look over the prose.

Creation and inception

• "with an original idea" remove original
• "Merchandise" and the subsequent section doesn't belong in this list, but in the South Park main article.
  • • These two were requested during the previous FLC, with the reason that other character-list FLs have these two. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Far too often the FLC process is based on an appeal to authority blindness rather than looking at the article and wonder whether it is truly necessary. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 14:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a preliminary review, but I suspect the prose to change when references are used. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Logos

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this page is overly thorough toward a Christian-centered perspective, especially since there is also a page at logos (Christianity), and weak in all other areas which are highly relevant to the topic, particularly philosophy and rhetoric. My efforts to balance the page have been shut-down at every attempt, so perhaps I am going about it in the wrong way?

Thanks, Edunoramus (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there is also an outstanding RfC on the same topic posted to the Religion and philosophy list on 22 August 2010 -- see Talk:Logos#Proposed_Re-Write. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments, focused mainly on the article content and the issues under discussion at the moment:

• With respect to the RfC, I do not think the article needs to be rewritten to disambiguate the various uses, but it does require a lot of expansion. So much so that it may be tantamount to a rewrite in any case.
• As to the question of how to handle the discussion of logos in Christianity: Because a main article exists on that topic, the discussion here should be condensed to a single brief section that summarizes that article. For WP:SS, what is here now is much too long. That’s what the main article is for.
• In general, the article is kind of a WP:QUOTEFARM at present. The blockquotes should be replaced with more extended discussion, augmented with pertinent quotes if need be. Direct quotes from primary sources should be used with caution. To the extent that they require even minimal interpretation by the editor or the reader, they should probably be avoided.
• They etymology discussion could be expanded a smidge. Why assume, for example, that we know the word is Ancient Greek? You should mention that it emerged around 700BC as the common term for discourse. Also, the primary distinction, which is important for the article, is between logos as discourse on the one hand and logos as reason on the other. All of the treatments of term that follow play on one or both of these themes from the Ancient Greek.
• You do not need to italicize the word logos. It appears in English dictionaries.
• The phrasing “Use of … “ in the headings is awkward. I might just say “In Ancient Greek philosophy,” etc.
• I would avoid using the Greek alphabet here. It will not help most English speakers.
• The Sophists of the 5th century also talked about logos, which is where the rhetorical sense of the term in Aristotle comes from. That should be mentioned.
• Plato uses the phrase in quite a number of different senses, including the expression of thought (nous) and an argument as a component of knowledge (which equals true judgment with an logos). There is a lot of ambiguity and thus a lot of debate, but it should definitely be discussed here.
• There are also many uses of logos in Aristotle, and I would not think the rhetorical sense is the most important (is it not original to him). In On Interpretation it means a statement or assertion, in Ethics it means reason (as in “right reason” = orthos logos), in Politics it means speech ( humans are animals with logos), in Metaphysics it is the form or essence of things. On the one hand, he uses it so freely that it is hard to say which distinctions are useful, but his logos as assertion will be important for Heidegger and all of the other uses are worth mentioning at least briefly.
• The discussion of the Stoics could be expanded. For example, that the human expression of divine logos is ordered discourse. As the overall rational principle of the universe, they thought humans should strive to live consistently with logos.
• You might consider moving the section on Philo to the Logos in Christianity section, since he is really the precursor of that line of thought.
• You might also add some discussion of the concept of The Word in Judaism to that article and rename it Logos in Religion. It would be more comprehensive that way.
• Logos also appears a lot in Hermetica. Might deserve a mention.
• The Neoplatonism section obviously needs expanding. The main point is probably that they saw it as a creative force emanating from the higher to the lower planes of being. In Augustine, that becomes the means by which God is incarnated in Christ (word became flesh). The part about Augustine should really be in the Logos in Religion article, though.
• Maybe stick Plotinus in with the other Greeks and call the section In Greek Philosophy? It is odd to have him after Christianity.
• Would you say that logos was a broadly Sufi notion or an Idn Arabi notion? I would lean towards the latter.
• I agree with the discussion on the talk page that a Modern section is warranted. It will be difficult, since the term appears often but seldom prominently, except perhaps in Heidegger and maybe a few others. You might combine all of the German Idealists into one subsection (they will all be similar). Maybe the 20th century folks together if there are enough common themes. Have to think about that.
• I don’t know much about Islamic philosophy, but if the term (or an analogue) is relevant, it should certainly be mentioned here.
• Obviously, expand on Jung.
• With respect to who influenced whom, unless is it so obvious from the primary sources that no one would ever disagree, you will have to find secondary sources for the interpretation and discuss and major disagreements per WP:NPOV. It will be hard to tell a coherent story about the history of the concept. I am not sure there really is one. Other than the general definitions of discourse and/or reason, it is more or less applied at will in philosophy. That is my own view, of course, which is really just a caution not to presume any view for which there is not strong academic consensus.
• Whoever said not to use Heidegger as a source on Aristotle is right. There are a wealth of authoritative sources for that.
• Minor points:

• The See also source should be worked into the text. That should be easy enough.
• Once you have expanded it, the lead will have to be reworked. It needs to summarize the article fully. There will be a lot to do there.
• I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling. It is tough to illustrate these articles, I know. But some interesting images of the people would be an improvement.

I hope my comments are helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if I can be helpful in the future. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response 1

Thank you for this very thorough review. I agree with you in pretty much every regard. Here are my responses.

• I agree that Aristotle rhetorical use of the term is not the most imporant. I would like to add that confining it to rhetoric is probably the first big blunder of the article since subsequent philosophical traditions were probably influenced more so by Aristotle's logic.
• The islamic philosopher I am thinking of (Al-Farabi, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Avicenna) were all devoted to merging Aristotle's logic, neo-Platonism and Koranic scripture. There influences on medieval philosopher likes Maimonides is undisputed. They should definitely be included.
• While the word logos appears sporadically in modern philosophy prior to Heidegger, I don't think it would be controversial to state that Aristotle logos influenced Kant's Reason and thus we can bracket German Idealist and their use of reason.
• I think Bracketing philosophers becomes much more problematic starting with Heidegger. Most contemporary philosophers gain their understand from him but then diverge pretty radically. I think philosophers that need to be included are Lacan (he translated Heidegger logos). Maybe instead of a section on Jung and lacan, probably a section on logos in psychoanalysis. There is Derrida and his critique of logocentrism (a word he did not term) as well as phallogocentrism (which he did term). Finally, (to my knowledge) there is Deleuze who popularized the idea of anti-logos in Proust and Signs. I guess what a common theme of contemporary would be they all wish to distance philosophy from logos(?)

Those are my two cents لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Response 2

Thank you for the detailed feedback.

• I agree that the article requires a lot of expansion.
• I don't believe the Christian section will be seen as too long once the article is complete. It is after all this article which will discuss influences between the different uses of "Logos," including the Christian one.

It has nothing to do with length, really. It has to do with summary style. When a separate article exists, the content should not be duplicated, but rather summarized and linked. Either this section needs to be summarized heavily or the Logos (Christianity) article needs be combined with this one and then deleted. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, but this article is really about historical development of versions of the Logos concept, and that requires more than a paragraph on the Christian use. For example, proper expansion of the Sufism section will require referring to specific aspects of the Christian use; those aspects will need to be in this article.

To put it another way, this article should summarise information one would find in books on philosophy discussing "Logos," Logos (Christianity) should summarise information one would find in books on Christian theology; some overlap is inevitable, but once both articles are expanded in appropriate ways, that overlap will be relatively small. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I really am going to stop now, since I am not sure my comments are going to make much impact here, but I actually don't think you do see my point. If you read WP:SS, good form dictates that the detail be in one article only and only the summary everywhere else. You can link between them as needed. There are other ways to do it, but that's the way Wikipedia does things. The idea that we have a philosophy "slant" and a Christianity "slant" on essentially the same material is the antithesis of NPOV. Both points of view should be represented, no matter in which article the material appears. When I have seen these disputes in the past (it happens a lot), I have found this essay to be helpful. Maybe it will be helpful here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. What I meant was simply that much of this article is out-of-scope for Logos (Christianity), and many topics either in or potentially in Logos (Christianity) would be out-of-scope here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the Greek alphabet should be retained, as some readers will want it. There's no need to "dumb down" the article.

Please see WP:MOS#Foreign terms. Foreign terms should be used sparingly. "Foreign terms within the article body do not need native spellings if they can be specified as title terms in separate articles." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that applies, since the article is specifically about a Greek word; I would expect a philosophy text written in English to use the Greek word; I think we should too. And if I understand the policy you quoted, it applies to other articles not spelling Logos in Greek, but linking to this article instead. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this essay will help. If a term could be a separate article (like most philosophical terms), it does not need a native spelling. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But surely this is the "separate article" on a philosophical term? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and native spelling in the first line is appropriate. But lexis? Pathos? Ethos? Could be (or are) their own separate articles. So why the native spelling here? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that Plato and Aristotle both used "logos" in philosophy. Aristotle's rhetorical use may not be the most important, but it needs distinguishing from his philosophical use.
• Philo must not be moved to the Christian section, since he was Jewish. His influence on medieval thought in various religious groups should be distinguished from that of others, and medieval Jewish thought should be distinguished from Christian and Islamic thought.

I was not suggesting he be moved the the Christian section, but rather that all religious discussions be combined in a single, separate, and more comprehensive article. They are, after all, closely related. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But they are also closely related to the ancient Greek and Neoplatonist uses; the inter-relationships between uses should be here. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you really think so, propose to combine the two articles into this one. That would be fine. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose your suggested split. Too many things in this article straddle the religion/philosophy boundary. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neoplatonism should not, IMO, be combined with older Greek philosophy, since it followed Philo and early Christianity. However, Neoplatonism had considerable influence on medieval thought in various religious groups.

If the article is going to flow chronologically, it should do so consistently, in which case the later Christian writers should come later (as it stands right now, they would come last). If the Christianity section is summarized they way it should be, it will be an non-issue. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should indeed generally flow chronologically. That does suggest splitting the Christianity section, but I don't think splitting the Christianity section aids the reader. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So which is it? Surely it should not be a mere matter of taste. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be up to the editors writing the article to decide what flows best. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The editors do not WP:OWN the article, of course. There should be a good reason for the flow, whatever it is. And there should be consensus. If the Christianity content really just belongs together, chronology notwithstanding, it gives still more reason to think it belongs in a different article.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly agree we will need reliable secondary sources on interpretation and on to who influenced whom.
• I strongly agree that the lead should summarize the article.
• Your point on images is well taken. I don’t think the image of the Greek word is all that compelling either. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Process issues

By the way, editors should note the review comments by Nasty Housecat above were in response to specific canvassing in response to an existing RfC discussion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is considered canvassing if the intent is to influence "the outcome in a particular way". As Nasty Housecat, is a volunteer peer reviewer, listed on the peer review volunteers page for Philosophy and Religion, my actions here are in accordance with the guidelines for the peer review process. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس is also a contributor who was invited here to review by the same peer review volunteer process. Edunoramus (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, the peer review process is for editors of articles to seek help in getting to FA status, not for resolving disputes. Second, I note that you canvassed only selected volunteers from the list. I suggest we wait for the RfC to run to completion. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to peer review the article and I did. My comments are well beyond the scope of the RfC on which I chose not to comment because I think it is pointless. The article clearly needs extensive revision, whatever you want to call that. I am not interested in wading into this edit war, but it seems to me the real dispute you cannot resolve is about what to do with the Christianity content. I shared my view on that question in the review, and will reply to further comments above. I resent any implication that my comments were anything other than requested and delivered in good faith. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was certainly not implying any breach of good faith on your part, and I'm sorry for any offence caused -- no offence was intended. However, I note that you have waded into an edit war, whether you wanted to or not, simply by responding to the canvassing that took place.

Any revision of the article will have to be based on consensus on the article talk page; this peer review does not over-ride that requirement. I would suggest that we close this review until the RfC is resolved; I don't see any point in turning this page into an alternative article talk page. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is your insistence on calling it canvassing (when it clearly was not) just wading deeper into the edit war? This dispute seems way more personal than it should be. I hope the RfC resolves something. In the meantime, I hope the many other comments left here by myself and YWGonzalez are helpful. Seems to me this is the right place to discuss them, but maybe not. I have offered one way to resolve the conflict, based on clear Wikipeida policy, namely, to adhere to WP:SS. It would improve the article and eliminate your conflict altogether. Let the consensus fall where it may. I hope you work something out. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So do I; I'm not sure this peer review is really helping the RfC get anywhere, especially in light of some of the points I made above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This edit war is pretty silly an easily resolvable. Obviously the medium for this is was not peer-review (or RfC) but probably adding it to Requests for feedback page. However I think this was done by accident. I don't think it was canvassing. I think it was done in good faith as this page obviously needs revision. I have more to say but I agree we should close this page and merge the contents with the logos talk page. لسلام عليكم - يونس الوجدي گونزاليس (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am in agreement that we should close the peer review page and merge it with the talk page. We have some highly relevant material here that will be helpful as we tackle the expansion and revision of the page. Thank you both for your input! As to comment on my own actions here, they were executed in good faith, perhaps I jumped the gun in moving so quickly from RfC to peer review but I was eager to get this project moving and that we accomplished. As an editor, I am learning as I go. In terms of additional comments on what has been stated above in terms of content suggestions, I too, have some things that I would like to add but I will wait until we are established back on the talk page to do so. --Edunoramus (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As I also stated on the talk page for Logos, I will leave this page open for discussion for two more days and after that time, unless there is further comment to be made here, I will turn this page into an archive and move the content to the talk page. RfC will remain open for thirty days and it is presumed that the bot will remove it when the time has elapsed. I have also added a sub-heading for WP:SS discussion on the talk page. --Edunoramus (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be transcluded, not moved. I'll do that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded is better. I had no idea that was possible. Thanks. --Edunoramus (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Michael J. Fox

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I was looking to get some general feedback on the article. I believe with some tidying up it can achieve GA status. A big problem is with the refs, but I was wondering if the structure, prose, awards lists and external links were acceptable. Thanks for any help

Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ericleb01:

Hello, this is my first Peer Review, so I'll be giving general comments about prose, organization, and other things, but I'm not going to shoot you down with suggestions; I'll leave that to someone else.

Lead:

• "With a film and television career spanning from the 1970s to the present..." - I think this (bolded) is redundant, seeing that you did mention later that he has not fully retired yet. done
• De-link author and comedian per WP:OVERLINK; common words do not need linking. done
• Wiki-link the first use of advocate (in the first sentence) instead of the second (in the second paragraph)—if at all, because it is a common English word. done
• "In recent years, he has guest-starred on various television shows..." - This should be replaced ("Following his semi-retirement", or some sort of date) to help specify what time period in his career you are referring to. attempted to rework third para
• "Sweden's Karolinska Institutet gave him a honoris causa doctorate." - Why? I assume for his foundation, but try to specify. expanded
• The first paragraph isn't well sourced, yet gives a lot of awards and nominations. You can just re-use sources from the article to do so.
• The lead overall seems to be of good length, but see if you can try to include other information from the article to beef it up a little bit.

Early life:

• As far as I know, "Michael Andrew Fox" should not be bolded. In addition, consider rephrasing "Fox was born Michael Andrew Fox" to just "Michael Andrew Fox". done
• Final sentence of first paragraph is unsourced. source added
• "Fox co-starred in the Canadian television series Leo and Me (at age fifteen)...", etc. - I was bold and edited the age parts. done, good work
• "He was "discovered" by producer Ronald Shedlo..." - "discovered" shouldn't need quotation marks; I think it's pretty straightforward.
• The bits about Fox trying to find a good middle initial feels a little like it's dragging on; consider cutting a tiny bit of the information. cut a small section

Acting career:

Family ties

• "After which he played 'Young Republican'..." "After which" -> "After this," or something of the like. done
• "the positive reaction by the audience to Fox's character Alex P. Keaton meant that during filming of the fourth episode he became the focus of the show." -> Try "the positive reaction to Fox's performance led to his character becoming the focus of the show following the fourth episode." The sentence after that should be clarified, as I don't understand it. done, re-arranged paragraph to try to include sentence better.
• "drew one third of Americas households..." -> "one-third of American households" done
• Added a few commas to the final paragraph of "Family Ties"; in spite of this, it should be reworked, as it does not have much coherence. Final sentence is unsourced.

Back to the Future

• "he did not want to lose Michael to film stardom." - Needs clarification, if possible, as I do not understand the meaning of "film stardom" and why it is dangerous for Goldberg. Might be just me as well re-worked

Mid-career

• "Michael was reunited with his one-time, on-screen girlfriend Tracy Pollan from 'Family Ties'." - remove "one-time"; quotation marks should be consistent throughout the article. done
• "with Fox playing a famous actor who goes undercover to learn from a real police officer James Woods." - Incoherent sentence. attempt to clarify
• "He saw what good things were going on in television and wanted to return." - The entire paragraph is unsourced, therefore making this sentence biased. removed section, unlikely to find source
• "His twin daughters had just been born and he was halfway across the world, so television meant a more regular schedule and it would allow much more time to spend with his family." - Added a tag. removed likewise

Spin city

• "Spin City aired to critical acclaim and high ratings." - Unsourced. removed , unlikely to find source
• "(see list of episodes)" should be removed from the prose. The entire sentence is unrelated to Fox. done
• "(it was revealed that his character died in 'Trick or Treat')" - "Trick or Treat" should be wiki-linked to the episode article, assuming there is one. had a look at episode list but did not seem to be there (Odd?) anyway reads better without
• "Also in 2006, E! True Hollywood Story profiled Fox..." - "Also in 2006" -> "In the same year" or something, to avoid repeating yourself. done
• "(airing past midnight in some time zones)" - Irrelevant information. removed
• "He recently released a book titled [book name]. The book was released in April 2010." - "Recently" and that last sentence is redundant. reworded, removed redundant sentence
• "He guest starred on The Colbert Report on May 4, 2010 to promote it." - Unsourced claim. removed
• Added a few commas. In addition, the entire paragraph is sourced with only three footnotes, so I'm assuming a lot of it is unverified information.

Personal life:

• "Fox's drinking, which had been a problem for many years, became even more marked" - I'm not understanding the meaning of this. Clarify? attempted to re-word
• "...was created to help advance every promising research path to a Parkinson's disease research through embryonic stem cell studies." - Likewise. reworded
• Final two paragraphs are unsourced. Additionally, single-lined paragraphs should be avoided. grouped like paras, added CN tag

Illness and advocacy

• The explanation for Parkinson's should be short; in general, it is irrelevant to the fact that Fox has it (but a small background is nice to have, in contrast). In particular, remove the symptom categorisation. reduced section
• "so Fox, like many PD sufferers, extends the life of its effectiveness by using it as little as possible." - Source says that extensive usage decreases the medication's effect, but no mention on whether Fox complies to this fact. removed, too much detail anyway
• Third- and second-to-last sentences do not belong in this section. relocated one, deleted irrelevant one

Filmography:

• The fact that Fox had been diagnosed with PD during Doc Hollywood has already been pointed out. No need to do so again, especially not in his filmography. agree removed
• Under "Television", you could try to link to articles for the episodes Fox starred in, if available. Why is "Segment" and one occurrence of the word "episode" bolded?
• Year ranges require an en-dash in-between. done

Awards and nominations:

• Some awards and nominations are unsourced.

Books:

• Try finding the link to the Google Books page for the books, and replace the red wiki-links with them. done

See also:

• Is Back to the Future trilogy necessary here, seeing that they are already linked to in the prose? removed

References:

• Refs 4, 6, 12, 13, 20, and 24 are dead.
• Refs 12, 13, 21, and 22 require information.
• Refs 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 23, 24, 25, and 26 require publisher info.
• Some refs are missing access dates.
• Dates are inconsistent, likewise for ref format (some use Cite template, some don't).

External links:

• Sixth link from the top seems to indicate a WP:COI, since it is an unofficial website displaying general info about Fox. removed
• All but the first, second, fourth, and fifth links should be removed. completely agree, removed

There you go. Hope you find this information useful, as I broke my original claim to limit my suggestions I'm watching this page, so feel free to query on my points. Please consider reviewing another article, since there currently is a backlog which needs help eliminating. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, exactly what this article needed was a fresh look. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; I'm sure if the references alone are fixed, it would have a good shot at GA. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through the awards and have sourced the ones i can. The others i have either tagged or removed. It looks like someone has just copied the info from imdb (which is deemed unreliable for such matters). I have sourced the main awards and was wondering if you thought it would be better to remove the unsourced minor ones, for example American comedy awards, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards, TV Guide Awards, TV land awards and Viewers for Quality Television awards.Monkeymanman (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you cannot find a proper source? Surely the sites of the award ceremonies in question would have a list of awards given. I found one for TV Land quickly. (I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment with an FAC prep, so I didn't check which year you needed.) Simply Google the name of the ceremony and you just have a reliable list waiting for you :) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I did try that. Some awards history only go back so far and dont include Fox's awards or nominations. Some are only recent updates. They are only minor awards and like i said it has been copied straight from imdb. Its not desparate so it can be decided upon later if needs be. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also wondering about the sentence One of the few people to know that Fox had Parkinson's Disease before 1998 was Charles Croughwell, one of his best friends and Fox's stunt double on Doc Hollywood. In later years, Croughwell and Fox developed a system of hiding the symptoms, as explained on E! True Hollywood Story, which does not have a source per say. The episode is not available on their website and dont think that another source will be found for it. I think it can be removed without much problem. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you really can't find any, then go ahead and remove it. Same with the symptom hiding one (not very useful anyway). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Phil Taylor

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked very hard on improving this article over a month and wan some more feedback on it so I can get it to GA or even FA status. I feel it is near to GA so I want to be able to get it to GA with the reviews. I don't care how much critism I get, at least it will help me improve it more.

One section I think needs close attention is 'Recent form', another is 'Outside darts'

Thanks, Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, it's big but I'll gave a go. I generally use a standard procedure that I developed for GA reviews:

• Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
• Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
• (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
• Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
• Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.

A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.

As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review.

If you disagree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible.

Please don't respond until I ask - in such long article I'm very likely to have second thoughts at several points. --Philcha (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Coverage from Philcha

• (comment only) No obvious gaps at the top level, when I check each section I'll look at Coverage in the section.
• Need to check Biographies of living persons as soon as possible, as this may force us to drop some content. At present I think "Biographies of living persons" is quite clear, but we both must check through the article. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure from Philcha

• This is difficult in such a big article and I expect second thoughts. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• For now I think I'm go with the current order of sections. I'll look at the internal structure as I get to each section. --Philcha (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Early career from Philcha

• Does not give birthdate - but gives the birthdate in the lead, which violates WP:LEAD. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis seems to say otherwise. _wjemather^bigissue 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Put at the start of paragraph. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Born to Elizabeth and Douglas Taylor in in Burslem, ... to hold both titles at the same time" is a copy of Taylor's Biography, you've violated WP:COPYVIO. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  Please see note on Talk:Phil Taylor. It has been established that that biography was copied from Wikipedia. _wjemather^bigissue 19:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see no obvious connection between "Born to Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor in Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent" and "Taylor left school at the age of 16", and I'd split them and then make the first one active voice. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Split and slightly reformatted. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "and entered work at JF Sale and Co. in Burslem" is superfluous and I'd remove it. This article is long, and anything that makes it easier to read is help.--Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - removed whole sentence including "He left school at the age of 16" as it would be pointless if I left it there. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re "One of his early jobs was making ceramic toilet roll handles for which he earned no more than £52 a week," Phil Taylor says he's ready to reclaim world title - mirror.co.uk supports "making ceramic toilet roll handles ... £52 a week" but not "One of his early jobs". --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - found better reference that supported all the claims that was on BBC. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• In "for which he earned no more than £52 a week," IMO "no more than" is over-emphasis. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - removed "no more than". Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• The rest of the 1st para, "Between jobs there were spells of unemployment ... The money meant that Taylor could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments" has no citations at all - and this is the time when Taylor became a pro darts player. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✗ Not done - Found one reference put didn't cover all of it so I placed a CN tag on it and if it is not replaced with a reference i'll remove the sentence. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "to claim the first of his world titles at odds of 125/1" is superfluous and I'd remove it. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - removed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• IMO "It was the first of many clashes between the two players at world championships" is superfluous and I'd remove it.--Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - removed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Re "decided by a tie-break leg in the final set of the match": --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • 1992 Lakeside World Championship Results says nothing about a tie-break leg.

     Done - removed part about tie-break leg. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • At Classic Arrows - Phil Taylor v Mike Gregory 1992 "Phil Taylor and Mike Gregory go all the way in the 1992 BDO World Darts Championship," the BBC's text "decided by a tie-break leg in the final set of the match" does not support a tie-breaks.

     Done - removed part about tie-break leg. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • That leaves the video. When I see one of these, I tell the editor to specify where in the video gives the useful part. But this clip doesn't let the user move to a specific part, it forces the reader to see the whole clip. A reviewer can check several passages of text in the same time. Can you find another citation? --Philcha (talk)

     Done - removed video because it was un-needed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Need to explain "leg" and "set" - as far I can seen this is the first time either term is used. --Philcha (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - explained in brackets. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Split in darts from Philcha

• In "In 1993 darts suffered a devastating split as the world's top players broke away", "darts suffered a devastating split as" is WP:PEACOCK and should be removed. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - removed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the last unified World Championship to be held" is not supported by Darts: Taylor dethroned by spoiler Spiolek. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Added citation. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• " In the first ever WDC World Championship in 1994 Taylor lost to Priestley, but would go on to dominate the event for the next decade and beyond" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Added citation. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 13:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

PDC career from Philcha

• "After losing the first final of the PDC World Championship in 1994, Taylor went unbeaten for the next eight years in the tournament" is not supported by 2003 PDC World Championship Results --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Added reference. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history, between Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld, in which the game was tied at 6–6 in sets and Barneveld had a 2–1 lead in legs, Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg so he won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" is supported only by PDC Ladbrokes.com World Championship 2007, but this citation has 2 issues: --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It has no chance of being a reliable source, see pluto.spaceports.com.
  • And PDC Ladbrokes.com World Championship 2007 is a dead link. For a good source I'd try to find a backup at the Internet Archive, but not in this case.

   Done - Found far better reference on the PDC website. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "a shocking turn of events" is WP:PEACOCK, please remove it. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Removed "shocking". Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1997 he beat Richie Burnett in a Battle of the Champions head to head contest" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Found reference on dartsdatabase. 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how Darts Database Player Statistics supports "Taylor holds records for high scoring in darts, his three-dart average per match records are higher than anyone else in the history of the game." --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

  ✗ Not done - I'll explain the problem; In the player statistics section of dartsdatabase, you see the Stat part on the page and a drop-down menu beside it, select Averages from the drop-down menu, then make sure each drop-menu at either side of that one is set to All and All Tournaments, then see the Date From section and set it to "1900" or something before averages started recording. The problem is that there is no exact URL for that section, do you know what to do? (sorry for the awful explaining, i'm not very good at it). Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• You can make "Such has been Taylor's dominance for almost 20 years that no other player has a successful winning head to head record against him. The player with the most wins against Taylor is Raymond van Barneveld, but their head to head record is very one sided towards Taylor – almost 4 times as many wins as loses, a 79% win success rate" much more concise. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Cut alot out of it but no important stuff. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Taylor has won a record 63 PDC/BDO Major titles; 4 BDO Majors (though three of these came before the split) and 59 PDC ones" needs a citation. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Removed it because it is not needed as there are plenty of stats all over the article. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside darts from Philcha

• Please move the location of Taylor's home immediately per WP:BLP --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

   Done - Removed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What happens next

In a real GA review, the reviewer would probably conclude that there already too defects of in each of: missing or faulty citations; prose, including clumsy writing, superfluous text. The reviewer would probably "put the artice on hold" for a week to fix all defects, not just those the reviewer mentioned - and the result would be a "fail". If you like ( :-P ) I'll wait a week and see how it looks. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, i'll notify you via your talk page when I think I have the defects fixed. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 18:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Belovedfreak

I've had a glance through Philcha's suggestions, so I will try not to duplicate or contradict anything there. I'll go through and make suggestions by section. Feel free to deal with Philcha's first or whatever. Not everything I mention will be directly applicable to GA, but may just be a general improvement.

throughout

• This article has a lot of numbers, and would benefit from some consistency. In general, per MOS:NUMBER, numbers under ten are spelled out as words, while numbers over ten are digits. It's a bit more complicated than that though, and in this article you have a lot of scores, for example. WP:ORDINAL gives some good examples of how to write numbers. One area you could be more consistent is where you have "9 dart finish" and "nine dart finish", both used throughout.
• Citations go after punctuation, not before, and with no space in between. For example his way to the final,¹ not his way to the final¹, or his way to the final, ¹

Infobox

• Just a thought, but I'm wondering if the photo could be cropped a bit better. I realise it's from a larger group photo, but it might be better as just head and shoulders.
• Song titles should be in quotes ("The Power" by Snap!)
• Ranges of numbers should be separated by en dashes rather than hyphens. (see WP:ENDASH).
• The "other achievements" list has a mix of tenses eg. "Achieves his first televised...", "Scored world record..."

Lead

• Ultimately, the lead will need to be a bit longer, covering all the main points of the article (WP:LEAD)
• "Nicknamed "The Power"..."; this doesn't need to be italicised, you already have it in quotes
• I don't know much about Phil Taylor, but it's clear that he's had a successful career. However, the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive. I'm not saying you need to dredge up something negative to include, but make sure it's as balanced and neutral as it can be.

Early career

• Watch out for WP:OVERLINKING; don't add wikilinks to common words (like unemployment) that won't add any further context to this article
• "he was brought to the attention of Eric Bristow, one of the most popular and well known figures in the game" - the fact that Bristow was one of the most popular & well known figures needs citing
• Watch out for redundancy in the prose, or using words that aren't needed. For example, "Bristow decided to loan Taylor £10,000" could simply be Bristow loaned Taylor £10,000
• "He lists the win as the favourite of his career." - this could probably be worded slightly better; one thing doesn't make a list.

Split in darts

• "Professional Darts Corporation" can be linked at this point
• "From it's peak..." → From its peak (no apostrophe when its is possessive)

PDC career

• Is there any more detail on his career between 1994 and 2003, other that he was unbeaten?
• You have a mixture (throughout) of "Barneveld" and "van Barneveld"; this should be consistent
• "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history, between Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld, in which the game was tied at 6–6 in sets and Barneveld had a 2–1 lead in legs, Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg so he won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" - this is a really long, unwieldy sentence that's not easy to read. Also, does the source cited support that the match is regarded as the best? (I haven't checked) Who exactly regards it as the best? Fans? Commentators? Players?
• "the first PDC world championship which didn't feature Taylor" → the first PDC world championship which did not feature Taylor (don't use contractions (like didn't, don't, wouldn't) unless they're in direct quotes
• "But Taylor came back the following year..." - not a good way to start a sentence
• "by battering his old adversary" - this is a bit informal. I presume he didn't literally batter him!
• "in a one-hour challenge dubbed "The Match of the Century"" - who dubbed it the Match of the Century? Also, that needs citing.

Form

• "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years." - if he's done it before, then it's not unique. Perhaps This was unusual for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years.
• "3 defeats in his first four matches" - this is a good example of where numbers could be made more consistent.

Outside darts

• "His popularity among darts fans has led to increasing business opportunities, such as writing his autobiography.." - this is not very neutral. It's probably fair to say that most people who have articles on Wikipeida because of their sporting or entertainment careers have fans, and are popular with their fans. A good many of them go on to write autobiographies. It's ok to mention his autobiography, but I don't think you need to frame it in those terms.
• "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money..." - this is WP:OR really, we're not supposed to be presuming anything. I'm also not sure that this needs mentioning at all, it's fairly trivial.

References

• I've not checked out all your sources but it might be worth asking someone to, perhaps from a sports wikiproject. I'm not familiar with a lot of the ones used so don't know how reliable they are. You need to make sure that they all are though. Just one example at random: Mindthegap.tv - what makes that a reliable source?

On the whole, I think the article's getting there. I think the main issues are more citations (which you're aware of), and tightening up the prose and style. Good luck with it, --BelovedFreak 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Belovedfreak, thanks for the comments. But guess what, I think there is room for different views on 3 points:

• I think the MOS issues dependent on how far Mr.Kennedy1 wants to take article. If he wants to go for FA eventually, then he should get accustomed to the whole MOS. But if Mr.Kennedy1 only wants to go to GA, Wikipedia:WIAGA uses a very strict subset of MOS and any more would be a waste of time. In particular, hyphens are OK for GA. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said, I wasn't specifically reviewing it against GA criteria, but for general improvement. --BelovedFreak 15:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• In "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money", I agree that "Presumably a reference to" is weak. But the BBC said that commentator Sid Waddell said "Taylor wouldn't give you the dripping off his bacon sandwich." That has 2 points: it's part of Taylor being ahead his competitors in keeping himself in the best possible shape; and it's funny - in general I'm against "superfluous" text, but that makes this joke even better. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Re "the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive" and corresponding main text, Taylor's superiority really is overwhelming. van Barneveld is regarded as the 2nd best player ever, and Taylor's record against van Barneveld is summarised at Phil_Taylor#van_Barneveld. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

How it looks to a GA reviewer

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, here I put on my GA reviewer's hat. It's always the nominator's responsibility to get the article 100% right before the start of the review. I'm afraid there enough serious faults that the reviewer would identify some of them and then put the article on hold for a week:

• No citations in:

  "Between jobs there were spells of unemployment ... could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments" in section "Early career".

   Done - Removed as there were no refs anywhere. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In "2006" there's a very easy way to get rid of the [citation needed] tag.

   Done - No refs so removed sentences. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  "He ended 2007 without holding any of the five Sky televised major trophies for the first time since the PDC started in 1994" in section "2007" has a [citation needed] tag.

   Done - Couldn't find one so rewrote whole paragraph. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  No citations at all in section "2008".

  No citations in most paragraphs in section "2009".

  No citations at all in section "2010".

  You need to check the whole article. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose:

  Section " Early career" still has "Taylor's first job was making ceramic toilet roll handles for which he earned no more than £52 a week" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "PDC career", "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history ... won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" is monster sentence. I'd cut the play details "Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "PDC career", "... a shocking turn of events saw ..." is pure sensationalism and you should cut it. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  In section "2006", "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years", "unique" is exaggeration and possibly false, if Taylor lost 2 majors in a row 13 years ago, --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

  No period in "I would probably put this one as the best" in section "2007". Wikipedia:WIAGA includes grammar and spelling as well as smooth, clear prose. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't continue. An illness appears to hit me about 5:00 and has left me chilly, weak and sleeping for most of the time since then. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please copy User:Philcha#Tools, I think you'll find them useful. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

---

FN Five-seven

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working toward Featured Article status, so any feedback is appreciated. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resident Mario

Very nice article, interesting read. Tisk, not much to say :) ResMar 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• ...is a semi-automatic pistol designed and manufactured by FN Herstal in Belgium. In or of? If not all of the pistols are manufactured in Belgium, of would be more appropriate.
  • All Five-seven pistols are manufactured in Belgium and imported. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

History

• ...The Five-seven pistol's 5.7x28mm cartridge was originally developed by FN Herstal in the 1990s alongside the pistol and the FN P90 personal defense weapon. Alongside what pistol? If you mean the titular Five-seven you should indicate it by name.
  • Done. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• In 1993, Jean-Louis Gathoye of FN filed a United States patent for a delayed blowback system intended for the Five-seven. How neccessary is United States in this sentance?
  • Neither necessary or unnecessary. I don't see any reason to remove it. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. ResMar 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

• According to the ATF, the Five-seven is one of the weapons favored by drug cartels in the Mexican Drug War, and smuggled Five-seven pistols can sell for $2,600 to $5,000 in Mexico. Should the numbers be converted to pesos?
  • The Five-seven's price in the infobox is only given in dollars, so giving this second number in pesos would probably be unnecessarily confusing. In addition, the source only mentions the price in dollars. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Valid enough. ResMar 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Later in the month, a number of gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign wrote a collaborative letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, citing the weapon's reported use by the Fort Hood shooter and Mexican drug cartels, and calling on him to ban importation of the Five-seven pistol and 5.7x28mm ammunition. What came of this? ResMar 13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Nothing at this point, but no sources exist yet that actually say nothing has happened of it. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then you should add a sentance that it's an ongoing issue? ResMar 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Users

• In 2009, the National Rifle Association added the Five-seven to its NRA Tactical Police Competition standards, allowing law enforcement agencies to compete in the event using either weapon. Either weapon? What's the other one?
  • Fixed this error. ROG5728 (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Btw: I like your work on the P90. ResMar 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---

George Macaulay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Macaulay was a particularly interesting cricketer from the 1920s and 1930s who played for Yorkshire. His career was quite impressive, but he was a very fiery character. I'm hoping to take this to FAC at some point. I'm conscious that the later part of the article is stats heavy, so I'd appreciate any comments about how this reads and the prose in general. Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Thank you for another cricket lesson. This seems nicely done to me, a relative cricket ignoramus. The writing is crisp and clear, the organization just fine. No dabs, no dead links. I note the absence of images, but I don't know what to suggest. Here are a few small suggestions about minor prose issues, mysterious words, and possible expansions.

Photos which are PD are a real difficulty to find, although they probably exist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note 1: "When discussing the Yorkshire bowling averages, only bowlers who took ten wickets or more in that season are included in the placings." - Since the bowlers weren't discussing, maybe "The placings for Yorkshire bowling averages include only bowlers who took ten wickets or more in that season."

Test debut

• "He hit the winning run, batting at number eleven, sealing a one wicket win for England." - Hyphen in "one-wicket win"?

• "There were no international matches that season, but Macaulay was selected for The Rest in a Test trial against England." - What does "The Rest" refer to?

Mid-1920s career

• "On seven occasions he took seven wickets in an innings, his best figures being seven for 13 in 24 overs against Derbyshire." - I might have missed an earlier instance, but I think this is the first mention of "overs". Could the term be linked or explained?

Post-Yorkshire career

• "Ramsbottom were bowled out for 47 to give Macaulay's team a 26 run win." - Hyphen in "26-run win"?

Style and personality

• "When the pitch was suitable for spinning the ball, he bowled medium paced off breaks." - Hyphen in "medium-paced"?

• "(a wicket which has been affected by rain to make it very difficult to bat on)." - Isn't it the pitch rather than the wicket that is altered by rain?

Just to make the sport even more confusing, "wicket" can sometimes mean the pitch. I've changed it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-Yorkshire career

• "He was buried in Lerwick Cemetery." - Where is Lerwick Cemetery?

References and Bibliography

• It can be useful to add OCLC numbers for books without ISBNs. WorldCat usually has them.

Possibilities for expansion

• Sports biographies sometimes include information about later family life, social life, and other outside interests (hobbies, charities, organizations). Did Macaulay marry? Did he have children?

Good question. Probably not to both, but nothing in the sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if size or appearance matters in cricket, but I wonder if Macauley was big or little, thin or roundish, tall or short. Did he wear glasses? Did he perhaps have a great shock of flaming red hair that distracted batters? Was he a fast or slow runner?

Short of describing him from a photo, only one thing in sources, saying he had a lined face. Doubt it's worth adding. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything done except the last two. Much appreciated, again! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Spider-Man (1994 TV series) episodes

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

I want to know if this article has got what it takes to be a featured list article.

Thanks, Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• I'm afraid this is far from FL material. Take a look at the FL 30 Rock (season 3) and compare it with your list. That is what your list should look like. I suggest you try that and re-submit a peer review. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a bit of a difference of a season list and an all episode list. (Compare List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes and Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)). This show does the same thing. And I wouldn't say this is my list. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You should have compared it to this article list. Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • whoa, I stand corrected. Well since you found an appropiate list, you'll know where to add prose :) Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 20:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • OK Thanks! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Mauna Kea

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing Mauna Kea because I need a review in leiu of a WP:FAC run. ResMar 20:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Noloop

The lead has a lot of interesting stuff, but it is too long. A lead should be a punchy intro and a roadmap to what follows, not a place to develop ideas. The middle two paragraphs should be shortened. I like the balance of aspects in the lead: an intro, a paragraph on geology, a paragraph on culture, and its modern importance in astronomy.

I've tried, and I knew this would be coming in reviews. I've looked at it from all sorts of angles, and I can't shorten it any without cutting its respective view of the article :/ ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

“As such the volcano is currently dormant, as indicated by steeper shape, lower eruption rates, and differing lava types “ Doesn’t "dormant" mean zero eruption rate and zero lava?

Nope. That's extinct. Dormant simply means that it is not erupting, but will probably erupt again. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt “astronomical” is the right word: “The first to detect activity would be telescopes on Mauna Kea's summit, as they can detect the sensitive astronomical changes that would result from the volcano's swelling”

Changed to coordinate. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It makes me nervous that there is typically only one source per paragraph. Usually there is some controversy about something, even with a non-controversial subject. For example, the article says: “Ancient Hawaiians arrived on the island in between 25 BC and 125 CE” But then I follow the wikilink to Ancient Hawaiians and I’m told they arrived between AD.300-800--there’s not even any overlap in those two periods. So relying on just one source might not be fair to the reader. Also, don’t mix secular and Christian dating terms: BCE + CE or BC + AD.

While one source per para is not a problem (especially check out the source! they're the official managment papers for the 2000 plan!), this date deficency is highly disturbing. I've querried Viriditas on this. The base source is of an impecable standard, being part of the official 2000 managment plan papers from the University of Hawaii, so this is very strange. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor problems: “chiefss” “coursly soiled rock” “the results of which is Lake Waiau.” “...and is prevent on much of the volcano's slope.” “during past glacial period.” “Glacial moraines formed on the volcano formed approximatly” “its flanks has seen virtually no lava flows within that time” “out the lowest possible hazard rating of 9 “

All done. ResMar 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That’s a start. I didn’t finish the article, because I felt I found enough for you to work on. It really needs a good copyedit.

It’s very thoroughly researched, and has a lot of information. Good luck! Noloop (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific suggestions regarding the lead:

• 2nd paragraph. Delete this and everything after it: "The great height of Mauna Kea is due..." By "delete" I mean 1) make sure it is in the body of the article, and then 2) delete from lead.
• 3rd paragraph. My recommended version: "In Hawaiian mythology the peaks of the island of Hawai?i were sacred. Being the highest, Mauna Kea was the most sacred of all, and a kapu allowed only high-ranking tribal chiefs to visit its peak. Ancient Hawaiians living on Mauna Kea depended on its forests for food, and a large adze quarry contained dense basalts used for tool making. The arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century was a turning point. Settlers brought cattle and sheep which became feral, damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. The basal forest was rapidly destroyed to make room for sugar plantations and residences." Again, make sure the material I omitted is in the body.

Just some thoughts. I think my version above is an improvement on the lead. Naturally, there are many other ways to improve it too. Noloop (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with this is that it elimenates all mention of geology and all mention of ecology. ResMar 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't eliminate anything from article. It takes detail out of the lead, where detail doesn't belong. Noloop (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it kind of does. The lines after "The great height of Mauna Kea is due primarily to its age" are the geo summary. Also, your replacement for the other para removes ecology, only saying "...damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. The basal forest was rapidly destroyed to make room for sugar plantations and residences." ResMar 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's all of Geology, and

LIke I said, it doesn't eliminate anything. Move detail out of the lead, where detail doesn't belong. Don't eliminate it. Noloop (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Iridia

Lead

I'm going to have a stab at cutting this down. See what you think.

Mauna Kea (pronounced /ˌmɔːnə ˈkeɪ.ə/ or /ˌmaʊnə ˈkeɪ.ə/ in English, [ˈmounə ˈkɛjə] in Hawaiian) is a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaiʻi. In Hawaiian, Mauna Kea means "white mountain": it is usually snow-capped in winter. It is also known as Mauna o Wakea, or "Mountain of (the deity) Wākea."

Mauna Kea stands 4,205 m (13,796 ft) above sea level, making it the highest point in the state of Hawaii. However, a significant part of the mountain is underwater; if instead it is measured from its oceanic base, Mauna Kea is over 10,000 m (33,000 ft), significantly taller than Mount Everest. This great height is due to its age of around one million years. Mauna Kea's most active shield stage was hundreds of thousands of years ago; in its current postshield stage, its erupted lavas were more viscous and created a steeper profile. The late volcanism has given it a much rougher appearance than its neighboring volcanoes, added to by cinder cones, the decentralization of its rift zones, glaciation on its peak, and the weathering effects of the prevailing trade winds on its windward flank.

In Hawaiian mythology, the peaks of the island of Hawaiʻi were sacred, and Mauna Kea the most sacred of all. A kapu allowed only high-ranking tribal chiefs to visit its peak. Ancient Hawaiians lived on the slopes of Mauna Kea; its forests provided food, and its dense basalts were used in tool production at a large adze quarry. The arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century was a turning point. Settlers brought cattle and sheep which became feral, and deliberately introduced invasive species as game animals, damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. Mauna Kea can be ecologically divided into three sections: an alpine climate at its summit, a māmane–naio forest on its flanks, and an Acacia koa–ʻōhiʻa forest at its base (now mostly destroyed). In recent times, the state was required to eradicate all feral species on the mountain.

Mauna Kea's summit is one of the world's best sites for an astronomical observatory, due to its combination of high altitude, dry environment, and stable airflow. Since the creation of an access road in 1964, 13 telescopes, some among the largest in the world, have been constructed by 11 countries at the summit. Mauna Kea Observatory has since become a point of debate both ecologically and religiously. Studies are ongoing to determine its effect on the summit ecology, particularly following the discovery of the rare wēkiu bug. Culturally, the construction represents the threat of development on a summit that had once been considered untouchable.

Iridia (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll adapt it to the page, thanks. ResMar 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

• No full geological map in the Geology section? Strange.
• Geology: Structure needs major alteration. Detailed descriptions of the physical features of the volcano should surely be integrated as part of a coherent history: there's a good amount of material, but it's not arranged to present a geological history of the volcano. Considerable repetition of statements such as 'the volcano will erupt again'. This should start with the origin of the volcano in the context of the other Big Island volcanics, and move towards the present, with a subsection for the glaciation. Future activity should have a more detailed explanation of the hazard assessment.
• Native history: no mention of Poliʻahu?
• Natives, native Hawaiians, indigenous Hawaiians, Hawaiians...could this please be given a consistent usage throughout?
• Archaeology: the locations given should inform the content in History, not be separated out.
• quarries, shrines, umbilical cords, canoes, houses...severe overlinking should be reduced.
• Modern era: chronological flow. Should this be a summary-style of History of Big Island or some such? Just needs more continuity, it jumps around a bit.
• The controversy in Māmane-Naio forest paragraph 3 needs more citation for the language used than a single end-of-paragraph reference.
• Summit observatory: rename just Observatory (they aren't elsewhere on the mountain, unlike the Volcanic Observatory across the way)
• "has a total light gathering power 60 times that of the Hubble Telescope" - that's rather an amusing way of wording it. Perhaps a discussion of the diversity of telescope types (by wavelength), and the presence of a large number of large-aperture telescopes, would be more useful.
• With all the discussion of this many acres for telescopes, that many acres for reserve, the footprint actually occupied by telescopes should be mentioned.
• Also, why does imperial come before metric here, when it's the other way around for the altitude measurements?
• There should also be mention of the future construction plans on the mountain (Pan-STARRS and TMT specifically), especially given its controversy.
• I agree with the comments on the talk page: the balance in Recreational significance needs modifying. It's a dangerous location, and unsupervised visitors shouldn't go past HP. The HP article itself has about the right balance, and should be a Main article link for that section.

Iridia (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments appreciated. ResMar 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get ideas for improvement, with an eye toward Good Article status.

Thanks, Noloop (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

This is a fascinating subject and I'll happily review it. It is a rather long article so I will need to review it in chunks. Since your aim currently is to get the article to GA status I will review it in light of the GA Criteria.

Lead

• Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of all the points in the article, it is a skeletal version of the article. The body of the article then fills in the details. Given the length of this article a three to four paragraph lead is warranted. Please expand the lead and incorporate all the subjects in the article.
• Assuming all the information in the lead is found in the body of the article, it is not necessary to source in the lead. Sourcing is not discouraged per se but it's something to think about.

Background

• See WP:QUOTE. One of the GA Criteria is to adhere to Manual of Style guidelines. Be sure the two quotes at the top of this section are consistent with the MOS. One concern is that grammatical and spelling mistakes within the quote be identified usually by a (sic). I would check with WP:QUOTE to be sure on that. Also check formatting, use of quotation marks, and attribution.
• No need for bold text at the beginning of the first sentence in the body of the article.
• I like the use of parentheses after the first use of each Islamic term, please be sure to do this with each new term (ex. fatwa - Religious edict I think).
• “It’s the culture, not the religion,” is a Saudi saying. This is an unattributed quote. It is also apparently a common saying in Saudi culture and probably doesn't have a specific source. To me it's no big deal but to some, including possibly the GA reviewer, it may come across as original research. I'm a firm believer in judicious sourcing, not every concept and idea needs a source but some do not share my pragmatism.
• Keeping the above point in mind this statement will be hard to quantify: "Few Saudis see Islam as the main impediment to women’s rights." How do you know this? Is there a study or a poll confirming this fact? Personal opinions on cultural perspectives should be left out of encyclopedia articles.
• Watch over linking. See WP:LINK. Once a term is linked once in the body of the article it isn't usually necessary to link it again. Sometimes if the link occurs early in a long article it's ok to link it a second time later on but not one right after the other as in the references is Aisha. I edited out a couple of the links but this should be checked throughout. Also country names do not need to be linked.
• Be sure to put all references outside of the punctuation. I saw one instance of the reference being on the inside of the punctuation towards the end of this section.
• More undefined terms: non-mahram, abaya, niqab. I see that these terms are defined in detail later in the article but a word or two in their first reference is probably useful.
• A Gallup poll is referenced in the final paragraph in this section. Is that poll found in the Time or the Washington Post articles that are used as sources in that paragraph?
• Use of British English vs. American English spelling needs to be consistent. For the most part thus far the article is in American English, but in the Namus section there is an instance when honor is spelled "honour", even though it is also spelled "honor" in the same section. Check throughout the article for consistency.

Purdah

• I'm not sure of the MOS edicts on templates like the "Islamic female dress" banner under the Dress code sub-section. This may need to be moved down to the bottom of the article where these templates usually reside.
• One issue that I've seen in subtle forms in the article is weasel wording. This is using statements like, "Experts claim..." or "Many people believe..." or "A majority of women say...", to validate facts that have tenuous or no source support. Watch out for this tendency.
• There is no caption in the picture of the McDonald's restaurant. There should be a caption per WP:IMAGE.
• Is "breastfeed" one word or two? I think two but you may want to check that. Breast milk sons is a very interesting section that was new to me. That's what I love about this encyclopedia. Always something new and informative.

Economic rights

• See WP:LIST. Embedded lists are discouraged. Consider breaking the list in this section down into prose.

Education

• Avoid one sentence (stub) paragraphs.

Mobility

• Another embedded list that could be converted to prose in this section.
• The word "generally" is used quite a bit in the article. I assume it is to quantify a generalized statement but because of its overuse it loses its meaning. This is more of an issue that would come up at WP:FAC should you wish to push the article further than GA standing.
• I have a question regarding all of these regulations for women, do they apply to women accompanied by a guardian? Example, women have limited access to bus and train service. Is this only for women unaccompanied by a guardian or all women regardless of whom she is with?
• The end of this section specifies "American citizen women and boys". Could this be internationalized to "foreign citizen" or "non-Saudi citizen"? Does it have to be specifically American citizen? If so this should be explained in the article.

Legal issues

• Why is mahram italicized in this section only?
• A one-sentence section is looked down upon. Can this be expanded or combined with another section? Referring to Women's testimony section.
• The first two quotes from the Q'uran are oddly placed within this section. The first relates to inheritance though it is in the section about Political life. The second relates to testimony though it is in the section about marriage. Can the quotes be moved to section more applicable to their subject matter?
• In the Parental authority section, does ref 82 apply to the entire section? If so could you combine the two "paragraphs" into one?
• The Sexual violence and trafficking section is very one-sided. Overall the article has been very neutral in its language, but this section feels very critical of the Saudi legal system regarding its stance on sexual violence against women. Is there another side to this argument? Do conservatives have a voice here? I'm not in any way advocating that women should be punished for being raped, but I just want to be sure both sides are given full voice.

Change

• This quote is an example of weasel wording:

"Wajeha al-Huwaider is often described as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia"

Who describes her as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia?

• The quote that follows the statement that Huwaider is a show-off does not support the claim that she is a show-off. Consider a different quote or a different adjective to describe Huwaider.
• "Many believe slow change is the only kind possible." Who and how do you know?
• "Most Saudis oppose mixed workplaces and women driving in cities. Most women want to wear the veil and don’t think women should hold political office. Many Saudis view their country as “the closest thing to an ideal and pure Islamic nation,” and therefore most in need of resistance to Western values."

• More examples of weasel wording, "Most Saudis oppose...", "Most women want...", "Many Saudis view...". Do the refs at the end of this paragraph support these statements? If so then they should go directly after the sentence (in my opinion).

• It would be good to identify who Thomas Friedman is, columnist for the NY Times. Yeah he's linked but it would still serve to support his inclusion in the article by identifying him and linking him.

Foreign views

• "Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that ‘Blacks’ and ‘Coloreds’ were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club."

Who said this quote? It's insightful and I know there's a reference but if there's a way to attribute it within the article that would be good.

• The above comment about Thomas Friedman would also apply to Mary Kaldor and Daniel Pipes in this section.

References

• The format for the website references needs to follow a template like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. You need to have at least the url, publisher, and accessdate. See WP:CITE for more thoughts on this.
• There are a large number of different, valid referencing formats, the key though is consistency. Pick one and use it throughout.
• It appears as though most of the references are credible. Watch the use of discussion forums or blogs. Reviewers take a dim view to the credibility of these sources.

• I would think there must be some books on this subject. Check google books. This is an excellent source for online study material. Books are seen as highly credible and should you wish to take this to FA standing you'll need to beef up the sourcing with books and/or academic journals.
• I do see a couple of books within the sourcing. Consider using a reference format that separates books from other on-line material. This will be important if you are referencing one book several times. In the references section you could use the author's last name, date of the book and page number. Then in a separate bibliography or notes section you would have the full parenthetical reference of the book. Just a thought.
• For example, ref 66 says, "Nakshabandi,1993". I don't see any other reference to this anywhere. Is this a book? Who is Nakshabandi? These sorts of vague references will need to be fixed.

Overall

• Given the subject matter the article is very balanced and well supported.
• The writing is ok for GA standards.
• I think the get the artice to GA quality you will need to work on the following items:

1. Expand the lead.
2. Make sure your quotes are consistent with MOS.
3. Check images for captions and compliance with WP:FU.
4. Address the weasel wording issue.
5. Expand or combine stub paragraphs.
6. Heavy work needs to be done on the referencing to make a consistent format.
7. Review the rest of my comments don't take the above list as all that needs to be done, I just picked out the highlights.

• The article could certainly become a candidate for Featured status. To get there a thorough review of the prose and grammar will need to be undertaken. Also the references will need to be examined critically, and more academic journals and books will need to be added.

This concludes my review, I hope that I was able to help give you some input to move the article forward. I wish you nothing but the best and thank you for the insightful read. Please consider reviewing an article at WP:PR or WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog at these two sites. I do not routinely watch review pages so if you have specific questions or comments on my review please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

---

El Clásico

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the boarder line cases between list and article. But per Ballon d'Or I'll file this at the FLC and not GA. Please review prose for errors, and do not be afraid of copyediting yourself if that is easier than c&p. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, thanks for your work on it, but I think it needs a fiar amount of additional work before it owuld be ready for FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• When I type "El Clasico" in the search box, there are several other articles that show up. I think there should be a disambiguation page and a link to it at the top of this article.
• The lead seems fairly short and does not seem to be a true summary of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the various cups and section headers are not even mentioned in the lead.
• The article makes a number of statements that are not backed up by a reference: From the early days of football in Spain the two clubs were seen as representatives of the Spanish Centralized State and Catalonia, as well as the two cities themselves which have moved in different directions culturally speaking. needs a ref. The second pargraph of "Di Stéfano transfer" also needs a ref, as does the whole section "Players who played for both clubs", which even has a citation needed tag. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Some references are not complete in terms of information that should be given. Current ref 19 is just a title "CIS Monthly survey, May 2007" and other refs are missing the publisher. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Also need to make sure that the ref really backs up the claim made in the article. In the lead I checked one ref, for It is one of the most followed football matches in the world, being the most followed football match between two clubs after the Champions League final, watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world. This is referenced to a BBC article, but I read the whole thing and it does not really support that claim. The only place it talks about numbers watching around the world that I saw is "When Barcelona and Real Madrid met in the 2002 Champions League semi-finals, more than 500m people in over 100 countries were glued to their TV screens." [4] which does not come close to saying what the article claims.
• Use of bold face type does not follow WP:ITALIC, especially bold and wikilinked.
• Is this quote typed correctly? Phil Ball, the author of Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, calls the El Clásico "an re-enactment of the Spanish Civil War".[7][8] Correct English would be "a re-enactment"
• The two four-column tables in Head to Head could be combined as one seven-column table.
• Need to explain what parts of thetables mean - for example "(H/T)" is not explianed and as a non-football person I have to confess I do not know what it means. Also the number(s) after the person's name in the goals scored columns seem to be the minute when the goal was scored, but this is not explianed either.
• It seems odd that the headers do not match the names of the cup in some cases - so the header "All Spanish Cup Matches" is for Copa del Rey, and "All League Cup Matches" is for Copa de la Liga.
• Per WP:HEAD try to keep headers simple - so instead of "All League Cup Matches" why not just "League Cup" or "Copa de la Liga"?
• There is almost nothing on the name "El Clásico" - when did the name start to be used? Is it known who came up with it? Is there any History of the name or where there other names in use before it?
• Article needs a copyedit for polish, spelling, and grammar in places. I read for comprehension, but still saw numerous places that needed correction.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review (though you wont be reading this). I've implemented most of your suggestions. Sandman888 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Otakon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article has a lot of very good information and should probably be B-class in the not-too-far future. Please help by assisting in finding which specific locations in the article do not meet WP:B-Class criteria and please leave suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Adavis444 (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• The dablink tool (from the box on the right) shows three disambiguation links that should be fixed.
• The Checklinks tool shows two dead links; these should be updated.
• The article structure is currently a mess in my opinion; I am not certain what are we to make of this conference from the article.
  • Try a structure like History (how and when it was formed), Events (staple or unique features in prose, not list form), Attendence (attendence, noting figures, demographics, and trends; celebrities or other notable figures), Impact (what is its relevance to its industry or other sectors).
  • The list of events is a big block to reading flow; seeing a list of details in the middle of text tends to do that. Change it to prose form (are all that information—year-by-year, list of guests—really needed), spin it off or move it to the end of the article.
• Most of the article is in list form or short paragraphs; that does not help generate a smooth reading experience, nor does it give much for one to evaluate prose quality. Group items into certain themes or topics, and present them in paragraph form.
• Most of the sources are either primary or not reliable; what makes AnimeCons a reliable source? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches for how to search for and determine reliable sources.

Overall, I think this has yet to reach B-class. Jappalang (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

André Messager

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have taken it as far as I can without further input. Ssilvers has copy-edited and made lots of excellent suggestions, and now I should welcome further suggestions from other interested editors on content, proportion and balance (e.g. between Messager as composer and as conductor, and whether there is too much about the English aspects of his career). I should also welcome comment on whether to aim for GA or FA with the article in something like its present form.

Thank you, Tim riley (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment This could easily be a great article with the mandatory ce and some re-writting, good job! Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 09:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "famous" pov
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "extraordinarily"
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "He was the only French composer to write an original Savoy Opera." he is or was the first
  • The existing wording is correct, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Covent Garden" remove or indicate the locations of other operas
  • We need the location (there are other "Royal Opera Houses" in Europe). The Parisian ones are already made clear. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "well-known" redundant
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Biography

• "It was not a musical household, but the young boy had his first musical exposure on a piano in the house." sounds copied from a bio, bit colloquial. "His family were not practitioners of music, but ..." or something.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• DONT pipe in french wiki links. I don't want to go to a french wikisite, redlink instead.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Four of Messager's musical mentors: Saint-Saëns; Fauré (top); Chabrier; Gigout (bottom)" remove top and bottom, use (from left to right)
  • "Left to right" doesn't work when there are two rows, as here, but I'll ponder whether another form of captioning might be clearer than the one in situ

I agree. It is clear as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Also in 1883, Messager married a distant cousin, Edith Clouette.[1] Fauré played the organ at the ceremony.[10]" remove also, and try to remove also in the rest of the text when it starts.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Now the date seems to be 1885. Is it 1883 or 1885? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1883 it is. Hence my original "Also in 1883" after the digression to 1885, but all is clear now, I think. Tim riley (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Covent Garden" which links to Royal Opera House, don't do that. It should be clear what is linked. No surprises please.
  • Dealt with – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Messager kept pace with the change in fashion in musical theatre," ? what does that mean?
  • It means what it says. As the fashion changed from operetta to musical comedy, Messager kept pace with it – most commendable in one of his advanced years. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• "consciously adopting the styles of musical comedy, lightening his orchestration, *"but maintaining a Gallic flavour, mostly avoiding American dance-rhythm influences" is this from his presentation at the Opera site? That does not meet WP:RS being blatant advertisement. It also reads as advertisement.
  • Grove and all sources agree on this. En passant I wholly disagree about the Operette site, which is run by a valuable national institution: the Académie Nationale de l'Opérette was founded in 1971 by the musical director of the state-run Théâtre du Châtelet.

I don't think it reads like an advertisement at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recordings

• Were any of his recordings published back then? If so they are public domain, and some of his work in a wave-file or ogg would be great!
  • I quite agree, but this is not within my area of expertise. – Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am greatly obliged for these stimulating comments. I'll go through them carefully and amend as needed. Many thanks. – Tim riley (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A few initial observations, with more to come soon:-

• Can something be done about beginning the article with a one-sentence paragraph? Maybe move the second sentence of the second paragraph so that the opening reads:-

André Charles Prosper Messager (30 December 1853 – 24 February 1929), was a French composer, organist, pianist, conductor and administrator. His stage compositions included ballets and 30 opéra comiques and operettas, among which Véronique had lasting success, with Les p'tites Michu and Monsieur Beaucaire also becoming international sensations.

You would then need to tweak the second paragraph a bit, but I think you would have a much stronger beginning.

This was a super idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some of your image captions, particularly those relating to scenes from Messager's stage works, could be more detailed and informative.

I added more detail to the captions for some of the places, but I don't think we need too much more detail for the scenes of the stage works, since they are described in the accompanying text. I'd suggest keeping them as concise as possible. I'll let Tim "ponder" and also deal with the reference issues below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The "Notes" and "References" sections need attention. For example:-
  • The "Notes" cover too many different things: citations, some uncited footnotes, record reference numbers and some (to me) incomprehensible information - for example, ref 79. What is "8.553638" referring to?
    • I am aware that there is a move (e.g. among the Opera Project folk) to separate pure citation footnotes from footnotes that give incidental discursive information. You have done so in Mahler articles. I have much sympathy with the practice, but (furtive look over shoulder) there are those of the contrary opinion. I'll see what I can do to make the rough places plain. "8.553638" for example is the CD company's catalogue number, which I have put in as analogous to an ISBN. I'll make this clearer. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have no objection IF it's usual, eh Lord Chamberlain? Seriously, though, can you assure me that the newer FA biography articles are mostly doing it this way? It strikes me as busy and not really helpful. I would like to follow fashion on citation format, not lead it. Let's do whatever is now customary and required in BIO Feature Articles. -- Ssilvers (talk)
  • Some citations, e.g. "Buckle", "Massin", appear to be to whole books.
    • Indeed. They are not my contributions, but seemed to me too good to delete. I have ordered these two books at the British Library and will check the page refs before proceeding forrarder. Tim riley (talk)
  • References in foreign languages are not indicated.
    • Very good point. Shall follow up. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Small fact: By chance, Messager features in today's (Friday 27th) Composer of the Week on BBC Radio 3. Excerpts from Veronique at noon; stand by your beds. Brianboulton (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And very nice too! There is room for petits maîtres in between the Symphonists of a Thousand. Greatly obliged for your input on this one. Gabriel Fauré will be surfacing in due course, too, so stand by to repel boarders. Tim riley (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fauré was beastly about Tosca so he can expect no mercy from me. I await his appearance with eagerness. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Corpus Christi Bay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently promoted to GA status, and I want to get it ready for FA from here.

Thanks, Us441 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting start and a good companion to Nueces Bay. It will need quite a bit of work, however, to reach FA. Here are suggestions for further improvement:

• The imperial units should all be converted to metric as well per WP:MOSNUM. I like to use the {{convert}} template for these, and I converted the first two in the lead using this template.

• The dabfinder tool above sees two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

Lead

• "and is a hotbed for tourism" - "Hotbed" is a bit slangy. Would "and attracts many tourists" be better?

History

• "thought to have been inhabited by the Karankawa Indians before the European discovery" - Maybe "before the arrival of Europeans"?
• "9,388 people were reported in the city during the 2000 census." - Numbers that begin sentences should be spelled out. If that seems awkward, it's possible to re-cast so that the number appears elsewhere in the sentence.
• "was halted by Confederates on the same point in 1862," - Dates like 1862 are not normally linked.
• "In addition to Corpus Christi, Kinney also found Nuecestown (known to settlers as The Motts) in 1852," - Why did they call it "The Motts"?

Features

• "On average, the system is 3 metres (9.8 ft) deep... " - The imperial units usually come first in U.S.-centric articles.
• "Every second, approximately 34 cubic metres (9,000 USgal) of water flows into the bay." - It must also flow out. Do the numbers above refer to the fresh water flowing into the bay? Is the bay tidal; that is, is there a reverse flow into the bay from the gulf at any time(s) of the day?
• "Following the shoreline beginning at Naval Air Station Corpus Christi on the bay's southeastern peninsula, the features of the bay can be best described." - This is a bit awkward because it includes a judgment. Rather than claiming that this is the best way to describe the shoreline, it would be better just to describe it. The first sentence of a description could say, "The naval air station is on the peninsula at the southeastern end of the bay." The next sentences might say, "North of the air station is the X and Y, just across the mouth of the bay from B. About 2 miles (3.2 km) west of B are something something."
• Are all of the claims in the description of the shoreline actually supported by the two cited sources? Does either show the seawalls, for example? None of the description should depend on original research, which may be highly accurate but unverifiable. Sentences such as "Out in the bay, the Alta Vista Reef can be spotted from this location" seem to contain personal observations.

• "In 2009, $1 million of federal stimulus money was delegated to the restoration of the marshland" - "Was designated for" or "was awarded for" rather than "was delegated to"?

• "collaborated to place soil and plant marsh near the causeway" - A bit awkward because a reader may stumble over "soil and plant marsh". Maybe "collaborated to establish marshes near the causeway"?

Images

• File:AerialCorpusChristi.jpg is licensed as a public domain "own photo", but the file size is unusually small for a recent "own photo" and no camera details appear on the license page. The uploader's talk page indicates frequent difficulties with copyright matters. If I were the main contributor to this article, I would try to make sure this image was free of copyright restrictions. Once I was sure, I would upload it to the Commons to make it easily available to projects outside of the English Wikipedia. Alternatively, I would try to replace it with an image with no doubts about the license.
• File:Falcon.JPG may have a different kind of problem. Images of three-dimensional art like this statue usually cannot be published in the U.S. without violating the rights of the artist who created the statue (or whoever owns the statue copyright). WP:FOP has details.

References

• What makes trails.com a reliable source? If you want to link directly to United States Geological Survey topographic map quadrants, TopoQuest (and I believe others as well) publish them online. It's possible to include an url that takes a reader directly to the relevant quadrant. A further problem with trails.com is that it charges a fee for all but sample maps, whereas the TopoQuest maps are free and meet the guidelines of WP:RS.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent.

Possibilities for expansion

• Geology. What formed the bay and when? What kinds of rocks underlie the area?
• Climate. Rain? Temperatures in Corpus Christi? Temperature(s) of the water?
• Pollution. What's in the water besides water?
• Jurisdiction. Who controls the bay?
• Recreation. Who plays in the bay and how?
• Transportation. Who uses the bay to get from one place to another? How do they get there?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am working on that. Us441(talk) (contribs) 18:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Pilot (Modern Family)

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

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Comments by Jappalang

• Citations are not standardised, some are even bare naked urls: violation of WP:CITE.
• What makes movieweb.com, dailyactor.com, and tvbythenumbers.com reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on the criteria that Wikipedia typically deems reliability of a source by.
• Spotted several "noun + -ing" constructions that typically irks reviewers such as User:Tony1; look up User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing to see how to overcome this issue.
• "Haley goes downstairs to complain to Phil, who is preparing to shoot Luke. Phil accidentally shoots Luke, Dylan, and then himself."

  With a real gun?

• I sort of feel the Plot section is doing a blow-by-blow narration, instead of presenting the story in a coherent sense. What is it all about? A comedy? Family drama? If it is supposed to follow three different families before coming together in a final scene, would it not be better to clump each family's experience in their own paragraph before tying everything up in a final paragraph?

I have not done a detailed look but the above stand out as big obstructions to a further review or assessment of quality. Jappalang (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Upanishads

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

1. I would like to find out what I need to do before nominating it for a GA review

Do what I've pointed out here and you should be fine.

2. How hard it is for a person not knowledgeable with the subject to understand the topic

Not too bad for me. The second paragraph of New Upanishads is pushing it, though.

3. Whether I should italicize Indian/Hindu terms all the time or only at first instance

Only the first time.

4. Whether using IAST helps the lay-reader or whether it's impacting readability negatively

No problems.

5. Any other critique

Below.

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I happen to have covered this in Global last semester. ResMar 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

General notes

• Upanishads, Upanishads, Upanishads! The word is extremely repetitious throughout the article, and the biggest issue I see. Are there no alternate names?
• Do not use complex charecters and templates in titles per WP:TITLE.
• It's considered bad practice to mention your references by name, unless he is a major scholar on the subject, in which case he should have some mention in the article beyond the reference.
• You say you are worried about readability. I've added quite a few links to the articles to improve it (not everyone knows who Brahmin, Socrate's dialouges, etc. are!)

Lead

• One new Upanishad, the Muktika Upanishad which predates 1656 contains a list of 108 canonical Upanishads and lists itself as the final one. Is it a new one or the newest? Its list makes it appear as the newest one, so if it's not it needs clarification.

Epytmology

• setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit... Not grammatically correct, is the quote supposed to be like that? If so please add [sic].
• End of the section needs a ref.

Classification

• Table needs a note on what the yellow highlights are. Fixed by explaining
• 1926 marked the discovery of four new Upanishads by Dr. Schrader. Why is this important? Also, first name of the doctor, please.
• Most authors discuss only the mukhya Upanishads in their works. Reference.
• Several of the notable and widely used Shakta Upaniṣads, including the Kaula Upaniṣad, the Śrīvidyā Upaniṣad and the Śrichakra Upaniṣad are not listed in the Mutika Upanishad. Citation needed tag; someone's beaten me to it!

Philosophy

• The discovery by the Upanashidic thinkers that Atman and Brahman are one and the same is the greatest contribution made to the thought of the world. First of all, citations. Secondly, I'm curious as to why it's the greatest contribution. As it's worded, it sounds as if it's the greatest philosophical contribution of all time, or something similar.
• Between the two, the Brihadaranyaka is the more original one. Citation.
• Important quotations from some of the Upanishads include: Cite.
• Two forms of the non-dual Brahmin-Atman are presented in the... Non-dual?
• A lot of refs missing in the end of the section.

Development of thought

• Whole section missing citations! Fixed by providing citations

Worldwide transition

• Emperor Akbar's reign (1556–1586) saw the first translations of the Upanishads. Into what language? Fixed by providing information
• Refs refs refs refs refs! Fixed by providing citations

Global schollarship and praise

• Again, citations! Fixed by providing citations, one citation needed tag remains. Will wait for a week and remove claim if citations cannot be found.

Criticism of the Upanishads

• The inline quotes need to be converted into standing ones with {{quote}}. Fixed by converting to quotes

It's not considered good form to strike reviewer's comments. Not to be authourative or anything, but we decide when the issue is really resolved. Cheers, ResMar 01:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just saw that others were following this practice [5]and thought I would do the same since there's a note at the top that asks me to avoid using done/check mark images, level 1-3 headings, etc. I'm just fine fixing per your recommendations and leaving a note on your talk page at the end of it. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment by Noloop

I would trim the lead. Something like:

The Upanishads (Devanagari: उपनिषद्, IAST: Upaniṣad, also spelled "Upaniṣad") are philosophical texts of the Hindu religion. More than 200 are known, of which the first dozen or so, the oldest and most important, are variously referred to as the principal, main (mukhya) or old Upanishads.

The oldest of these, the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads, were written during the pre-Buddhist era of India.[1][2] while the Taittiriya, Aitareya and Kausitaki, which show Buddhist influence, must have been composed after the fifth century BC:[2] the remainder of the mukhya Upanishads are dated to the first two centuries of the common era.[2] The new Upanishads were composed in the medieval and early modern period: discoveries of newer Upanishads were being reported as late as 1926.[3]

All Upanishads have been passed down in oral tradition. The mukhya Upanishads hold the stature of revealed texts (shruti). With the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahmasutra[10] the mukhya Upanishads provide a foundation for several later schools of Indian philosophy (vedanta), among them two influential monistic schools of Hinduism.[11][12][13]

Move the text I took out to the body. The lead shouldn't have a lot detail. Good luck! It's a worthy topic. Noloop (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tisk, looks like I have to disagree with you. Again :P The lead is perfect in length for such an important topic, although there is a stay sentance I've meged into the paras. ResMar 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixes per peer review

The following changes have been made in response to the peer review:

General notes

• Upanishads, Upanishads, Upanishads! The word is extremely repetitious throughout the article, and the biggest issue I see. Are there no alternate names? -- Coulnd't fix this one because I am unaware of another name to refer to the Upanishads.
• Do not use complex charecters and templates in titles per WP:TITLE. -- Already fixed
• It's considered bad practice to mention your references by name, unless he is a major scholar on the subject, in which case he should have some mention in the article beyond the reference. -- Most of the scholars get mention in the article in the chronology section
• You say you are worried about readability. I've added quite a few links to the articles to improve it (not everyone knows who Brahmin, Socrate's dialouges, etc. are!) -- Thanks!

Lead

• Provided information that clarifies that Upanishads were still found after 1656.

Epytmology

• That's the way it appears originally. Sounds grammatically correct if read as "The word Upanishad means setting to rest ignorance by revealing the knowledge of the supreme spirit..." Not grammatically correct, is the quote supposed to be like that? If so please add [sic].
• Provided a citation for the end of the section

Classification

• Highlighting identifies the mukhya Upanishads
• Dr. Shrader is names; provided more information that explains why the new findings are important
• Removed the inaccurate statement - Most authors discuss only the mukhya Upanishads in their works. Reference.
• Cannot find citation for Several of the notable and widely used Shakta Upaniṣads, including the Kaula Upaniṣad, the Śrīvidyā Upaniṣad and the Śrichakra Upaniṣad are not listed in the Mutika Upanishad. Will wait for a week, then remove if a source still can't be found

Philosophy

• Provided citations for the authors who claim the finding of Brahman=Atman as the greatest contribution to human thought.
• Provided citation for the claim that BU is older than CU.
• Provided citations for the important quotations from some of the Upanishads include:
• Rephrased the two types of non-dual Brahman-Atman
• Provided citations towards the end of the sections

Development of thought

• Provided citations

Worldwide transition

• Persian - added that information to the article
• Provided citations

Global schollarship and praise

• Provided citations, one citation needed tag remains. Will wait for a week and remove claim if citations cannot be found.

Criticism of the Upanishads

• Converted inline quotes to template based quotes

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thats it. Good job. ResMar 21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spending time on this Resident Mario. It was really helpful and will help us list this article as a GA. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Good luck. ResMar 00:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love to receive some general feedback about the status of the article and what improvements should be made before I nominate the article for Good status. Should the reviewer have an opinion as to whether or not the article is GA-worthy or not, that feedback would be much appreciated. I included this in the Arts section since it is an entertainment award for music. The award was only presented once, so the article is short, but I think it has a unique background and I tried to incorporate as much information from various sources I could find about the subject. Thank you for taking the time to offer any suggestions or advice. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting article. I don't think its shortness is a problem by itself, but perhaps it could be a bit more broad in coverage. Fads like hula hoops often come and go quietly, but this one seems to have ended with a bang. I wonder about Dahl's motives and the motives of the rioting mob. Were they expressing real anger or was it a case of a boring ball game and too much beer? It would also be nice to know what Dahl was thinking and what he said while burning the records. Was he hoping to start a riot? What motivated him? The various groups mentioned by Werner seem so different from one another, it's hard to imagine why they would all hate disco. What did they have in common? Why, for example, would feminists favor sexism, as Werner suggests? Some of these considerations may go beyond the scope of the article, but perhaps some of them could be worked in, at least briefly. Just a suggestion.

• No dead links, no dabs.

• Image licenses look fine. The Gloria Gaynor image was uploaded at 14 kb, but the image is available in a much larger size via the Flickr site. I'd think about downloading the largest possible one and uploading it to the Commons as an updated version of the 14 kb version.

Lead

• "The award category was discontinued before the 23rd Grammy Awards due to a backlash against disco." - Wikilink disco here on first use?

• Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The award for Best Disco Recording went to Gloria Gaynor as well as producers Dino Fekaris and Freddie Perren for the song "I Will Survive". The award category was discontinued before the 23rd Grammy Awards due to a backlash against disco. A similar category, Best Dance Recording, began being awarded in 1998 to honor vocal or instrumental dance tracks, though there were concerns that the genre would be short-lived much like the disco category." - Usually active voice is punchier than passive. These two sentences could be flipped to active like this: "Gloria Gaynor and producers Dino Fekaris and Freddie Perren won the Best Disco Recording award for the song "I Will Survive". However, because of a backlash against disco, the academy discontinued the category before the 23rd Grammy Awards. In 1998, it began awards for a similar category, Best Dance Recording, to honor vocal or instrumental dance tracks, though there were concerns that the genre would be short-lived, much like the disco category."

• Actually, I really like a lot of that. Thank you for the suggestion--I will try to consider using an active voice more often. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "On July 12, 1979, just a few months after Newsweek had reported on the "[take] over" of disco music, a promotional event known as Disco Demolition Night was held at Chicago's Comiskey Park during a doubleheader intermission, where disc jockey Steve Dahl set ablaze a bin full of disco records, causing a riot within the stadium and gaining international attention." - A bit too complex, perhaps. Would two sentences be better? Suggestion: "On July 12, 1979, just a few months after Newsweek had reported on the "[take] over" of disco music, a promotional event known as Disco Demolition Night was held at Chicago's Comiskey Park. During a doubleheader intermission, disc jockey Steve Dahl set ablaze a bin full of disco records, causing a riot within the stadium and gaining international attention."

• Perfect. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"According to author Craig Werner, the "anti-disco movement represented an unholy alliance of funkateers and feminists, progressives and puritans, rockers and reactionaries. None the less, the attacks on disco gave respectable voice to the ugliest kinds of unacknowledged racism, sexism and homophobia." - Since the quote is embedded in The Independent article, you are quoting The Independent rather than Werner and should add something like "According to author Craig Werner, as quoted in the British newspaper The Independent,... " Would it be better to quote Werner directly? Does he say anything else about the rise and fall of disco in his book?

• I updated the sentence to include The Independent, as suggested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Award

• In 1979, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences decided to add the category for the 22nd Grammy Awards, just as disco was "preparing to die". - Add the category name here as well? Suggestion: In 1979, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences decided to add a Best Disco Recording category for the 22nd Grammy Awards, just as disco was "preparing to die".

• Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2003, the Academy moved the category from the "Pop" field into a new "Dance" field, which currently contains the category Best Electronica/Dance Album as well." - Rather than "currently", maybe "which in 2010 contains the Best Electronicica/Dance Album category" would be better. Or maybe just delete "currently"?

• Thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to search for it, but I remember another reviewer taking issue with this same sentence in a previous FL review for another Grammy-related list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for much for taking the time to offer a thorough review. I hope you enjoyed the article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lupin III

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Lupin III underwent a Good Article reassessment last year and was retained following several fixes. Now, with the article being well-sourced, expanded, and very stable, I would like to know the opinion of fellow wikipedians on what else needs to be done to further improve this article. If this review goes well, I believe it would be time to finally nominate Lupin III as a featured article.

Thanks, AutoGyro (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

Lede

• "... criticized for language ..."

  In what sense?

• "For several years, issues relating to the copyright of Maurice Leblanc's intellectual property meant that the Lupin name was removed from releases outside of Japan. However the copyright has now expired, allowing foreign releases to use the Lupin name."

  This seems quite wrong. You cannot copyright a name. You can copyright the physical appearance/design or writings of the character, but not his name. What we have here is more of a trademark infringment and that is a separate matter from copyright. Furthermore, if we believe this to be a copyright issue, note that France's copyright law bestows a 70-year pma copyright. As Leblanc died in 1941, that means the copyright of his works is persisting until 2012 (1941 + 70 + 1).

  Frankly, what makes the source http://www.lupinencyclopedia.com/manga reliable? It is a fansite and the only source for its information is a forum post? The errors in the information sourced from this fansite makes it seem even more unreliable.

Plot

• Although I heard that Plot sections are assumed to be sourced to the subject itself, I think it might be help to cite the information (with the subject) to head off any concerns about unsourced information.

Production

• "However Monkey Punch did not ask permission to use the character's name, leading to eventual copyright issues with the Leblanc estate."

  Again it is not the use of a name. It is the plagiarism of a character, his personality, history, and such (using an artistic creation without permission). Find a reliable source for information on why such tactics (renaming of characters) are used to avoid plagiarism charges.

• "Monkey Punch enjoys writing outlaw characters, and both Lupin III and Pinky Punky made use of outlaws as central characters."

  Tense consistency.

• "Monkey Punch enjoys puzzles and mysteries such as Columbo and Agatha Christie novels, and was also inspired by The Three Musketeers."

  Again.

• "The appeal of drawing Lupin comes from being able to go anywhere without obstacles and being able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. However, this is contrasted by the appeal of Zenigata's strict personality"

  Monkey Punch can "go anywhere ... to do whatever he wants ..."? I think these two sentences could be rewritten to clearly state why Monkey Punch wants to draw these characters.

• "... but due to its popularity, Monkey Punch continued to draw it. However, despite his happiness at its success, he has expressed confusion over its popularity."

  This clause and following sentence should be rewritten with greater clarity. Some more information can help it out. How popular was the series in those three months of release? Why should confusion over its popularity be disruptive to his happiness (are such emotions related)?

Manga

• "Tokyopop licensed the second series, and released the first 9 volumes between September 2004 and July 2007, Tokyopop later chose not to relicense the series due to low sales."

  Is there supposed to be a comma in front of the second Tokyopop? By "[choosing] not to relicense the series", does it mean they cancelled printing the series after the ninth volume or what? Is the "low sales" referring to the first series or second series?

Pilot film

• "... TMS Entertainment and Toho produced a Lupin III anime film adaptation featuring Lupin wearing a red jacket outfit."

  Please read User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing; this applies to all such constructions in the article.

• "... but the voice cast was different, with only Kiyoshi Kobayashi and Eiko Masuyama, voicing Daisuke Jigen and Fujiko Mine respectively, in both versions."

  The number of commas in this clause make this a very difficult read. It is strange too; the voice cast is different in both versions with only two voice actors or what?

• "By the time the pilot was completed in 1969, because of budget concerns and other problems between Toho and TMS, the film was never released in theaters."

  Rearrange the clauses; right now, it is quite disconcerting in this order.

Television series

• Rather than writing a chronological credit list of famed animators/artists involved with this series, what impact/substantial contribution did they have on the series?

Films

• "Because the pilot anime film was never released in theaters, the first Lupin III theatrical feature was a live-action movie produced in 1974 during the hiatus between the first and second television series."

  This phrasing is wrong. It suggests that because the pilot was never released, they produced a live-action movie.

Television specials

• I seriously think not many of us would like to read "<Insert your series title> was broadcast on XX YYY ZZZZ" a hundred times in a row. What significance are of these titles? How did they affect the direction of the franchise? Were they popular with the fans? Did they cause any controversies?

Video games

• Practically the same problem as above: this is a listing of video game adaptations. There is no context for why each title was significant. Listing them in prose without commentary of their impact or importance to the franchise makes a dull read.

Soundtracks

• Better in terms of prose, but still the same problem as the two subsections above. So what if there were soundtracks?

Reception

• Again check the facts (and get reliable sources) for the duration of LeBlanc's copyright and the Western publishers' attempts to avoid plagiarism charges.

• "The Lupin III franchise still remains popular in Japan;"

  Possible imprecise language: best to find a way to cast this in an encylopaedic light; furthermore, it is the manga that is rated as Top 50, not the franchise.

• As for the rest, I think it is quite messy at the moment. It appears that reviewer quotes are collected and used here without much organisation. Look for common points among the critical content; understand what made this franchise special and use those comments by the reviewers to back up a summarised view of those features.

Sources

• Lupin Encyclopedia is quite heavily used here, but as stated in the concerns over how the plagiarism issue is addressed, its reliability is of big concern. What makes this source reliable? Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches. The contents of these two dispatches are often used to evaluate the reliability of sources at FAC.

Images

• File:Lupin Manga 1.jpg

  The FUR is really skimpy here and would be better beefed up; key questions that should be answered by the FUR are why should this particular image (and not posters or other manga covers) be used to identify the series, how does seeing this cover identify the series for the reader, etc.

I am not enamoured with several single-sentence paragraphs (or the appearance of very short paragraphs against big chunky paragraphs); the content should be reorganised. Also most of the subsections in Media turn out to be simple production listings; these should have been describing the impact such products had on the franchise, be it changes to the direction of the franchise or notable events. One of the biggest obstacle to FA would be the reliance on Lupin Encyclopedia, a site of unknown quality. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

United States Naval Academy

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

I'm sure this has potential to be a featured article in Wikipedia. Since USMA is a featured article, so can this one. Thanks, Ziggyseventh (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Overall a good article with some issues, a trimming would do a world of good. Sandman888 (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

References

• Several deadlinks, check

WW2 to present

• list like prose in much of it.
• "In 1991, Midshipman Juliane Gallina, class of 1992, became the first woman brigade commander. On 29 January 1994, the first genderless service assignment was held. All billets were opened equally to men and women with the exception of special warfare and submarine duty.

The initial 150th anniversary celebration was held in Alumni Hall on 13 January 1995. "An Evening Under the Stars." It featured a Naval Academy Band/Glee Club concert, the premiere showing of a documentary film, U. S. Naval Academy; 150 Years in Annapolis, and introduction of astronauts who were academy graduates." References?

• "Ex Scientia Tridens," translate first time
• "Naval Academy traditions" consider deleting sections, it adds little to the article.

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Sandman's comments above, here are some suggestions for improvement. There are two major issues that would prevent this from becoming a WP:GA in its current state, let along a WP:FA

• The biggest issue I see is a lack of references and other issues related to sources - large sections of the article are completely unreferenced. This would be a quick fail at GAN or FAC.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I also note that many of the sources are to the Navy or its websites. As much as possible, reliable sources which are independent of the USNA should be used. As this is a national institution with a long history, finding books and other independent third-party sources should not be too difficult.
• The other major issuer is the prose. FAs are supposed to have a professional level of English. This does not meet that.
• It has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which impede the flow of the article and should either be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• As noted it also has many bullet point lists, which should in almost all cases be converted to regular prose
• The USMA article is a great model for ideas and examples to follow - it is fully referenced and the text flows much better. I also note it has a fair number of traditions in it - if there are relaible sources for them, they can probably be briefly included.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

---

GLaDOS

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after recently expanding it exponentially, I would like to give it a good ol' GA push [in spite of my less-than-great writing ability]. Thanks, The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

 Doing...:Took a once-over and didn't find much. A few disambigs, the need to use Template:Cite web on some refs, and the concept art needs to be shrunk 20-30%. --Teancum (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the reception? For some of it, I just kinda randomly placed it, so I get the impression that I should rearrange it so the content fits better. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Kaguya-chan's comments

Lead

• "GLaDOS (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System) is a fictional character in the [2007] Valve Software video game Portal." I think year of release would help here.
  • Done.
• neuro-toxin ---> neurotoxin
  • Done.
• "player's character" is a little odd. Personally, I would rewrite it as player-character/player character, but then again I have very little experience with video game articles.
  • Done.
• "He found it hilarious, stating that people were finding lines funnier just by the virtue of being spoken through this."
  • Done.
• "He found that play testers were more motivated to complete a chamber with her guiding them." I'm guessing Wolpaw?
• Wolpaw seems to find a lot of things, any other verbs?
  • Done.
• You've mentioned that Ellen McLain voiced GLaDOS twice now. I would do away with "...and was voiced by Ellen McLain" in the second sentence
  • Done.
• "The physical appearance of GLaDOS had gone through several redesigns, including one of a large disk below her[,] before she was given a body." seems lost right after the part about the song. Perhaps, put it with the part about GLaDOS' development?
  • Done.
• "She has been described as a narcissist, passive-aggressive, sinister, and witty, amongst other descriptors."
  • Done.
• "Ellen McLain was chosen to voice GLaDOS , who [and] had to imitate the text-to-speech program using her own voice. " Sounded like GLaDOS was doing the voice-imitating.
  • Done.
• "The song has been met with success and popularity, appearing as a song in the Rock Band series." Already know it's a song.
  • Done.

Description

• It has no sources and no ref for that quote. :( (However, she also has a fully-functional disk operating system, and is described as being "arguably alive.")
• "Her personality has been described as passive-aggressive, witty, and sinister." By whom?
• "For much of Portal, GLaDOS is a voice which acts as a narrator and guide for the players' character, Chell." Twice this has been mentioned in the body (well not the Chell part, but still that could be worked into the section somehow)
  • Done.
• If you can't find any reliable third-party refs, than you could cite quotes and stuff from the game (like the manual if it has a character section about GLaDOS).

Appearances

• Again, it has no refs for appearances. And another quote with no ref. (he AI claims that the regular test chamber is unavailable due to "mandatory scheduled maintenance".)
  • That quote is from the game, rather than a person. I should probably unquote it.
• "A mechanical arm descends and extinguishes the cake's candle, suggesting that GLaDOS is still alive[, which] [t]he end song, "Still Alive", confirms that she is still alive."
  • Done.
• "Apparently dormant, she is awoken by Chell (who was placed in stasis over the centuries) and immediately vows to get her revenge on Chell for killing her." but if she didn't die (like the previous paragraph stated), how could she get her revenge for being killed?
  • In response to the comment of how she could be killed without having died, it is because while the song indicates that she is in fact still alive, she states in the trailer for Portal 2 that Chell had killed her. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • So she just believes that she died? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• PlayStation 3 is linked twice
  • Done.

Development history

• "Before development of GLaDOS had begun, writer Erik Wolpaw was writing [the script?] for the [2005] video game Psychonauts..." The rest of the sentence ("...where they hooked up "temp dialogue", where they would go around the office to find people to hook it up") makes very little sense to me. What exactly was he (them?) doing and what is "temp dialogue"?
  • Done.
• "People found the lines funnier than they were worth, with Wolpaw commenting that "No amount of writing is funnier than this text-to-speech thing reading it." Opinion ("funnier than they were worth") and a ref-less quote
  • Done.
• Section has some very close paraphrasing ("When I was working on Psychonauts, we'd hook up this temp dialog. We'd just get people around the office to hook it up. One depressing thing I noticed is that a couple of times I'd run out of people to do, and I'd just use a voice-to-text thing. And people were laughing at that way more than what the lines were worth." compared to "writer Erik Wolpaw was writing for the video game Psychonauts, where they hooked up "temp dialogue", where they would go around the office to find people to hook it up. Once they ran out of people, however, he began using a text-to-speech program. People found the lines funnier than they were worth")
  • Done [I think; it was a bigger issue than the others, so I may have missed something or created a new flaw. :p]
    • Personally, I would just do a quick check of the section and make sure that there isn't any more close paraphrasing.
• No source for end of 1st paragraph
  • Done.
• "The team liked the voice, it being described [describing it] as "funny" and "sinister"..." Missed quotes.
  • Done.
• "It was discovered that play testers were more motivated with the voice, Wolpaw commenting that [because] they became attached to the voice."
  • Done.
• "Wolpaw commented that while GLaDOS did yell and fire rockets at the player, she fulfilled his desire for a villain who has not been "done to death"" Ref-less quote alert!
• "...they are putting her through the wringer emotionally." Sounds slangy.
• "The game was designed to have a clear beginning, middle, and end. Wolpaw stated that with each new part, GLaDOS' personality changed with it."
• "However, once the player-character escapes, she begins to speak as herself, referring to herself as "I" rather than "we"." Bit odd. ---> "...she begins to speak in first-person singular rather than first-person plural."
• "Eventually, they settled [on] the design [of] used in the final version of game, the robotic figure hanging upside down."
• "The large chamberitself that the player-character encounters was the result of the team wanting to build a space that brought a great deal of attention to her."
• "Another early design was when GLaDOS was only a cube, which was used for the removed laser battle mentioned below." seems to belong with the sentence about the early designs for GLaDOS, not after the large chamber.
• "In designing the final encounter with GLaDOS, one of the important aspects to it was giving the players a predisposition to the Weighted Companion Cube." What is the Weighted Companion Cube?
• "This incarnation of the final boss was dubbed "Portal Kombat", which Swift describes as a "high intensity rocket battle"." Ref-less quote.
• 1st paragraph in Final battle has no sources
• "However, Wolpaw stated that it sucked, commenting that it sucked so much that he would not let Swift speak, citing the fact that no one was paying attention to what GLaDOS was saying." Slangy and sounds like it might be close paraphrasing.
• "Wolpaw described the pacing as horrible, stating that they would wander around lost until they found the corridor, at which point a series of pistons would spring out of the walls, which he says failed in every way imaginable." Slangy ("which he says failed in every way imaginable") and some odd sentence construction. Maybe something along the lines of "Wolpaw sharply criticized the pacing, which caused the players to wander around until they found the corridor, at which point a series of pistons would spring out of the walls."
• Caption is very long. Try condensing it to "Conceptual art of the player-character encountering GLaDOS"
• What was the "fire pit" puzzle?
• "One playtester helped them by pointing out the quality of the "fire pit" puzzle, stating that it was both dramatic and exciting, but also a difficult puzzle. Wolpaw stated that this made no sense, commenting that it was one of the easiest puzzles in the game." ---> "One playtester helped them by pointing out the quality of the "fire pit" puzzle, stating that it was both dramatic and exciting, but also a difficult puzzle."
• "He added that the battle itself was a dramatic high-point, [since it was] due to it being the first time GLaDOS directly tries to kill the player-character [and] as well as the first time that players have to use the environment to their advantage."
• "Another influence on the change from a complex battle to a simple one was a fellow Valve developer who was working on Half-Life 2: Episode Two. The developer commented that the final boss of that game would have 100 Striders, as well as allowing players to drive a car while fighting mini-Striders, following up by asking Wolpaw what he had planned for Portal's final boss.[13] Eventually, they implemented a mechanic involving a timer ticking down from six minutes, where neurotoxin would eventually kill the players' character." --->After learning about what fellow Valve developers had planned for the final boss battle in Half-Life 2: Episode Two, the Portal developers decided to implement a neurotoxin would kill the player-character in six minutes."
• "This made it easier on the writers, who only had to write six minutes of dialogue versus an infinite amount previously." An infinite amount of dialogue makes for a really long game, doesn't it? ^_^

Cultural impact

• "Similarly, GamesRadar editor Tom Francis described her as hysterical [and] as well as being an aspect of Portal that gamers will love."
• Cinema Blend listed GLaDOS as the best character of 2007, stating that she breathes life, emotion, and hilarity into the lab of Portal.[44] GamesRadar listed Portal as having one of the best video game stories ever, citing GLaDOS as the primary reason for this." Any other verbs besides listed?
• IGN editor Hilary Goldstein awarded her the "Best of the Worst Guiding Voices", commenting that it was between her and BioShock character Atlas. However, he gave the award to GLaDOS, citing her humour as the prime reason.[49]" Hilary is typically a woman's name.
• "GameSpy awarded her the "Best Character" award, stating that she came from the most unexpected place - a game that could have gotten by without a story." ---> "GameSpy awarded her the "Best Character" award, stating that she came from the most unexpected place – a game that could have gotten by without a story." No hyphens taking the place of dashes.
• I strongly suggest making Analysis its own section
• "LucasArts developer Noah Falstein described her as the best AI he had ever encountered - "more convincingly psychotic than HAL, with a more emotionally engaging death than Floyd, and funnier than C3PO and R2D2.""--->"LucasArts developer Noah Falstein described her as the best AI he had ever encountered – "more convincingly psychotic than HAL, with a more emotionally engaging death than Floyd, and funnier than C3PO and R2D2."" No hyphens taking the place of dashes.
• [The Daily Telegraph]] editors Nick Cowen and Tom Hoggins listed her as the ninth greatest video game villain, stating that she is as diabolical as a female AI can get, mentioning SHODAN as being inferior in this respect.[63] --->"The Daily Telegraph editors Nick Cowen and Tom Hoggins listed her as the ninth greatest video game villain, stating that she is as diabolical as a female AI can get, mentioning SHODAN as being inferior in this respect.[63]"
• "The video game Halo ODST features a computer AI called the Superintendent, which Bungie Software director Lars Bakken said would never get "too intense". When asked if it would take a similar twist to GLaDOS, Bakken said "No nothing like that!".[64]" Seems to belong in the Halo ODST article and a trivial reference to GLaDOS
• "His view is that GLaDOS is conflicted between her wants and needs - her want to be liked, and her need to test the portal gun"--->"His view is that GLaDOS is conflicted between her wants and needs – her want to be liked, and her need to test the portal gun" Same as before.
• "He also commented that where he felt disinterested in other bosses, using Bowser in Super Mario Sunshine, he was driven to find GLaDOS and destroy her, a feeling of want that he states that he does not know if he's ever felt that before." ---> "He also commented that where he felt disinterested in other bosses, using Bowser in Super Mario Sunshine, he was driven to find GLaDOS and destroy her, a feeling of want that he states that he does not know if he has ever felt that before." No contractions in formal writing.
• "However, Croal argues that GLaDOS is not as much defined or revealed as she is depicted. Additionally, he commented that the boss battle with GLaDOS is similar to the "Room 19" encounter with Andrew Ryan, citing the same use of tactical language and techniques between the two. [59]" --->"However, Croal argues that GLaDOS is not as much defined or revealed as she is depicted. Additionally, he commented that the boss battle with GLaDOS is similar to the "Room 19" encounter with Andrew Ryan, citing the same use of tactical language and techniques between the two.[59]" Space between ref and sentence.
• Link narcissistic personality disorder in "Video game developer Nathan Frost described Portal as an "exploration of a relationship with someone with narcissistic personality disorder."
• "In the book Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, Infinity Ward developer Michael Boon in discussing believable non-playable characters, he mentioned GLaDOS as well as BioShock character Andrew Ryan." ---> "In the book Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, Infinity Ward developer Michael Boon mentioned GLaDOS and BioShock character Andrew Ryan while discussing believable non-playable characters."
• "Author of the book, Tom Bissell , stated that in addition to these similarities, both of the characters were well-written, describing them as "funny, strange, cruel, and alive.""
• Link unreliable narrator in "Video game developer Andrew Doull described the "unreliable narrator" as a narrative staple..."
• "It was released as a part of The Orange Box Official Soundtrack, as well as appearing in other video games, including the Rock Band series and Left 4 Dead 2." --->"It was released as a part of The Orange Box Official Soundtrack and appeared in other video games, including the Rock Band series and Left 4 Dead 2."
• Link web comic in "GLaDOS has been featured in web comics over the years."

References

• Ref 28's wikilink for published is missing: [[PC World (magazine)|]] ---> [[PC World (magazine)|PC World]].

Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Not to be a jackass or anything, but while there's lots of good content here, it's just not written that well. It gets rambling and confusing at points, difficult to understand even for me (someone who knows video games, has beaten the game several times, and listened to all the dev. commentary.) I don't really have the time to pick through it all, but I really think the entire article needs something of a rewrite. Here's some random issues I picked out:

• "She was created by Erik Wolpaw and Kim Swift" - who are who? Some quick intro like "writers" or something is warranted.
• "While initially appearing as a voice to guide and aid the player, her words and actions become increasingly malicious, making multiple attempts to kill the player-character. She eventually is revealed to be insane, having killed the scientists who ran Aperture previously with a deadly neurotoxin before they could install her morality core. She is set to appear in the sequel, Portal 2, taking place 300 years after the player-character defeats GLaDOS and being placed back in the chamber." - this entire section seems off-kilter, grammatically speaking, and a tad wordy. 'She is set to appear in the sequel, Portal 2, taking place 300 years after the player-character defeats GLaDOS and being placed back in the chamber' - who is being placed back in the chamber, and why does the verb tense change halfway through the sentence?
• "She was created after" Starting a new paragraph means restating the subject.
• "She was universally praised for her contributions to the quality of Portal's writing" - She's a fictional character, she can't contribute to Portal's writing.
• I really think that the "Description" section needs references.
• " She has a system of morality cores installed into her, in order to prevent her from killing anyone" - ok, this is something that confused me when I played the game, but bear with me. The lead states that she killed the scientists "before they could install her morality core". But you destroy her morality core (also not the singular) in the game. So A) how many cores does she have, and B) was it installed or not?
• I'm not sure all the webcomic references are really that important in asserting the character's notability (not to mention XKCD is shoehorned in twice.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As it is, I'm aware that I'm not a great writer; unfortunately, I've not had much in the way of other contributors doing a copyedit of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and help out when I can, but I've already committed myself to copyedits on other articles anyhow and I've got a full courseload that interferes with full-on wiki activities :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Girlschool

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I greatly expanded it and I need:

• advice on eventual grammar and syntax errors,
• suggestions for further research and referencing,
• comments on the general tone and about the lenght of the article.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... I will be happy to review this. Give me a few days and it will be done. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be waiting. Lewismaster (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Review

Review Status: Complete

Review is based on Good Article Criteria

• Grammar
  • Expand contractions such as to make "Don't" into " do not".
    • I checked them and the only contractions left are in citation or song titles. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove the "#" sign and make it either "No." or spell out number.
    • Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Syntax
• MoS Formatting
  • Change "Girlschool Lineups" which is a heading to something more generic or remove the sub-heading "Members".
    • Removed "Members". Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Research/Referencing
  • Possible Additional Referencing in the Following Areas
    • Lead
    • 1986 - 1990: ‘back to square one’
    • 1992 - 2002: living on tour
      • Very Large section without much referencing
        • I'll work on the references, thank you for the advice. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Tone
• Length
  • Length is fine, articles can be any length as long as they give accurate referenced information.

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right) shows two disambiguations; these should be fixed.
  • Fixed. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Right now, the article reads to me like a year book. With only one major section (Band history) and two list sections, it does not really come across to me as an encyclopaedic article.
  • I would prefer to see a structure more like Formation (how the band came together), Music (style/theme/appearance, their evolution or such), Reception (how they are perceived, their popularity, sales figures, merchandise, and such); i.e. break down the current history into thematic sections.
    • I based the structure on the Motörhead FA article, putting the bulk of information in chronological order. I agree that such a monolithic article is not easily accessible and needs work and new sections. I'll try to figure out how to do it. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not an extensive check on sources, but what makes MusicMight reliable? This is especially when their site say "Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!".
  • The MusicMight source is from a copyrighted article with only one contributor. I thought it could qualify as a reliable source. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• I only gave a cursory glance through, but some of the prose issues Joe has pointed out above are very distinct (contrctions).
  • Done. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Section titles such as "She-Devils or Strange Girls?" are more journalistic than encyclopaedic.
  • I liked it, but I changed anyway. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I would say that having all information of the band lumped into Band history is the biggest issue I have with this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful review. If you have more comments on the article, I'm eager to receive them. Lewismaster (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I gave a quick scan based on an idea running in my head—for the Music or Formation section I mentioned above (or perhaps a Band members section), if there are sources and enough information, one can write about the influence each member had on the band. I note that it seems Kim McAuliffe has been there all the time, while Enid Williams and Denise Dufort were absent for a few years. Others just come and go. Formation (how the band came about), Music and image (the music they play and the band's projected image), Members (who are the core members, who had a big influence), Reception (how they are perceived, etc), or something like that (change according to your style and what is available from the sources). Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I started this without any planning; saw a redlink and wanted to fix it.

Even though the article is a bit sparse, I think I have extracted just about as much information as I can from a Google Books search. Any comments on what should be improved are greatly appreciated.

I know this is a rather general request, but be picky :)

Thanks, —fetch·comms 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• "'Fore" or "'fore"?

  Composition titles do not make mention of shortened forms and the book puts it as the lowercase form.

Overall, I think not much can be faulted of this as a short article. However, it does seem a bit short and cursory of information. Do any of the reliable sources delve further into the poems? What I suggest is putting extracts of her poem (the part that surrounds a portion critically analysed by a source) into quote boxes, then placing it next to a paragraph that "chronicles" the analysis. This does two things: giving the readers a first hand experience of the work (albeit in extracts), thus perking their interest, and expanding the comprehensiveness of the article. Jappalang (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• The title is listed with both capital F and lowercase f in the sources. The NYT uses F, People uses f, some of the books use f and others use F; one even seems to use both in separate sections. However, the cover uses lowercase. I've moved it to the lowercase f.
• No, I don't have access to any sources that go more in-depth, although a Google Books search brought up one or two promising possibilities, with no preview. I also checked the NYT archives and JSTOR; none had more than what has already been mentioned in the article. I can put excerpts up, but there's just not enough of the criticism to make that worthwhile. —fetch·comms 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, substantial critical content is needed to support fair use of the extracts. Pity. However, if you do come into such sources, that would be great. Best of luck! Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The Game (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a lot of work has gone into this article I would like any comments or suggestions that would help it get promoted to GA status.

Thanks, J.D. (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on right) shows the Scrooge link as a disambiguation; please fix it.
• Checklinks shows http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/5948705/review/5948706/the_game as a dead link; please fix as well.

Plot

• "he remains haunted by seeing his father commit suicide on his 48th birthday by jumping off the roof of the family's home"

  Not really sure what to make of this sentence. How about "he is haunted by the imagery of his father's suicide, which he witnessed."

• "Nicholas finds the game is real, which starts to put his business, reputation, finances, and safety at risk."

  How?

• "... and also comes under risk."

  Like?

• "... and fire upon them."

  With what? I know what "fire upon" means but I suspect it is a slang term (for firearm-related action) that is unlikely encyclopaedic. Also note the sudden incongruity of having game company employees shoot people; is there a better way to segue this information into the plot?

• "... until he learns the truth."

  What truth? Is it really the truth? Or do you mean "until she tells him the truth behind the game."

• "Christine realizes that Nicholas' gun is not a prop, as CRS was unaware of its presence."

  Does this sentence matter in the scheme of the whole summary?

Production

• "The Game began as a spec screenplay, ..."

  What is a spec screenplay

• "... who put the project in turnaround, ..."

  What does that mean?

• "Fincher intended to make The Game before Seven but when Brad Pitt became available that project took priority."

  I believe this can be ambiguous: "that project" refers to which? Can this sentence be rephrased as well? How was Pitt's availability a factor in prioritising Seven?

• "However, the actress had a scheduling conflict with the Robert Zemeckis film Contact and could not appear in The Game."

  The first part of the sentence suggest she would not join Contact, I think this should be rephrased, like "However, the actress was about to act in Robert Zemeckis' Contact and could not fit The Game into her schedule."

• "Deborah Kara Unger's auditioned for the role of Christine with test reel consisting of a two-minute sex scene from David Cronenberg's Crash."

  Something is wrong with this sentence (possessives and noun-gerund constructs).

• "... once Nicholas' left his protective world, ..."

  Again the possessives...

• "... known as ENR ..."

  Any way to get the full terminology than just presenting it as an acronym? Is there a Wikipedia article on this? Is there some reliable source that explains what this is?

• "The scene where Nicholas' taxi drives into the San Francisco Bay was shot near the Embarcadero with the close-up of Douglas trapped in the back seat filmed on a soundstage at Sony Pictures studio in a large tank of water."

  I think this is a run-on sentence, which can be effectively split into two.

Reception

• Effectively, it comprises a paragraph and two separate sentences... and the paragraph is mainly quotes. I would prefer a more thematic reception where key points of the reviewers are grouped.

Images

• File:TheGame poster323.jpg

  Was this image self-taken or from a website? Refer to WP:CITE#IMAGE for image source requirements. Furthermore, "This is a promotional poster for the movie this article describes" is a bit bare for a fair use rationale (the standard boilerplate 10-pointer is not much better). Consider beefing it up.

I am not certain but I get left with a feeling that there might be more to this film than what we have. Perhaps there is simply not enough information covered by reliable sources, but I think currently the article give a slightly more than bare bones feel. This might be unresolvable (and thus moot) if there are no more reliable sources that cover this film. Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work! There isn't much more reliable sources that I could find. Hopefully, the long-rumored special edition DVD that the Criterion Collection might do will have substantial extras that will shed more light on this film.--J.D. (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Unternehmen Paula

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am unsure if it can reach GA status and I'd like some opinions. The article is about a little known aerial operation that took place during the Battle of France. It is ingored by most histories unless specific to the air battle and so sources are very limited. I think I might have done enough to squeeze all the info I can out of the sources. So, those are my reasons.

Thanks, Dapi89 (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cite "Bond" and "Weal" in your citations section, but no authors by those names appears in the bibliography.

In the Aftermath section your wording is a bit editorial. Instead of "the French knew differently" you might use "Reported French losses suggest something less than total German victory."

Casualties in the fourth line of the Aftermath section is misspelled. In line two of the same section you capitalize ports. Is this proper? There's also a bit of an odd tone in that sentence. If you're going to put 'success' in quotes, it might be wise to attribute it to one of your sources or change the wording to something less editorial.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've changed the wording/fixed the port + casualties spelling/removed "the French knew differently" - though this is in the source it is still editorial so it goes - removed the last line and changed it to something else. I'll also add the two missing books. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...found one other thing - In the lead you state that the operation was mishandled by both sides, but I didn't see anything in the main article to support that position. You might want to delete that comment, change it so that it's supported by at least one of you sources, or add some discussion in the narrative portion to provide information backing the statements.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In the Luftwaffe planning section it indicates than at least one KG did not get complete orders, its plans were compromised by use of the Enigma machine, which ULTRA had broken therefore the French knew about the attack. As far as the French were concerned, there is a little bit in the Battle section. Poor staff work ensured that squadrons did not hear the scramble order message via radio from the Eiffel Tower. Quite why, I don't know. Hooton does not provide any more detail than the words I have used. Is it still inappropriate? Dapi89 (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I might suggest that you modify the wording to indicate that "some authorities suggest (or contend, if you want to make it clear that it's an opinion expressed by one or more of your sources) that the operation was mishandled by both sides." That would direct people further down in the article or you could directly cite from there to your sources. Hope that helps! It might also help to clarify any confusion that might be created by "However, the operation failed to achieve the strategic results desired". You could also do away with the leading however in that sentence. Just a thought. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• I have moved the units involved on the German side from the strengths section to their own section.
• In the Luftwaffe plans section you say reported 1,244 aircraft on airfields in and around Paris, including 550—650 single engine aircraft but the inf box records only 120 fighters.
• Are you sue about ULTRA my understanding is at the time they could not read signals that quick and I'm not sure they would have shared any intelligence with the French even after D-Day some Allied commanders knew nothing about it.
• Ok - seen further down All in all, these groups totalled 240 aircraft.[30] Only 120 fighters were made available to counter German attacks. do we know why ?
• This bit does not make sense - Fisser was killed two months later leading KG 51, inadvertently saved his life
• The Aftermath section on over claiming is interesting. Obviously the same happened in the Battle of Britain did the Luftwaffe know they had over claimed victories and if so what did they put on place to solve the problem. Thinking here on RAF gun cameras etc.

Hello Jim.

1. Okay. 2. The 120 figure is the number of fighters the French deliberately committed to countering the attack they knew was coming. I don't know why there was not a full committal. 3. Definitely sure about ULTRA. At least E.R. Hooton is. He does mention it by name. 4. Need to rewrite that part about Fisser. 5. Hooton does not say what measures the Germans took re; over claiming. He doesn't even give me a clue as to whether they found out about how bad the operation was. Dapi89 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Looks pretty good. Just a couple of style comments from me:

• the bibliography uses inconsistent styles, for instance compare Bond to Chant. Formatting them with the {{cite book}} template would fix this, but it is not necessarily preferred by all editors;
• the year ranges in the titles in the Bibliography should have endashes per WP:DASH;
• the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Will change it. Dapi89 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Bytown Mechanics' Institute

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm still relatively new at writing Wikipedia articles. Any help on technical issues would be appreciated. Also like some comment on the body of the text as there are limited other sources dealing with the history of Mechanics' Institutes.

Thanks, CJ_WeißSchäfer 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

I think this article should be expanded with other information before being brought here. I shall offer a few suggestions as follow. It is not exhaustive of the issues to me as I pretty much stopped delving further while in the middle of History.

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right) shows one disambiguation link; please fix it.

Lede

• "The Bytown Mechanics' Institute is an Upper Canada example of knowledge transfer organizations aimed at the grass roots."

  Sad to say, I had no clear inkling what "knowledge transfer organizations" was trying to say during my first reading. My mind had assumed this Institute was some sort of school (and "knowledge transfer" some jargon). Most of the sources also did not refer to it as such; rather it seems "mechanics' institute" was the common terminology. I think perhaps this should be rephrased into something simpler? Perhaps "The Bytown Mechanics' Institute (BMI) is an organization set up to collect various sources of knowledge and disseminate them to its members. BMI was located in Upper Canada and targeted the grass roots to be its subscribers."

• "These institutions were Victorian and moralistic in tone and class oriented in structure which, in part, explains their failure."

  The way this sentence is structured makes it seem pretty biased (stating the characteristics as negatives). Which reliable sources said this and on what authority? The failures mentioned in the History section certainly did not make such judgments. The closest text in the body (Membership samples) that relates to this claim is sourced to a site that looks more to be a self-published website, which collates self-published genealogies (www.bytown.net). How is this site reliable by the way? For judging a site's "reliability" in terms of Wikipedia's requirements, see WP:RS, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches.

Origins

• "Why is "newsrooms" in italics?"

• "The longevity of these organizations was influenced by the long hours of the working class."

  Unsourced

• More information is needed on the background of these "newsrooms" (if that is the correct terminology according to the sources). See the Source section below.

Institute Timelines

• Per WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections, Timelines is not to be capitalised. This is a very short section and the article will be much better off if the list is dropped and this section merged into the later History section.

Sources

• Jeff Keshen and Nicole St-Onge's Ottawa—Making a Capital has information on the background and events that lead to the Institute's formation.

• J. David Wood's Making Ontario:Agricultural Colonization and Landscape Re-Creation Before the Railway defines what is a mechanics' institute and the general history behind such bodies.

• Elsbeth Heaman's The Inglorious Arts of Peace: Exhibitions in Canadian Society During the Nineteenth Century tells the activities of these mechanics' institutes.

• The Journal of education for Upper Canada gives an account of the merger in 1852. It is a contemporary source.

• Bulletin of the American Geographical Society of New York can provide sourcing for the institute's first two changes in names.

• In short, there are about 400 Book Google sources on BMI, whether they be primary or secondary sources and they should be used.

Sorry, but I think there is still a lot of work to be done. Peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". This does not seem to be it. I suggest taking the above sources and suggestions, and expand the article before bringing it back here. Jappalang (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Digital forensics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been doing a lot of cleanup work on the area of digital forensics and this is the first of the articles I feel is approaching relatively good quality.

I would like some laymans/peer input into the article. Particularly:

• Does the content make sense to someone new to the field?
• Does the layout seem logical?

Of course prose, referencing and factual stuff would be appreciated too. Basically - what does the article currently lack? :)

Thanks, Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this peer review page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix it. done, thanks

• Checklinks say sciencedirect.com is down; the website says it is for maintenance.It's back up now but I will keep an eye on it

Lede

• "Computer forensics, Network forensics, Database forensics and Mobile device forensics"

  Do these sub-branches need to have their first word capitalised? no, no particular reason for them to be, now made lower case, thanks

History

• Listing a few common computer crimes to give readers an idea would be better than asking them to go to another article to read details they may not wish to know; it also helps to establish a readily associable context right at the start.
  • Great idea

• Why should we care about GL Palmer and M Reith's words on digital forensics (i.e. what are they qualifications to speak on this topic)?
  • I was mostly attributing the opinion to sources, it's a widely accepted opinion though (just about every source makes the same points) so I could remove their names. As it is they are scholars in the field; do you think I need to list their qualifications/authority? Perhaps as a note?
    • If they are scholars, prefix their qualifications before their names, e.g. Scholars of (topic)/Professors of Computers/Noted consultants for digital forensics GL Palmer and M Reith, or such. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Investigative tools

• Possibly describe how the old methods are done (live analysis on media)? Seems quite skimpy and inaccessible to the common person otherwise.

Digital evidence

• "... authenticity of evidence."

  Any cases where authenticity has come into dispute? Illustrating one or two such cases could help beef this point up and make it clearer to the reader its weight in the matter.

  • • Good idea. Sources are problematic for this but I will dig around nexis/scholar for some info.

Branches

• Seems a bit bare bones here... I think giving a case study/example for each branch could help the reader readily identify which branch a digital crime would be investigated under.
  • Good idea. I was avoiding too much detail because they each have their own main article.

Sources

• What makes the TectTarget site, a general IT media site, a reliable source for digital forensics?
  • Fair point. I'll dig around for a better source.

Overall, I think the structure is logical and apt for the subject. The article seems to me skimpy at the moment (some terms could be explained or illustrated instead of expecting readers to go to another link to find out more) but also perhaps it is not yet fully developed. Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the peer review! Your comments have given me the confidence to expand some of the sections I was cautious of doing so before :) I may drop you a note in a few weeks if that's ok to see what you think of any improvements. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, it should be left to the person who made the comments to strike the issues raised (in this case, it is okay with me since the dab and links are not subjective issues). Although I cannot promise anything, please drop me a note when you have revamped the article. I believe this subject is of potential and helpful (especially with the state of technology these days). Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry - I was just using it as a checklist so I knew which bits I had addressed. Thanks for all your comments :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Women’s Issues Network of Belize

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

Thanks, Philippa.metzgen (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

I would ask that this request be withdrawn. The peer review process here is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." This article:

• has little or no citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources).
• is not following Wikipedia's guidelines on layout.(Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout), Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia)
• is relying on sources that are either primary or of unknown reliability (WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources).
  • without third-party reliable sources, it might not be notable for the project. (Wikipedia:Notability)
• uses images of unverified permission. (Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission).

Please consider submitting the article for peer review after it has resolved these issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the GAC2 reviewer suggested some copyediting at PR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree that the article needs copyediting, but PR is not the place to seek it. The reviewers here do some incidental c/e as they go, but they are generally spread too thin to polish whole articles. You might ask someone at WP:PRV or trade c/e favors with another Wikipedia editor. Copyediting this article does not look like a really big job because the text is fairly short. What's needed is careful proofing and a bit of polish. Here are a few other suggestions or comments:

• Here's an example of a small but useful c/e change: "between October 26, 1974 — December 8, 1974 to move to a 21–4–4 record" - In constructions like this, replace the em dash with the word "and" so that the sentence makes sense when read aloud; i.e., "between October 26, 1974, and December 8, 1974". Even better would be "between October 26 and December 8, 1974".
  • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• No dead urls, no dabs.

• Image license looks fine.

• References look fine.

• Does it make sense to sort the players in the "Skaters" table by first name? A last-name sort would be useful.
  • They are sorting by last name (except bench minor, which is not a player)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Should something appear in the empty boxes for "Acquisition" in the "Skaters" table?
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Can the missing data for Bench Minor be added? Or is Bench Minor a category rather than a player? If so, should this be explained? If minor players are missing from the list, can they be listed in a footnote?
  • A bench minor is when the team is penalized for a minor infraction that is not attributed to any individual player. Now noted below the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the "Stanley Cup Finals" section is too long for comfortable reading. Two or three paragraphs would be better.
  • Thanks. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Boixos Nois

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like some feedback of this article according to potential GA status, and perhaps a little copyediting as it is close to going in DYK. Cheerio! Sandman888 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

One nagging thought as I read this article is its slant. It is quite a negative portrayal of its subject (with words like "skinheads" and constant condemnation of the group, what would you expect). However, the project's policy is to reflect published information by reliable sources; if none of them had anything good to say, the article here would likely be of the same state... However, the phrasings we choose to use should be less emotive and controversial (WP:NPOV); i.e. tone down any superlatives or adjectives, look at things from a detached viewpoint.

• Which superlatives? I have only written what academic sources have to say on the subject. Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which source stated "some members [were] convicted for death threats and murder"? Only one member was convicted for murder, and that does not make the whole lot guilty of what was written. What has the murder of a transvestite to do with Boixos in all that ruckus mentioned in the fourth paragraph? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The structure of the article is still lacking: there is only one History and a very short Current issues section. As far as I know, FACs are not enamoured with "current"; please find another way to present the information there. Try Origin/Formation, Demographics, Ideals, and Public perception.

• So public perception would be fine? Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Public perception or something. Basically, an article with one single big History section and nothing else does not make for conducive reading. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of cataloguing every act of theirs that made it to the papers, find common themes among these acts (crass, violence, or some other motivation or theme) and present them, using one or two examples for illustration.

• I must insist that this is how they are presented and their murders and crass celebrations important for understanding them. I'm sure our article on Nazi Germany catalogue Auschwitz, Genocide, war crimes etc. etc. and not merely use them to illustrate a point Sandman888 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is this: right now, the article is mostly a simple list of acts. No analysis of the factors that gave rise to these acts are given. Neither is there a critical analysis of football hooliganism and such. As it is, it is all a list, akin to simply saying: they did this, then they did that; that happened, the newspapers reported they did this, they did that, all without themes to bind them together. What happened to "Expert A looked at the background of the club and suggested that things might have been different if this did not happen; expert B thought it was more likely that circumstance that encouraged such acts to happen. All in all, historians agree that without event C happening, the Cs would never had taken power in the first place."

Why was it stated that Nunez "[used] them for his own political gain", yet not explained what were the "gains" nor the effects? What were the effects of the restrictions that had been placed on the Boixos? The article, by constantly listing the acts, did not analyse if these restrictions were of any use. What I suggested was to look for such analysis and present them with summarised versions of the acts in support. Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, what sources are "Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul", "Dobson, Stephen; Goddard, John A", "Simonis, Damien", etc? Jappalang (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now with the way things are presented, I am not sure if this can be reach Good article quality or not. Jappalang (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

---

David Watts Morgan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's developing into the most comprehensive single biography of this man currently available. With your help, I'd like to see the article get to GA status.

Thanks, Pondle (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix this.
  • Done FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• What is a pit boy? What is a checkweightman? In these cases where the profession might not be common enough, perhaps a brief explanation would do.
  • I have explained checkweightman, but pit boy is bit trickier as I'm not sure which role he carried out, manning the ventilation doors, working at the surface, cart boy, etc. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • A general description for the pit boy might suffice if specifics are unknown, e.g. "helping miners with less strenuous work such as manning ventilation doors and pushing carts" or such. Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

      Took your advice and added the explanation. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trade unionism

• "A moderate leader, he worked fruitlessly alongside William Abraham to resolve the 1910–11 Cambrian Combine dispute, being shunned by the more radical miners' leaders."

  I do not think the "being shunned" works as attached here. Break it off with a semi-colon?

  • I have changed the sentence. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Military service

• "Despite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reporting Watts Morgan as being promoted to lieutenant-colonel on 8 March 1919, his retirement from the forces; the London Gazette entry of May 1919 describes him merely as major."

  Noun + -ing construct in the first clause (refer to User:Tony1/Noun_plus_-ing). Is the semi-colon used correctly here? "Merely" is also introducing a bias there.

  • I'm a bit confused with the Noun+ -ing. If that is meant to refer to reporting, then report in this respect is not a noun it's a verb. Though the colon and merely are gone. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • When used as a verb in this aspect, the structure should be "noun (possessive form) + -ing", e.g. "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's reporting". The awkwardness one might find can be rephrased to "Although Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reported that Watts Morgan was promoted to lieutenant-colonel on 8 March 1919, the date of his retirement from the forces, the London Gazette entry of May 1919 described him as a major." Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Until early June 1921 he is described in The Times and London Gazette as Major D. Watts Morgan, later in the month this changes to Lieutenant-Colonel Watts Morgan."

  Are the tenses correct?

  • Tenses all switched to past tense. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Member of Parliament

• "Watts Morgan made his maiden speech in the House of Commons in April 1919, on one of his special interests, housing; stating the state and shortage of housing in the Welsh coalfields as '...the chief cause of the industrial unrest."

  Again, I am not certain the semi-colon is apt here. A pair of em-dashes, perhaps?

  • I have addressed by splitting the sentence in two, which has also removed the 'he stated on the state...' something that was a bit clunky. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Better not to make readers jump to another article here. What is so special about Ramsay MacDonald that Watts Morgan would have been expected for office?
  • I have added the words Prime Minister to explain MacDonald's importance. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

• What happened between Watts Morgan and Elizabeth Williams?
  • No idea. Not sure if their divorced or she died. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It might be worth to dig further to find out. It is a bit puzzling to see him married to another with only a cursory mention of the first when polygamy was not allowed. However, nothing can be done if there are no reliable sources that mention this. Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is a "pithead baths"?
  • Explanation added. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are there no sources that chronicle his personal interests or such?
  • Added. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• What are "Ivorites" and "Foresters" societies? Jappalang (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Linked them to articles and added 'friendly society'. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I find the prose very good (with what I think are a few quirks above). Jappalang (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the article's current state is a good bet for GA, and possibly FA in the future. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Deep End (TV series)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of nominating it for GA.

Thanks, Bejinhan talks 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this will be my first peer review. I will try my best to give a few pointers.

Intro

• the first sentence does not flow very well, could maybe rewrite it.  Done

Production

• co-executive produced, is that the correct terminology, or should it be created by or David Hemingson is an executive producer for the series who also produced how i met your mother  Done

• you should also try to avoid small single paras like that.  Done

• some of the refs dont have access dates, and they use various formats of listing sources, i.e. some use the cite web method others dont  Done

• Might be an idea to use a similar article which has already made GA as a guide, for example cold feet series one.  Done

sorry if its not much of a help but could get you on the right track to improving the article for GA nomination. You could also look at similar articles for help and inspiration here.Monkeymanman (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Bejinhan talks 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rearrange the first paragraph. Start off with what it is, then the content of the show, then how long it ran for, then its reasons for being cancelled. At the moment it is very disjointed. Also remove 'in-universe' content as that can be placed later in the article and may be confusing.

You may wish to add a plot section to explain the show in-depth.

Remove text stating where it was who was supposed to be producing it was initially reported. This is superfluous and irrelevant to the point you are trying to get across (which I presume is who actually produced it).

Actual lawyers reaction can go in the Reception section. Similarly, unrealistic plot elements could be put into a plot subsection, rather than being mixed in with the production section when they have little to do with that subject.

Remove this part:

"The show premiered on January 21, 2010 as a 2009—2010 midseason replacement.[4] Seven episodes were filmed but ABC only scheduled six episodes.[5] After speculation of the show's cancellation, ABC announced on May 14, 2010 that they would not continue broadcasting it because of poor ratings and viewership.[6][7][8]" - It is simply repeating what was said in the lead without adding anything substantial to it.

You could re-write this to make it longer and include more information, at which point it might be put into its own 'Broadcasting' (or similar with a better name) section.

Second sentence of Reception section needs to be re-written, it lists too many shows. We get the point after two. Similarly, this section doesn't need quite as many quotes as we get the gist of the issues pretty early on. The sentence: Although the Deep End received "loads of promotion" but Media Life Magazine claimed that the show "sank in its first outing - is not grammatically sound.

---

List of Formula One polesitters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm nominating this list for Peer review, as I'd like a few suggestions on how to improve the article before I take it to FLC. Cheers NapHit (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments. An interesting table. I don't envy you the task of keeping it up to date, though. A few suggestions:-

• A dablink to John Watson needs fixing
• "The most famous Grand Prix is the Monaco Grand Prix in Monte Carlo." That's a point of view, and irrelevant to this list
• "Drivers contest qualifying traditionally on the Saturday of a Grand Prix weekend to determine who will sit on pole position." Apart from the misplaced adverb, this sentence is inaccurate; qualifying is about fixing each driver's place on the starting grid, not just who will occupy pole position. You need to explain several things: first, that drivers have to come through a qualifying round before each F1 race to earn their places in the race, and that some are eliminated at this stage; secondly, that their times in qualifying determine their places on the starting grid for the race proper, with the faster qualifiers at the front of the grid; third, that "pole position" is the place at the front of the grid, held by the driver with the fastest qualifying time - the "polesitter".
• I see no need to recount the intricate details of the various qualifying systems that have been used; those details are not relevant to this article. A brief statement that different systems have been used over the last 60 years, and a short summary of the present system, should suffice. At present, your summary of the present system reads as though fifteen drivers are eliminated in qualifying, which is surely not right.
• The first two sentences of the final lead paragraph merely state what is evident from the table, and are unnecessary.
• The information re Farina needs a citation.
• The key needs to give a more explicit description of the asterisk, e.g. "Drivers who have held the Formula One World Championship"
• Why does ref 5 lack a retrieval date?

Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at these suggestions think the second para reads better now, see what you think. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Wannabe (song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it have the potential to be a FA since all the major aspects are covered and the references are reliable. My biggest concern is the prose and grammar, since one of the requirements is that the prose must be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". English is not my first language so is a little difficult for me to see the mistakes. Any suggestions and comments would be appreciated. Thanks,

Thanks, Frcm1988 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have worked through the first few sections, doing some copyedits as I go. I can't promise that I will be able to go through the whole article in the same detail, but here are some suggestions picked up in the first few sections. Some of these may be relevant to the later sections, also (specifically, the inclusion of too much trivial detail).

• General point: It is a cause of some confusion that you refer to the the Spice Girls individually as "Brown", "Chisholm" etc, when they were scarcely known by these names when they were an active group. It's hard to think of them as such, unless the article includes an introductory paragraph in which the five singers are properly introduced.

Thanks for reviewing the article, your comments were very helpfull. I did almost eveything you suggested but I have a few questions. Frcm1988 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added information about how the group got together in the background section: In March 1994, father-and-son team Bob and Chris Herbert together with financer Chic Murphy, traded under the business name of Heart Management, placed an advert in The Stage, which asked the question: "Are you street smart, extrovert, ambitious, and able to sing and dance?". After receiving hundreds of replies, the management reduced their search down to a group of five girls: Victoria Beckham, Melanie Brown, Melanie Chisholm, Geri Halliwell and Michelle Stephenson. The group moved to a house in Maidenhead and received the name "Touch". Stephenson was eventually fired because she lacked the drive that the rest of the group had, and was replaced by Emma Bunton.

I also added some information of the group after they left their mangement on the recording section: Because of the group's frustration at their management's unwillingness to listen to their visions and ideas, they parted from Heart Management in March 1995, and eventually met with artist manager Simon Fuller, who decided to sign them with 19 Entertainment. The group toured record labels with Fuller and finally signed a deal with Virgin Records in July.

I don't know is this is too far behind from the group' history, or if you mean to called them by their nicknames that was how most of the people know them, Sporty, Baby, Posh, etc.

• Lead
  • "Written by the group members, Matt Rowe and Richard Stannard..." What?? They were members of the Spice Girls? Corrected
  • We don't say "press'" as a possessive form. In this case we just say "press interest". Corrected
  • The words "it was a commercial success" in the fourth paragraph seem redundant, in view of the information already provided about its reception Removed
  • "...becoming their only number-one single in that country". You need to define "their", i.e. "the group's" Corrected
  • "It became the best-selling single by a female group in the history of recorded sound..." Too over-the-top for an encyclopedia article, and in any event needs an "up to" qualifier, since it won't necessarily hold that distinction for ever. Reworded
• Background
  • What is a "showcase"? Wikilinked to Variety show
  • "...that he had found the pop group of their dreams". This wording needs to be in quotes; it is not an objective comment. Added quotes
• Writing and inspiration
  • The word "soulful", which you have pipelinked to "soul music", meanss "expressing profound thoughts or feelings". I'm not sure that htis applies to soul music ehich, unless I'm mistaken, is a combination of jazz, gospel and blues. So I'm not sure about the value of the link. Removed wikilink
  • "...the group wanted to write something a bit more uptempo." Try to use a slightly more formal style; "a bit more" is too casual. Likewise "a quite fast rhythm" Reworded
  • "the spirit of John Travolta"? Suggest reword, removing the ambiguity that suggests Travolta was dead. Changed to scenes
  • "making a rap during the bridge": for the benefit of the uninitiated, what does this mean? What is the "bridge"? Reworded
  • "adapted the word ... into" → "incorporated the word ... into" Replaced
  • last paragraph: too gossipy, overdetailed. Moved part of the info to the recording section, removed the rest
• Recording and production
  • "While most of the other songs on the album..." A reminder of the album's name would be useful. Added name
  • More unnecessary chitchat ("a sleeping bag on the vocal booth floor", etc) Removed info
• Composition
  • What is meant by "undislodgeable" piano notes? There is no such word, by the way.

Ohh, I really don't know what to do here, probably the author made up a word from the verb dislodge. The source have: Wannabe opens with immediately undislodgable piano notes, which act as stepping stones to the chorus. Don't know how to reword this, or perhaps it should be removed

• • • If the source says it, put it in quotes, add [sic], and put a citation at the end of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the quotes and the sic, thanks for the suggestion. Frcm1988 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• "ambiguously sexualised or broadly economic." What does this mean?

Ok the group have never actually said what the word means. They always said in interviews that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In many books from musicologists and scholar analyisis have pretty much concluded that "zigazig-ha" means sex or female desire. Most of them also said that this desire is ambiguous: desire for sex or for power. In one book they mention that it is an euphenism for penis or phallus, or maybe not the desire for the phallus itself but for the phallic power. Do you have a suggestion for this?

Please work on these, and I'll get beck to it when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

---

2001: A Space Odyssey (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because extensive improvement by many dedicated editors has, in my opinion, brought the article close to an FA level since the last FAC review in 2005, but I feel that input from a wider group of editors would benefit the article greatly before another FAC nomination is attempted. Criticism on all aspects of the article are welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, Shirtwaist (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

I suggest withdrawing this peer review request, as this article is still some distance from FA quality; it has several issues that do not comply with policies and guidelines, which FAs are supposed to be exemplary of:

• many paragraphs and sentences lack citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources), the worst of which is the Interpretation section (to be detailed later) -- The interpretation section is merely a summary for the full article, linked at top of the section, dedicated to the interpretation of the film, but I'll add cites anyway.
• possible original research: because statements are uncited, they could be personal judgments or conjectures and not published information; Interpretations are supposed to be compiled from reliable sources, not the personal original opinions of editors.
• violations of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria; fair use of copyrighted images are meant to be stricter than the assumed accepted practices of US law. Many images here simply illustrate scenes that can be described with words (violating NFCC criterion 1) or are not supported by significant critical commentary in the text (NFCC 8). -- All images illustrate specific article content and were posted with fair use rationale required by WP, this is common practice in numerous FA articles. An article about a film world-famous for its iconic images should contain some of those images.
• incorrect interpretation of sources: where in Steven Pietrobon's resume does it state that he was a NASA scientist? Getting a "NASA Research Assistantship" does not make a scientist out of an assistant. Done
• copyright violations: that youtube link is a copyright violation since neither Apple nor MGM (if it was taken from the film) authorised its uploading there; the same goes for the pages that post entire scans/transcripts of articles from MAD magazine, Playboy, and other magazines. -- "Mad" and "Youtube" cites removed, "Playboy" citation refs the magazine's own website, which is acceptable in WP as far as I know. Done
• sources of questionable reliability: Wikipedia defines "reliable" in a slightly different way. A source is reliable if it was heavily relied on by others (mostly because it is an expert on the subject and is often quoted). How are palantir.net, cinezik, Askville, starshipmodeler.com, avrev.com, and other assorted websites reliable? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged at FACs.
• several cleanup templates and tags are in the article. I only saw one cleanup template, which was fixed, working on tags.
• much of the prose are short paragraphs, coming across as stubs or items inserted haphazardly without a clear organisation.

All these are serious failings and should have been cleared. Jappalang (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• Jappa hits the broad strokes. It might have been near-FA quality in 2005, but standards have risen since then. The article really needs a rewrite and reorganization. Much of the scope of the film is given short shrift, while other parts (the nukes in space) swallow up seven paragraphs. I suggest workshopping the entire article on the talk page, and inviting broader discussion at WT:FILM, because this article needs more work than a peer review setup can address. My final recommendation is to look at other (recent) film FAs for inspiration; articles like Star Trek: The Motion Picture focus on production aspects, while articles like Changeling (film) also focus on themes and critical reaction in a way that a groundbreaking film like 2001. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the scientific accuracy section also is overly lacking in citations even though having two close friends in the aerospace industry (I myself worked for NASA for 2 years) I am convinced of their correctness- I fully realize this gets no mileage here on WP. Some stuff like how Dr. Floyd's pen floats should be dropped, absent a good source. However, I suspect that the "Interpretations" section that User:Jappalang has pegged as "the worst" re sourcing would actually be very easy to source given a bit of research. It seems the pics could be salvaged by expanding the captions on the pictures. There are good reasons for most of them, it just needs to be spelled out in the captions. Some of the short paragraphs strike me as justifiable, but many are not. Here I will not elaborate my opinion as to which is which.

As for the sources, specifically. The Cinezik source is utterly dispensable- the same info (about SK's use of Blue Danube) can be easily found many other places. This is probably also true of the Askville reference about diffusion of light.

However, avrev is a standard online film review site which is focused on DVD and Blu-Ray reviews, cited in just over 50 Wikipedia articles. Much of their reviews are focused on the quality of the transfer since they only review DVDs and Blu-Rays. Publications that confine their reviews to DVDs and Blu-Rays are frequently entirely online. The author of the review for "2001" that is cited here is a Hollywood cameraman who won an Oscar for Technical Achievement "for refinement to a dual-screen, front-projection image-compositing system". Dang it, this is a reliable source!!

Palantir.net is a website devoted solely to 2001. It's main compiler has published also about 2001 in a publication called DFX (for Digital Effects). He did an honors undergrad thesis on 2001 (which counts for less). As I understand WP Policy, if a self-published source has also published in what are considered reliable sources, then we allow the self-published source. So I somewhat defend this one as well.

The use of Starship Modeler is IMO a gray area. They have one of the only photos in the world (very rare) of one of the actual models used for the earth-satellites that is not a screenshot. They are writing about an interesting subject which hardly anyone who fits WP criterion for reliability even discusses at all. There may be a case against their inclusion, but I would mourn their loss as I would not at all mourn the loss of Askville and Cinezik.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Retraction. Cinezik is a website of a major French print magazine on the usage of music in film. Well-known in Europe if little-known in USA. Although the info cited from it is easily available from English language sources, it is absolutely a reliable source, no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. That only leaves askville.com as the source we must absolutely do away with.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Victoria Forester

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

Thanks, Abcassionchan 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue. The article is a shot stub and there's nothing to do with it except expand it. ResMar 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Without more content to grind up, there's really nothing we can say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement based on the short article here.

• The biggest problem with the article as it exists now is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I also note that alll of the refs in the article now are either from the author's website, or her publisher's website, or is a ref to her book. The article needs more independent, third-party reliable sources. Quote reviews of her books, interviews with her, profile articles, etc. Please see WP:RS
• The article is very short and needs to be expanded. What is her birthdate (not just year)? What about her parents? WHat is her sister's name and is she older or younger? Other siblings? When did she attend university? When were her films released? When did she marry and have her child? What are the names of her husband and daughter? What kind of animal is Rufus? etc.
• At the same time, some of the material in the article is so trivial as to be non-encyclopedic. Does it really help the reader to know the number of guests she registered each day at a hotel she briefly worked at? Or is the detail on her childhood dreams needed (and what is the source of this material)?
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections that disturb the flow of the prose. These should be combined with others or expanded
• The article has several spelling and grammar errors and could use a copyedit once it is expanded. Here are a few examples of many problems.
  • One plans or writes "in detail", the article "a" is singular, but "Both" and "swimmers" are plural Both planned in detailed their lives as a future world famous synchronized swimmers. As Forester grew older, she would write out her ever-changing careers in details.
  • "doing all sorts of things" She spend her days imagining doing sort of things and wrote about it.
  • It is spelled "graduated" and one generally studies at a university and graduates from it She studied and graducated in the University of Toronto.
  • One works as a desk clerk, not as the desk During that time when Forester was in university, she worked as a front desk of Sheraton Hotel in Toronto.

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :)

Abcassionchan 03:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a few suggestions so that I can get it up to fa status

Thanks, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Ely and Littleport riots 1816

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking to improve the article through B-Class and eventually as a GAN. The riots started in the first months of 1816 in West Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire; in early May in Bury, Brandon, Hockwold, Feltwell and Norwich; finally, a meeting was held on 16 May in Downham before reaching Littleport via Hilgay and Southery on the 22 May by which time the crowd had grown even bigger. A rioter was shot dead in Littleport by a dragoon (on the orders of Sir Henry Dudley by a trooper of Major Sir John Byng's 1st The Royal Dragoons). Five  rioters were hanged by a government lacky of a chief Justice of the Isle of Ely (Edward Christian, yes Fletchers brother!). Is there anyone not bored yet who would like to help?

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 22:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Dana boomer

Hi Senra! It looks like you've done a great job with this article. Here are my comments:

• Lead, "had the Bishop of Ely appointed right to try the rioters." Is "appointed right" a legal term?

• My problem here is that I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. What does it mean that he was "appointed right"? Also, this isn't really mentioned at all in the body - the fact that he was on the panel is, but how he got there (through Christian) isn't. The lead should be a summary, with no new information.

• OK, wow, I had that completely backward. I thought you were trying to say that Christian did something to the bishop, not the other way around. What would you think of this wording: Edward Christian,..., had been appointed (as what, btw? Did he have a title?) by the Bishop of Ely and given the right to try the rioters. Or something of the sort. Also, would it be possible to include something in the body that is basically a sourced version of your comment on this below? Currently there is nothing in the body to explain why there were government representatives and a representative of the bishop both on the judging panel.

• Lead, "passing the Vagrancy Act 1824 and subsequently the Metropolitan Police Act 1829." Should this be "Vagrancy Act of 1824" and "Metropolitan Police Act of 1829"?
• Background, "52 shillings (£153 at present worth,[4] as of 2010)[5] per quarter". I'm not sure what "per quarter" is referring to. Is a "quarter" a measurement? Later note: Is this perhaps a quarter of a bushel?

• Perhaps link to the article you mention?

• Surrounding area, "onto Downham Market (Downham)". What is the need for the Downham in quotation marks?

• Hm. This is somewhat confusing to a non-Brit, but I'm not sure how to make it more clear. I'll think about it and let you know if I come up with anything.

• Surrounding area, "The magistrates agreed; a modus vivendi; a hollow truce; the yeoman cavalry had been called from Upwell, arriving at 5pm." This sentence reads like a series of partial thoughts. "The magistrates agreed" seems to point to them being agreeable to the work/2 shilling demand, but then modus vivendi means (AFAIK) that they agreed to disagree. How was this a hollow truce? Who decided to call in the cavalry - were the magistrates feeling threatened, the mob acting violent?
• Littleport, "a disorganised group of 56 residents". Why were they disorganized, or what was disorganized about them?
• Littleport, "where Robert Johnson was the landlord. Discussing the lack of work and the rising grain costs." First, why does it matter who the landlord was? Second, the sentence beginning "Discussing..." is a partial sentence that should probably be connected to the previous sentence. I wasn't sure how you would like this done, though, hence why I didn't do it myself!
• Littleport, "Burgess, the lighterman". What is a lighterman?

• Perhaps link to the article anyways? I honestly had no idea what the term was until I linked to the article.

• Littleport, "the rioters destroyed his goods and chattels and stole some of his silver-ware. Vachell was later to receive over £708 under the riot act," First, I always thought that the plural of chattel was also chattel, with no "s" (I could be wrong, though) - and you might want to link it. Also, I've never seen "silverware" with a hyphen, but that could just be an American English thing. Second, did Vachell receive the money as reimbursement for his losses? Why him and apparently no one else?

• Mostly done, just one part left.

• Rather than adding a note next to every use of "as of 2010[7]" for dollar values, you could just put a note next to the first one that the reference covers all uses of this term. So: "Note x: All inflation numbers in this article are covered by the whatever index", or something of the sort. That would reduce the number of footnotes, which gets quite dense and distracting in spots.

• Hmmm, I was actually just thinking one note at the beginning explaining the inflation index and then never repeating it again. Less little numbers that way. But, if you want to keep the footnotes by every conversion, this way works too.

• Ely, "despatched". Wouldn't it be "dispatched"? I always thought that "despatches" were a military thing; again, though, I could be wrong :)
• Ely, "On being told that they wanted 'the price of a stone of flour per day' and that 'our children are starving, give us a living wage'. The Reverend agreed though said he would have to converse with the other magistrates first; he asked them to return to Littleport but the rioters marched on." As it's written, the first sentence is a fragment. By just combining the two, it would make a run-on sentence, so it needs to be still split, but split in a different way.
• Ely, "Ely magistrates drafted a response, pictured," You have already pointed (through the use of pictured) to the image in the lead. Using it here doesn't make as much sense, because the image is no-where near the text.
• Execution, "costing five-pound five-shillings". What does it matter what the cart cost? Same for the chaise and rope mentioned shortly after this.

• I see your point. However, there are a couple of points I should make here. First, there is no inflation guide here, so we can't see how much this is in today's money. Second, there is no explanation that this was more than was usually paid for similar equipment. With no point for comparison, it just looks like trivia.

• It looks better, but it would still be nice to see some discussion of why this is important (i.e., that it was more than was usually spent). If you have a reference for it, of course!

• One sentence sections, such as that of the "Media" section, are generally frowned upon. This could easily be moved into the "aftermath" section, and perhaps expanded upon a bit. Show why it is important to this article that this (what: play, movie?) involved the riots.

Overall, it looks good. It is definitely B class right now (although I'm not going to change the rating myself, usually only members of a project do that unless its for GA/FA class), and should be able to go through GAN fairly easily. In a few places there was, IMO, a little too much detail - I felt that it disrupted the flow of the story, and pointed out a few specific instances above. Other editors may have different opinions about this, however. Please let me know if you have any questions - I am watching this page. Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've struck the points I consider completed and added comments under the others. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

More comments/strikes. No worries on the time frame - that's the great thing about a peer review! And honestly, the article would probably sail through a GA review right now. Most of the comments still remaining above (and even the full list we started out with) are nitpicks, fussy things that are probably headed more towards the comprehensive and brilliant prose criteria of FAC than the broad coverage and clear prose criterian of GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Responses by senra (talk · contribs)

• comment Lead, "had the Bishop of Ely ... Not a legal term at all. Isle of Ely has been special for a long time. See e.g. "Academic dictionaries and encyclopedias:Isle of Ely". Retrieved 18 September 2010. --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed /* Trial */ add reason why Christian was chief justice and why he was bypassed in this case  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment "had the Bishop of Ely appointed right to try the rioters" - I need help here I think. It is supposed to mean that the Bishop of Ely has had the right to appoint the Chief Justice of the Isle of Ely since 970. Under this long held right, Edward Christian was appointed by the Bishop in 1800. It was thus Edward Christians right (as he had been appointed by the Bishop) to try the rioters on his own. The government of the day disagreed. The government (Lord Sidmouth the home secretary) created a special commission to try the rioters and as part of this appointed two judges himself - thus by-passing Edward Christian. Christian ignored this and attended (and indeed took part) in the trials himself (as well as the two government appoint judges) --Senra (Talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done? Reworded to hopefully make more sense --Senra (Talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Lead, "passing the Vagrancy Act 1824 ... (although I was following the wiki article names) --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment Background, "52 shillings (£153 at present worth,[4] ... 1 quarter = 2 stone; see Imperial_units#Mass. If you think this needs clarifying, then sure. Incidentally, I believe one quarter is a quarter of a hundredweight (cwt) and one quarter is half a bushel and one quarter is 2 stone or 28 pounds --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed wikilinked quarter  Done --Senra (Talk) 21:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment Surrounding area, "onto Downham Market (Downham)"... avoiding confusion (badly I guess). Downham Market is known locally as Downham which is in Norfolk whereas Little Downham, known as Little Downham is in East Cambridgeshire. Again, if you think this needs explaining, please say so --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done --Senra (Talk) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed Surrounding area, "The magistrates agreed; a modus vivendi; ... I need to work on this --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done remove a modus vivendi; --Senra (Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Done tried to reword this but difficult as sources are poorer --Senra (Talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Littleport, "a disorganised group of 56 residents". ... removed disorganised --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Littleport, "where Robert Johnson was the landlord.... removed landlords name (not connected in any way) and restructured sentences --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment Littleport, "Burgess, the lighterman". What is a lighterman? ... The wiki article, Lightermen does not do the trade justice as it implies only on the Thames. But e.g. see "Waterman and Lighterman". Retrieved 18 September 2010. --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed wikilink and reference the word lighterman who uses his lighter (barge) to carry passengers between Littleport and Downham Market  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment Littleport, "the rioters destroyed his goods and chattels ... OED says chattels QED? --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Second, did Vachell receive the money as reimbursement for his losses? Why him and apparently no one else? He did recieve as a result of damages (now ecplained in article) but sources do not record anyone else getting damages --Senra (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Silver-ware is my bad --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed Rather than adding a note next to every use of "as of 2010[7]" ... I thought I had done this - I will fix --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done --Senra (Talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Ely, "despatched". Wouldn't it be "dispatched"? ... Both are correct (OED) but dispatch is more modern --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed Ely, "On being told that they wanted 'the price of a stone of flour per day' ... will work on this --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done reworked sentence and added prose --Senra (Talk) 20:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done Ely, "Ely magistrates drafted a response, pictured," ... --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed Execution, "costing five-pound five-shillings". ... Not sure. The intention here was to draw out the fact that they paid over the odds for the cart but I have not done this well. Let me work on this --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done added prose to explain --Senra (Talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• agreed  Done One sentence sections, such as that of the "Media" ... --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you have taken to go through this. If I have annotated with agreed I entirely agree and have either fixed it or will fix it. If I have fixed it, please strike. If I comment only, it means I have not made any changes and would welcome your further input (or strike whichever is appropriate) --Senra (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued support. This is very useful. I need a little more time. I will address the rest tomorrow --Senra (Talk) 22:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

All done I think? By the way, I do not consider any of the above nit-picking. All your points seem reasonable to me. I will put this in for GAN (unless you disagree) or perhaps straight as a FAC? Thank you so much for your help --Senra (Talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It all looks good - very nice work! I usually go through GAN before FAC (the more eyes the better), but it can take a long time, so if you're in a hurry for some reason... Also, before FAC, I would suggest asking Malleus to take a look through it. He usually only does pre-FAC work (no sense copyediting if there are going to be major revisions later, I guess), but his copyediting has been a god-send to me. I can get through GAN on my own power, but FAC is a bit more difficult :) Please let me know if you have any further questions. Again, nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Galveston Pirate SC

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it back in June and have yet to get a full rating. All comments are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Treyvo (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a C. It's an ok article with no outstanding issues, but the simple lack of seasons, as it is a new club, is a handicap writing-wise. Cheers, ResMar 19:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article is in such an early stage of development that it's hard to say much, but here are a few things to keep in mind as you proceed.

• A good rule of thumb for meeting the requirements of WP:V is to provide a source for every set of statistics, every claim that is apt to be questioned, every direct quote, and every paragraph. The first paragraph of the "History" section needs a source or sources, for example, and the Perkins quote in the "Change of ownership" section needs an in-line citation directly after the final quotation marks.

• Articles that have attained featured status are often worth looking at for ideas about how to develop an article. You'll find a list of sports articles at WP:FA#Sport and recreation.

• An image or images would be good. You can take your own and upload them, and there are other possibilities.

• Date ranges, page ranges, and scores take en dashes rather than hyphens. I ran a script to fix these, but you'll need to be aware of this as you add new scores.

• Head and subheads generally use a capital letter only on the first word and on proper nouns. Thus, "Preseason Bang" should be "Preseason bang", and "Change of Ownership" should be "Change of ownership".

• The Manual of Style encourages telegraphic heads and subheads and discourages the repetition in heads and subhead of important words that appear in the article title. Thus, "Top Five Galveston Pirate SC Matches at Kermit Courville Stadium" would be much better as "Top five home games".

• The Manual of Style advises against "trivia" sections, which attract more trivia. If something in this section is important, try to include it in one of the other sections as you go along. If something in this section is truly trivial, delete it, and delete the section.

• WP:MOSBOLD suggest using italics for emphasis, if necessary, rather than bolding, which is reserved for special use. I don't think you need bolding or italics for any of the information under the "Team officials" head, which is automatically bolded. I would also advise using italics sparingly. The more you use them, the less impact they have.

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. The easiest fix if probably to stick with m-d-y throughout; e.g., July 17, 2010, rather than 2010-07-17.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Huron Tract

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…the Huron Tract is an important historical enigma of Canadian history. It's neither an event, nor a person or object...but it is closely related to the Canada Company. I'd like to hit the right note with the discussion on this topic.

Further, it is the best concrete example of the colonial government cessation of Native land and would do very, very well with some First Nation input.

I'd also like some help with the infobox which is way too huge. I've used the infobox that seems appropriate, but either I need a different infobox or help with resizing.

Thanks, CJ_WeißSchäfer 01:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC) This looks like it could be a great article, and it's obvious that you know a lot about the subject, but before I could possibly go into an in-depth review of this there are two things which would need to be sorted out.

• Just as a first point, this article needs a gallery. All of the photographs/paintings appear to be very relevant but they're cluttering up the article at the moment and it doesn't look good. A gallery at the bottom would fix that and look very tidy. That would help with the infobox issue as well.

• The article also appears to be rather wordy. It looks wonderful but what do you mean when you say The Huron Tract was an 'instrument'. I don't even know what it was let alone how it could be used as an instrument! How does it relate the to Reign of Terror? What is the connection there? What is the first nation island? I know you have in-wiki links but putting the subject of the article in context is very important in the lead and it doesn't get much clearer to a complete lay-person like me later on either. This shouldn't be too difficult for someone with such an obvious depth of knowledge to do!

I'll happily review again after these things have been done!

---

Herbert Charles Wilson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nom this for FA sometime in the near future. A concern was raised regarding the length - while it can be improved, (I'll keep looking), I believe it's adequately comprehensive as it is, and I'd just like some general comments on how it is, and if it even has the chance to make FA.

Thanks, Connormah 17:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

Politics

• Best to explain a bit of the Speech instead of asking readers to jump to another biography to find out.

Post-territorial politics

• "... due to a dispute over town funds ..."

  What was the dispute about and what form it took such that he resigned and made that statement?

Personal life

• "Charles Wilson Jr served in the 49th Battalion, and was killed in action at the Battle of Sanctuary Wood in 1916."

  Is the battle actually named that? Sanctuary Wood Commonwealth War Graves Commission Cemetery states the Battle of Mount Sorrel. Jappalang (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Images

• File:Herbert Charles Wilson - full.jpg

  Was it really published (i.e. printed in copies that were distributed to the public)? City of Edmonton Archives states only "Creation date: 1895", part of the "Northern Alberta Pioneers and Old Timers' Association fonds".

  • It's from the City Archives website, but linking never works, it always turns up as a dead link. Connormah (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Um, I may have not been clear. I question its publication because there is a tag on the image page that claims it to be public domain in US (usually because the image was published before 1923). The Archives does not state it to be so; it only states the date as that of creation. As images stored on Commons need to be public domain in the US (aside from being public domain in its country of origin), what qualifies this image of that status in the US?
    • Will look into it. Connormah (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Herbert C Wilson.jpg

  I believe its origin from a collage would indicate publication (since such collages were typically found in a book like this); however, this might not stand up to scrutiny at FAC. Best to find the exact publication.

The article gives an overview of the man, but I feel like I was left out of what he exactly did. It is a bare-bones account of his political career: he helped convey a petition, he delivered a reply, he revised laws. What did he do, specifically (what sort of revision, any bill or policy he personally shape or create, etc)? Did he as a politician have any influence? Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I haven't had time for a detailed look at the prose, but here are a few points for attention. I apologise if these have been covered by earlier reviewers:-

• The infobox is rather large and dominating for a fairly short article. It seems that the information relating to Wilson's political offices, which is given in full at the end of the article, could be very briefly summarised in the infobox, thus reducing the box to a size more consistent with a shortish article.
• I have re-sited the Speaker portrait into the appropriate section, and have reduced its size via upright. It still spills over to the following section, but that is unavoidable unless the text is extended.
• I have also resized and resited the older Wilson portrait at the end of the article, so that it now displaces only one section heading rather than two.
• Ninety per cent of the citations are to one source, which is a problem. I can see the difficulty; provincial Speakers don't attract full-length biographies or get much attention from historians. However, I wonder if there are local sources, e.g. newspapers, provincial histories, etc, that could be drawn on?
• The citation of Wilson's birth year in the first line would be better placed in the Early life section
• You need to be consistent about the use of "Speaker" and "speaker". Both are used interchangeably at present.
• Although, as I say, I haven't gone through the prose, I did notice this sentence in the lead: "The son of a manufacturer, Wilson's family had extensive business interests in the area of Picton, Ontario." This is ungrammatical and needs rephrasing. A possible version would be "His father was a manufacturer, and the family..." etc. Also, I imagine that "Territorial Council" should be fully capitalised. A thorough copyedit of the entire article is recommended. I also find myself in agreement with Jappalang's comment about the article's paucity of detail, and feel that it needs some expansion before a shot at FAC is viable.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into these. Connormah (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

John Key

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it passed as a GA, however the review was done by a pretty inexperienced editor, and although he passed it straight away (without a hold), I doubt that it is actually up to GA standard. What needs to be done to ensure it stays a good article, and what needs to be done to eventually raise it up to FA standard? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• The article is rather short when the subject is a current prime minister. This means that the infobox is disproportionately large. The photograph seems rather oppressively oversized, as does the scrawl of signature. Also, it isn't necessary to include everything about the subject in the infobox. Why have the information about his various offices both here and at the end of the article? The infobox could be much shorter.
• The lead is too short and does not summarise the entire article.
• Image placement: it is inappropriate to have the image of Key celebrating his 2008 victory right at the start of the article. It should be more appropriately placed, in the section in which this event occurs.
• Personal life: The prose seems rather magaziney; it is not necessary to name the children again (they are named in the infobox), nor to mention his wife's role as a full-time mother. The section is also a little short on details about Key. I know accountants are deemed to be irretrievably boring, but is he an entirely one-dimensional figure? Something - anything - to give him some depth would make the article more interesting.
• Before politics: Section should not begin with a pronoun. Overlinking: foreign exchange (everyday term)
• Member of Parliament: The table is, to me, incomprehensible without some explanatory text. What do the headings "Term" and "List" mean? The relevant results are given in the text, so does the table serve any purpose?
• Finance spokesman: Apart from the mention of Key's appointment, this short section is about something else entirely. Is there no information to be given as to how Key performed this role? Also, information is completely lacking to explain his rapid rise to party leader. Were there other candidates for the post? Was there an election, and what was its outcome? This is essential information for a biographical article on a politician. You don't even give the date on which he became leader.
• The narrative concerning Key's time as opposition leader seems to consist of anecdotes. OK, these may be interesting or even important, but we need to know something about the political climate of the times, and have a sense as to how Key operated in this climate. What government policies did he focus his attacks upon? What policy alternatives was he offering? What was the climate of opinion at the time - what did the opinion polls show, etc etc? The section is incomplete and inadequate as it stands.
• Prime minister
  • Nothing about the election campaign?
  • The results indicate that Key needed a coalition partner to form a majority government. Who was this partner?
  • What does "overhang" mean?
  • As with the previous section, this is mainly anecdotal trivia and doesn't give any kind of a picture of a statesman in office. And why is his appearance on Letterman in a section supposedly concerned with a UN Security Council seat bid? Surely there should be some discussion of this bid - why was it made, and what was the outcome?
• Political views: I won't say much, except that you say he has changed his views on the Iraq war since becoming leader of the opposition. You don't say when this change occurred, or what his current views are. That information would be interesting.
• Religious views: I don't think this section has any justifiable place in the article, since Key's religion, or lack of it, has never been a political issue. Or, if it has, this should have been discussed earlier in the article.

As you will have gathered from my review, I believe that this article needs considerable expansion if it is to come near to meeting the "comprehensive" criterion as required by FAC. It might be an idea to look at other prime minister articles that have made it to FA; the most recent I can think of is John Diefenbaker. I hope that you found this eview helpful; please note that I haave not checked out sources or image licences. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just found this review and wanted to make a quick comment. Some good articles about Prime Ministers to compare this with are David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill, all of which are currently listed as Good Article. Doing a quick search, the only Featured Article I came across (apart from the one mentioned above) is Neville Chamberlain, though I'm sure there are others. Hope this helps. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of UFC events

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like recommendations on what needs adding/changing to get this list to a featured list. I know it's currently nowhere near FL status, but I'm looking for recommendations, considering my lack of knowledge/experience in FL matters.

Thanks, Paralympiakos (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this list, here are some suggestions for improvement with FLC in mind.

• First off the previous peer review still has some useful suggestions - the lead needs to be expanded and the article needs some images. I would look at WP:LEAD and add material to the lead or as an introduction to the list that provides context to the reader. How are the events decided / named / scheduled? Why are some numbered (UFC 55) and others named but not numbered? Why is there a UFC 37.5? It also might help to specify what goes on in a typical event - is it just one match or are there several? Some of the more recent titles make it sound like there is just one match.
• Since 158 events have taken place, it seems very likely that there will be free images of at least some events and of some of the fighters. There should at least be a lead image, and many tables like this will have a series of images along the right edge.
• The disambiguation finder tool on this page finds four dab links that need to be fixed
• The external link checker finds one dead external link and two suspicous links
• Since it is a sortable table, I am not sure the separate lists of event locations are needed - it seems as if you can just sort the table and see that.
• Biggest problem I see with this list making FLC after the lead is expanded is an apparent lack of references. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If a general ref applies, you can put it in the column header.
• The refs given do not all provide the needed information. Nine of the eleven inline citations (under Fottonotes) are just a URL. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I note the nav box at the bottom lists events as major or minor. This should be discussed in the lead or intro, and should probably be indicated in some way in the table.
• I would also make sure that the references used meet WP:RS - not sure what makes mmafrenzy.com a reliable site, or several of the others used. I am not into this sport, so have no idea what the standard references are, but I would imagine some print (book, magazine, newspaper) sources must have been written on this since its start in 1993.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many sport FLs that may be useful models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

A1 (Croatia)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for GA. Any feedback is welcome and appreciated!

Thanks, Tomobe03 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief comment: I think the title needs to give a better indication of what the article is about. Although to UK readers "A1" might suggest a road (I live within a mile of the British A1), I doubt whether all readers will make the connection. Why not "A1 motorway (Croatia)"? Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but this issue has been subject of a debate some time ago and it was apparently decided to change name of the article to "A1 (Croatia)". However there is a redirect from "A1 Motorway (Croatia)" to the article. Thanks for the comment though.

Finetooth comments: Thank you for writing an article about Croatia for the English Wikipedia. This was an interesting article to read. A lot of work has gone into it, and it has the potential to become GA. However, it is not ready for GAN yet and will need more work to get there. Here are some suggestions:

Copyediting

• I did quite a bit of proofreading and copyediting through the top sections, but the whole article needs a careful line-by-line copyedit.

Agreed - the article has been submitted for WP:GOCE copyediting.

 Done Copyediting done by User:WikiCopter following a request through WP:GOCE

Map

• It would be really helpful if the map had labels showing the major cities and towns. Also helpful would be a key explaining the meaning of the colors and shading variations.

The key has been added. I'll see what can be done about the labels...

Overlinking

• There's no need to link things like Hrvatske Autoceste, Dubrovnik more than once in the lead and once on first occurrence in the main text.

 Done Additional links (and then only the third such link in the article) are left only in the exit list table in order to make the table more functional.

Lists

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose where feasible. Aside from tables, the article has five lists. At least some of these could be written in straight prose.

 Done

Lead

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. The existing lead is a kind of introduction but does not summarize the entire article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. In other words, you need something in the lead about bridges, tolls, tunnels, the surrounds, the history, and so on. WP:LEAD has details.

 Done

Route

• Some of the paragraphs in this and other sections lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to include at least one source per paragraph and to cite a source for any statistics, direct quotes, or claims that are unusual or apt to be challenged.

 Done

• The Manual of Style advises against extremely short paragraphs or sections. Two of the last three paragraphs in this section are one-sentence orphans. It would be better to expand them or merge them.

 Done

• "was reported to be 78.7 million Croatian kuna" - Could that also be expressed in U.S. dollars? Most readers of English will have no idea how much a kuna will buy. Or perhaps euros would be OK since you convert some later kuna figures to euros.

 Done

• Shouldn't ENC be ETC? "most notably the ENC which is also valid for all other motorways in Croatia" - Abbreviations should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use; i.e., Electronic toll collection (ETC). Ditto for ECOSOC later in the article.

 Done

History

• "However it must be pointed out that government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - What source says it must be pointed out? Probably it would be better to delete this part of the sentence and simply say, "However, the government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina... ".

 Done

Traffic volume

• MOS:COLLAPSE advises against using collapsing boxes in the main text area of an article.

Replaced the table with a chart.

 Doing...Tried arrangements with the chart without and with data labels to find out it does not convey details as well as the table. Will retain the collapsible table, while addressing expanding issues with a thumbnail chart in the section.

 Done As described above.

References

• The citations lack access dates. Usually these appear as "Retrieved September 1, 2010" at the end of the citation. Other citations like citation 15 lack author information that is readily available (Marina Biluš in this case). A good rule of thumb for web citations is to include author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access if these are known or can be found. The date parameter in the citation template is meant for the publication date; use the "accessdate" parameter for the date of most recent access.

 Done

• Since dates in Croatia are normally written in d-m-y (1 September 2010) format rather than m-d-y format (September 1, 2010), you might consider using d-m-y.

Since the month appears spelled out, I think there is no possibility for confusion so I left them in m-d-y format.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, your comments have been most helpful!--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

---

2010 Baja California earthquake

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wondering wat stands between it and a possible GA. If a GA is out of the question (not so notable in terms of damage and loss of lives), could I get some pointers on pushing this to a B?

Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• Checklinks (toolbox on the right) show 6 dead links (USGS, Yahoo and San Jose Mercury News); please fix them.

Lede

• Opening sentence is pretty much a run-on sentence. Break it into two sentences.

• "The strongest shaking was felt in the ejido ... at Mercalli intensity scale VIII (Severe)."

  Somehow it reads wrong to me (the shaking was at(?) VIII)...

• Second paragraph is too short on its own; consider merging it to one of the other two paragraphs.

• "... (since the 1992 Landers earthquake (M 7.3)), ... "

  Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Brackets and parentheses, nested brackets should have different bracket types for each level of nesting.

Precursors and foreshocks

• The entire sub-section seems too brief in content to glean any useful information. What was the last quake to have struck this area? What were its effects? Did it cause people to expect (and implement) certain measures against another quake?

Overall (not listing by specific location)

• What makes EQECAT an authority on estimating economic losses?

• Is a chronology of events needed (aside from being what I feel dull and not well organized), or would it be better to describe the events as a whole?

• "It remains to be seen how the ..." is not particularly encyclopaedic.

• Several paragraphs comprise one or two short sentences, making the article a bumpy read.

• One [citation needed] seen, as well as a couple of unreferenced paragraphs.

Images

• File:Laguna Salada fault - USGS map.gif and File:Response imgs for quake.jpg

  No source link (see WP:CITE#IMAGES).

• File:April 2010 Baja California earthquake intensity USGS.jpg

  Why is the latest version not used?

• File:Usgs 201004041854.png

  Source uses a different design.

  That's the current sitrep. I don't know how I'll be able to get a valid source for this image that doesn't change, so I'll try and add a date. Buggie111 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Mexico States blank map.svg

  What data or public domain source did the author create the map from?

Right now, I think the article could qualify for B with a little work (adding inline citations to sources, a little bit of reorganization), but attaining GA would require some more work in terms of resolving the above and improving the prose. Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit seemed to fly under my wachlist. I'll look into it when I have time. Buggie111 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Donald Brashear

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this a GA and I'm not sure about some thing.

1. I'm not sure if the intro is long enough and if not any suggestion on how to expand it.

2. The section subheadings, I used a very vague early career, mid-career, and later career and not sure if they should be changed. Common hockey articles have "team (years)" as the heading but since Brashear was such a journey man the sections would be too small to justify their own sections. I could make them "team-team (years)" but i want to keep some dividers in place since the article is long.

3. I had someone look at it for grammar so it shouldn't too bad but another pair of eyes can't hurt.

4. The awards section is a common thing on hockey articles but there is only one award and it is mention in the prose, I am wondering if I should just scarp it entirely.

Plus anything else thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• There is significant information about Brashear's past that is from his website, thus lacking detachment from the events. Is there a biography or third-party source about these events?

  The only source I found I used but it didn't talk much about his life after he moved to Canada. I used the info from his website because I felt it met the stipulations set forth on the BLP page:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

  In what way is "Brashear moved in with his mother and his new stepfather in Lorretteville, Quebec. He suffered further abuse in his new surroundings," not making claims about third parties? When abuse is discussed, someone (a third party) surely becomes the abuser. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot that I had used it as a reference there. I used it in that instance because it specifically stated further abuse where as the Washington Post article implies it. I have removed it from that statement, and all other uses should fall under the above list.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• He just became good enough for the professional league at the age of 22? What was his formative period (the time of his childhood and teens when he forms his skills)?

  It was very difficult to find information from his youth. I could turn his junior stats into prose that would make up a couple of sentences.

  Please avoid doing that. We need information on how he became the man he is in his later years, not words that describe numbers. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As an undrafted player he was most likely not a stand out and there probably wasn't much coverage of him during his junior career. Any that did exist have proven elusive.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• US's 12th place finish needs a cite.

  Currently looking for a cite. Referenced.

• What else did he do besides hockey and fighting? Does he have any ideals or goals? Does he affiliate himself with certain organizations?

  Added a bit about a construction company he started in 2007. I'll try and find more but personal information has been very difficult to find.

  That might become an obstacle to higher level of assessments as GA asks for "broad" coverage while FA asks for "comprehensive". Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... protect his teammates if an opponent is deemed to be crossing a line."

  Figuratively or literally "crossing a line"?

  Changed to taking liberties to clarify.

  Umm... as far as I know "taking liberties with <someone>" in common speak implies sexual molest... As far as I can tell, that is not what we should be expecting here. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reword in hopes of clarifying.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• "He could create energy for his team ..."

  I doubt human beings can become electrical generators; look to the word "inspire".

  "Energy" is a common expression in hockey. Certain players or lines are labeled as "energy players" or "energy lines", so as of right now I put energy in quotes. Due to the previous reasons and since the reference uses the word energy when talking about what Brashear can bring to the team.

  Write for the common person, not hockey fans. This is akin to the advice given to those who write about video games. Ice hockey is not so technical a game that it cannot be made accessible to everyone (Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable). Even in quotes, creating "energy" still is a question. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed it around a bit and took your advice to use "inspire" to remove jargon. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... if he wasn't so feared."

  Contractions (xxxn't, xxx've) should be avoided.

  I put it in quotes since it was taken from the THN article, but could change was not or something similar.

  My apologies for that example; the issue is with "... to start a fight with him and didn't mean to hit his head. McSorley was found guilty but wasn't sent to jail", which are not quotes. Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out I still have trouble now and then with using contractions. I have rewrote the two in question and took a quick look for others. Outside of the THN quote I don't think that there are any others.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why is The Hockey News not italicized on second mention?

  I just forgot to do it while I was writing and didn't notice later.

  Fixed

• "... from their mother, Gabrielle Desgagne his common-law wife, ..."

  There should be a comma after "Desgagne".

  Fixed

• Please see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing on issues with such constructs.

Perhaps a copy-edit is in order. The more worrisome item the sourcing of a major portion of his early life to his own website. I agree that the Awards section should be removed. Jappalang (talk)

I also removed the Transactions section since it was redundant as well.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken care of some of the things above, but still need to address a couple of things. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Eustrombus gigas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to prepare it for a future FA candidacy. A considerable amount of new information has been added since the GA nomination.

A complete MOS review is a dire need.

Thanks, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

First sentence is ungainly. I'd drop the fromer scientific name from here and go with:

" Eustrombus gigas, commonly known as the queen conch, is..."

 Done Agreed! I understand, since S. gigas is already listed as a synonym in the taxobox, repeating that information in the intro would be rather redundant.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is "Caribbean faunal zone" in quotation marks?

 Done This term needs a better definition. I will alter the text according to Spalding et al. 2007. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

More recently, Simone (2005) gave a detailed anatomical description of the species - I'd prosify this by having the person's whole name and writing "in 2005" rather than year in parentheses.

 Done It's now prosified!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Taenioglossan - a what?? (link or explain)

 Done That's true. It is now wikilinked.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The critical nursery habitats for juvenile individuals are defined by a series of combined factors, both habitat characteristics and ecological processes, which together provide high rates of both recruitment and survival - leaves us hanging - what are the factors?

 Done Added examples of each factor.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Small paras and segemented text are ungainly in Other uses section. Try to expand and/or combine paras.

 Done I reorganized the text from a logical point of view; First paragraph discusses other uses for queen conch shells altogether. The second one discusses conch pearls.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, promising. Taht's something to start on, more later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Best, --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha

• Is there anything to link "Caribbean faunal zone" to? Red links are not a problem.

 Done Text has been updated according to Spalding et al. (2007), and is now linked.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• You should be consistent in using or not using the serial comma.

 Done Removed all the serial commas I could find. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why aren't all synonyms cited? Also, the citations appear to be to the original descriptions; I think we instead need references that establish that these are synonyms of E. gigas. (You may also want to use the |synonyms_ref= field to cite all the synonyms; Oryzomys antillarum, for example, has a citation to a source that lists the synonyms of the species.)

 Done Why not mix both ideas? Now all synonyms have citations to their original descriptions, and a reference that establishes them as synonyms is cited in the |synonyms_ref= field. Pretty much complete! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's what I also did, but I guess I wasn't quite clear here. :) Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.worldwideconchology.com/fam/Strombidae.shtml a reliable source? Even if it meets the bar for reliable sources, it is probably not a high-quality source, which are preferred in FAs.

 Done Though the information there may be supported by literature (they do cite some references now and then), there's nothing to make the site itself a reliable source. It has been removed. In fact, the statement about strombidae (or rather stromboidea in a wider sense) taxonomy may also be supported by Simone (2005), Latiolais (2006) and Landau (2008).

• The information about etymology appears to be unsourced.
• I don't think the Paleobiology Database should be considered a reliable source; it's got some things wildly wrong in mammals. The citations appears to be unnecessary, too—the citation to Landau et al. (2008) already provides sufficient sourcing for the sentence.

 Done Agreed, and removed. The article by Landau itself is quite enough. What you've said comes as a surprise... I really thought PaleoBase was a reliable source! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I assume Linnaeus based his description on the image in Recreatio mentis? If so, it would be nice to mention it explicitly.

 Done Not really, no. Linnaeus probably described the species based on a specimen from his personal collection, or such. That we'll never know. What we do know is that no such specimen survived the flow of time, and no type specimen existed until Clench & Abbott selected the figure-type from Recreatio mentis, in Johnsonia 1 (1). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• The centered images disrupt the flow of the prose, and there may well be a MOS rule against them.

 Done A few changes have been made by another user. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of the "Early illustrations" subsection doesn't seem to belong there.

 Done Paragraph removed! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't the shell also part of the animal's anatomy?

Certainly, but there is a reason why to describe the shell before the rest of the animal's body. It's a standard procedure in malacology to divide anatomical descriptions into hard parts (mainly the shell) and soft parts (everything else but the shell). This procedure has been adopted by wikiproject gastropods. The vast majority of gastropod species descriptions are based on shell features. In most cases it's all you need to identify a specimen up to species level. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the shell is part of anatomy, and it is odd to have it outside the "Anatomy" section. Perhaps have an "Anatomy" section with subsections "Shell" and "Soft parts"? Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, yes. But before I do any changes, I'll have to discuss this topic with project gastropods.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

 DoneI went ahead and decided to Be Bold and place shell description and soft parts description under one heading, Anatomy. As yet Project Gastropods does not have any FA articles, especially not species articles, so I assume we will have to be open minded and find out what works best for this by trial and error. Invertzoo (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The long list of localities under distribution seems ungainly. You could perhaps replace it by a table, or remove it entirely and just have a general outline of the distribution. Are these just places where it happens to have been recorded or is there a biological reason Aruba is on the list while Curaçao is not? Also, you list South Carolina, but the map doesn't show it occurring there. And can you clarify what the reason for the dispute on the Brazilian distribution is? Are the records dubious or is the taxonomy confused?

I'll inspect this list closely. About the Brazilian distribution, as far as I know there is only one record of E. gigas off the northeastern Brazilian coast, and no voucher was deposited in any museum collection. Several Brazilian specialists believe this was a misidentification by the author, which got carried out in the literature. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does Parker merit a link?

 Done Well, why not? I could create a stub, and a biographical memoir may be found here, for a future expansion. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's best to drop the subsections from "Human uses", as "Other uses" is rather weak and the section is not overly long.

 Done Agreed, subsections removed. Is it an option to leave them there as bold text for organizational purposes? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the same arguments would apply against such bold text. Ucucha 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Animal Diversity Web is not a reliable source.

 Done I agree, and it is not necessary in the end, since there are other reliable references for the same info. Removed. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That'll do for now; I'll probably have some more comments on reliability and consistency of references. Ucucha 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Ucucha! Thank you very much for dropping by, and for your constructive criticism! I'll be reading and answering to each comment. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Shyamal

• A good read, especially for someone who does not know much about mollusks.

Thank you! We've been working in this article for quite a while, now. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• The taxonomy section dwells a bit too much on the issue of type specimens. It is quite normal for Linnean descriptions to lack "full specimen" types (the type designation requirement was added much later) and to be based on illustrations.

This is true, but I believe it is an interesting information nonetheless, even for the average reader...Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• A search on Google Scholar with "Strombus gigas" (with quotes) and "Eustrombus gigas" produces a number of references and many of these are not found in the reference list. They may not be important, but it is a quick check for depth of referencing. There are papers on fisheries (culture/stock management), growth, shell mechanical structure and these topics do not seem to be sufficiently covered.

doi:10.1016/0165-7836(88)90005-7 doi:10.1051/alr/2009043 pdf pdf etc.

Hi Shyamal! I'm really happy that you responded to my invitation. Thank you! I'll be reading and answering to each comment ASAP. Best regards, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Sasata

• "…is a species of very large edible sea snail" vague - how up giving an upper size limit?

 Done I rewrote the two first sentences in the intro, and now mentioned maximum shell length.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• "This is one of the largest mollusks…" This->it

 Done Modified as suggested.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think all of the foreign-language common names need to be included in the lead… this is English Wikipedia. The whole sentence and its multiple citations should be moved to the article body.

 Done Regional common names moved to the article body by user Invertzoo. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• why is the CITES agreement cited in the lead? Isn't the citation in the article body sufficient?

 Done True, that's odd... Removed!Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• LeadArticle needs a copyedit to improve the flow of prose; it currently sounds a bit clunky. Some specific examples:

• "This was the first book that was ever published that was solely about seashells."

 Done Fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The shells are however shown as if balancing on the edge of the lip and/or the apex, impossible balance positions for these shells." awkward

 DoneTried to improve this, also can be omitted if preferred. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Over a hundred years later, a later colored illustration" ?

 Done Sorry, a typo, now fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• "… weighting up to 5 pounds."

 Done Sorry, another typo that was overlooked, now fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• "*ensure that occurrences of the short form E.nbsp;gigas have a non-breaking space

 Done Added nbsp; to all occurrences (even to the taxobox... is this usual?) Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The taxobox automatically puts {{nowrap}} around the species name, so it's not necessary. Ucucha 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think I read somewhere that one shouldn't start a paragraph, let alone a section, with "This"

 Done True indeed. Rewrote all I could find. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• How about a direct link to Linnaeus original description? Will make this article a more valuable resource for future snail scholars. Also, the entire first paragraph is incorrectly sourced to this citation. I doubt that Linnaeus, in 1758, knew that his chosen name Strombus gigas, would remain in effect for 200 years.

 Done Repositioned the reference. About the direct link to the original description, do you know any link we could use? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

One can find the book Systema Naturae via Google Books, here [6]. The genus Strombus is listed on page 80, but I have not yet located the species description, still looking. Invertzoo (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, now I think this is probably not the 10th edition, so maybe does not have the species description in it? Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• where where the type specimens (which were lost) being kept?

I can say with a certain degree of certainty that it was a shell of the Linnean collection (but then I don't know a reference that clearly states this); Yet no one knows for sure, and no type specimen could be tracked. That's why Clench & Abbott designated a figure-type in the end.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So now I've read this Catalogue of the Uppsala University Museum of Evolution, stating that the type specimen does exist, and is in the UUZM collection. It seems that Ohner (1953) found that S. gigas shell of the linnean collection, which Linnaeus used in his original description. I wasn't able to obtain this paper (or book, I don't really know), and it is not in the Zoological Record, but the UUZM catalogue should be reference enough, shouldn't it?.Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why is Lobatus gigas not in the synonyms list? What's the story behind the synonyms in the taxobox not mentioned in the article?
• link morphology

 Done Linked! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Subadult shells have a flared lip which is however very thin." Why "however"? Are flared lips usually fat?

Yes, in fact, the shell of mature individuals have thicker outer lips. Generally, the older the specimen, the thicker the outer lip is! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• the image pileup and subsequent whitespace in "Other historic illustrations" is annoying

I agree with you ...This is awkward, but there is still text to be written in order to fill up that space. Some other books are worth mentioning, such as Chenu (1840 -1850's) and Kiener (1870-1880's). I'll work on it. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• "…at depths from 0.3 m to 18 m[28]." should be consistent in giving imperial conversions, and in placement of citations after punctuation
• "the females lay eggs in gelatinous strings, which can be as long as 75 feet." why is this one only in imperial units?

 Done Sorry, an oversight. Added 23 m. Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• link mortality rate

 Done Have linked it and added "the". Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Sasata! Thank you very much for dropping by. I'll be answering to each comment as soon as I can. Best wishes, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Invertzoo

I suppose I probably shouldn't really comment as peer review, because I have been too much involved in working on the article, but I just wanted to say:

• I agree with Shyamal that there are fisheries references out there with a fair amount of info that is not yet included in the article. That all should be added when aiming for FA, because FA requires that all available information is included (phew!).

• I am still struggling to find the best way to display the images in the "Other historical illustrations" section. I tried a gallery but that cannot take "alt text" info, which is required for FA. Any suggestions for handling those images would be welcome.

• I also think the prose itself could use more refining, to make it more engaging. We will keep working on it all.

Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Google

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Google article recently reached GA status, and I'm looking to take it further (possible FA). Any comments?

Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and broad article about Google, though not yet ready for FAC. I've made quite a few suggestions below for further improvement, although this is by no means a line-by-line review.

• Overlinking. Words familiar to most readers of English should not be linked. In the first sentence of the article, for example, multinational, advertising, and corporation should not be linked. Later in the lead, privacy, copyright, and censorship should not be linked, and a few others in the lead should be eliminated. Use links sparingly to make them more effective.

• Overlinking. Ordinarily, words should only be linked a maximum of once in the lead and once in the main text. In the first paragraph of the "History" section, for example, Stanford University should not be linked twice, and there's little point in linking California more than once in the whole article.

• Direct links. WP:MOS#Links says in part, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." The GOOG and GGQI links to websites outside of Wikipedia violate this guideline, as does the Google Patents link in the "Other products" subsection. Generally, it's best to turn these direct links into in-line citations to external reliable sources.

• No-break spaces. In constructions like "for $3.1 billion", add a no-break space to hold the digits and words together on line-break on various computer screens. WP:NBSP has details. I added these codes in about a half-dozen places in the early sections, but there are lots more further down.

• Italics. Use italics sparingly, except as required, for emphasis. For example, the long quotations in the "Privacy" section should be in plain type rather than italics.

• Proofreading. "The company began scanning books and uploading limited previews, and full books where allowed, into their new book search engine." - A company is an "it" rather than a "they". "Google" is an "it". Someone should carefully proofread the whole article for small things like this and fix them.

Lead

• "Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG, FWB: GGQ1) is a multinational public cloud computing, Internet search, and advertising technologies corporation." - Suggestion: "Google Inc. (GOOG on the NASDAQ and GGQ1 on the Frankfurt stock exchanges) is a multinational, public corporation invested in cloud computing, Internet searching, and advertising technologies." This would solve the direct link, overlink, and link bump problems. You could add inline citations for GOOG and GGQ1 or, probably better, add them to the main text.

• "Because of its popularity and numerous products, Alexa lists Google as the Internet's most visited website." - Suggestion: "Because of Google's popularity... ". Otherwise "its" seems to mean "Alexa".

• "Google is also Fortune Magazine's fourth best place to work" - Italicize Fortune; lowercase "magazine's". Ditto for other magazine and newspaper names further down in the article.

Acquisitions and partnerships

• "Google signed an agreement with an Iowa wind farm to buy 114 megawatts of energy for 20 years." - When?

References

• Some of the citations, 123 through 125, for example lack access dates. Others like citation 107, have the author's first name first when the correct order is last name first. Others, like citation 157, list a newspaper name but omit the necessary italics. The reference section should be made as mistake-free as possible before taking this to FAC. A good rule of thumb for citations to Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of those are known or can be found.

• Reliable sources. Most of your sources look reliable at a glance. However, make sure all of the others meet the WP:RS guidelines. For example, what makes webpronews.com (citation 97) reliable?

Further reading

• If the books in "Further reading" are important enough to list, why not cite them directly in the article? You may well be asked at FAC if you have read them; if the answer is "no", you will not be able to say whether the article is comprehensive or not.
• A list like this should be arranged alphabetically by author's last name. Each entry should include a place of publication.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Weezer (2001 album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am planning on making the Green Album into a Good Article. However, I don't know what else to do on the article. Hopefully, I can get some helpful comments on improvement. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts from Seegoon

I'm just going to pick through one thing at a time, as thoughts strike me.

• "Following the commercial and critical failure of Pinkerton" – our article on Pinkerton states that although it was deemed a failure at the time, it eventually grew to be pretty well-regarded. I know you come to this later on, but here you could say something about the initially negative critical and commercial reaction to the album.
• "He retreated to Harvard, but eventually dropped out to focus on songwriting" – I'd be interested to know what he studied there. Again, just for the sake of context.
• "In the Winter of 1997-1998" – I'm not sure you need to capitalise here. Same applies to 'spring' later on. Also, date ranges should be linked by an en dash (–).
• "soundtrack entitled "American Girls." – I was under the impression that Wikipedia generally used logical quotation; i.e. the full stop should be outside the quotation marks. I might be wrong here, and you can just stick to Am-En if that's the case.
• "Brian Bell worked on his band The Space Twins" – either you drop 'the' completely or de-capitalise it, considering it's not part of their name (according to their Wikipedia page).
• "the internet" – I actually think it's normal Wikipedia style to capitalise 'internet'. Weird in my books, but seemingly the done thing.
• "The positive response to the Warped Tour performances lend to further shows being scheduled." – 'led to', surely.
• "The band eventually decided to hire Ric Ocasek--who had also" – as this is American English, you should replace the double-hyphen with an unspaced em dash (—).
• "I set out to design the package exactly how I would want it, and it just turns out that it's very similar to the first album. I'm the same person as I was then, pretty much. I have the same taste so I don't see why it should be different.[44][48]" – I don't think you need two citations, particularly.
• "Mystery Science Theater 3000. (Hence the liner note citation "MST3K..." – TV shows should be italicised, per style guides.
• "come home with me?"[50]." – you can delete the full stop here.
• "debuting overseas at #31 on the UK Top 40[56]," – citation should be after punctuation.
• "In two weeks the album had sold 215,000 copies." – in total? Internationally? Could do with some specificity.
• "but nobody else does it this [sic] so well" – there's a {{sic}} template.
• "Spin placed The Green Album as the 9th best album of 2001." – italics for 'Spin' and you could probably write out 'ninth'.
• "an additional bonus track, "I Do," which was" – there is a slight inconsistency regarding commas and quotation marks here. Somewhere earlier on you place a comma outside the quotations (which makes more sense to me) and you need to keep a steady style.
• Personnel section – some articles break the listing up into band members and other personnel, using minor headings (a semicolon in wikicode), which is something I like. Some also go as far as using a two-column layout, which isn't always necessary but aesthetically can be pleasing. See Wavering Radiant for what I mean.

That's my nitpicking pretty well done, at least what I've gleaned from a once-over. More generally, there are a couple of things that would have this batted away at FAC, although I think it'd likely breeze through GAC. A Featured Article would absolutely, definitely demand more in regarding to critical reception. You have the sources there, but they haven't really been utilised fully. Likewise, a 'Music' section, featuring reviewers' analysis of the sound and musicological musings would be a nice addition. Quite a lot of work, but certainly the difference between Good and Featured. Anyway, I hope this has been helpful. Good luck with it. Seegoon (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been through GA and I want to send it to FA. It recently has had some development and expansion. I need your comments, suggestions, and recommendations for improvement. Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Toxin-antitoxin system

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about a fairly newly discovered and increasingly documented prokaryotic system of enforced heritability. I would like to prepare this article for a GA nomination. Any comments and criticisms would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jebus989^✰ 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments - mainly on the Lead section

This should serve as a gentle introduction but it's too technical from the outset. Plasmid needs to be linked or defined and that the mechanism is a means of maintaining the presence of parasitic DNA in bacteria and their progeny—what you have described as "enforced heritability" above—made clear. (Although this is term I haven't seen before, but I have seen "plasmid addiction", which is helpful). The chromosomal versions are introduced too early and would be better placed nearer the end of the section.

Agree: I will work on a simpler couple of opening sentences in my userspace Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done I hope the opening sentence is now not patronisingly simple. Should definately be more understandable though Jebus989^✰ 15:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I might help to say that their are at least three types but all rely on an unstable, short-lived antitoxin repressing a toxic protein that is more stable, and then briefly describe the types. Messenger RNA needs to be linked or defined since many readers will not understand the difference between the types where (presumably) one stops the toxin from being produced in the first place but the other inactivates it.

Agree: it was written in a confusing way, I've changed to attempt to explain that type II sytems are post-transcriptional but have therefore added more of what could be considered technical jargon! Your points about simplifying the introduction and reducing the jargon are really useful and will be the focus of my efforts on improving this article Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Although you write, "The function of chromosomal toxin-antitoxin systems is still being debated", it would be interesting to have one or two theories here. Clearly, the role of this mechanism in the context of a "selfish gene" viewpoint is very attractive.

 Done Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the exploitation of this mechanism in biotechnology deserves a mention in the Lead.

 Done: well pointed out, I have not adapted the lead since this section was added Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the section on evolutionary advantages would be better placed straight after the Lead section?

 Done I agree Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is generally well-written—and excellently referenced—but I would recommend reducing some of the technical jargon wherever possible. I think this is the major remaining issue in an otherwise excellent contribution that is worthy of GA status. Thank you for the invitation to comment on it here. Graham Colm (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Still work to be done on clarfying and simplfying this article, thanks very much for your input! Jebus989^✰ 11:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of FC Barcelona managers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get a few comments on it. Sandman888 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: FC Barcelona is becoming quite a WP industry. Here are some comments on the latest list:-

• "...dismissed four months later without winning a single title". This wording seems harsh on Barrow. How many titles was he expected to win in four months?
  • Indeed. Removed single.
• "longest-serving consecutive manager". Doesn't make sense - what is the intended meaning?
  • unimportant. removed.
• Third paragraph: probably better to begin: "As of 2010 the manager is..." The paragraph will have to be updated anyway if/when Guardiola leaves.
  • done
• The lead is short. I suggest that, rather than relying on a link to another article, you extend the lead by explaining what the "sextuple" consisted of.
  • done
• Is "La Liga" the same as the "Spanish League"?
  • clarified
• What does "TBA" mean in the first line of the table? Normally in English TBA means "to be announced" but this can't be right here.
  • TBD now
• In the second line of the table the link on John Barrow goes to a disambiguation page.
  • fixed
• Is it possible to give the period of Barrow's service more precisely? From 1917 to 1917 doesn't make much sense. The same is true to some extent for Poszony (whose dates are given as 1924-25 here)
  • If I only could...
• The information in the Notes column does not correspond to what is under the "Notes" heading after the table. For example there are 24 "A"s in the column, but only 19 letters (a - s) in the Notes heading.
  • Thanks for reviewing this. The industry is soon completed, no worries! Sandman888 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Samuel Eto'o

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could do with a pair of non-football eyes.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like a talented plater who has some issues - thanks for your work on this, but I think it needs a fair amount more work before it can be GA, let alone FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The external links checker tool on this page finds two dead links and one possible problem link. These will need to be fixed of replaced.
• Why is the article named "Samuel Eto'o" but the lead says his name is "Samuel Eto'o Fils" without further explanation? I think at least it should make clear that he is commonly known as "Samuel Eto'o" in the lead, but there needs to be more explanation of the different versions of his name.
• The lead needs a fair amount of other work. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However his training at Kadji and his Spanish passport are only in the lead. Both need to be explained in more detail in the text.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the racism section is not in the lead and should be.
• The article also uses vague time terms like "currently" where it should use phrases like "as of YEAR" or "since YEAR". I would also add years to the lead so readers will know when he was with various teams.
• I found it very odd that there is so little information on his early life. Where was he born in Cameroon? Who are his parents and what do they do? How did he satrt in sport? How did he get to Spain? The lead says he is from Cameroon and mentions his training at a club which is presumably there, and his brothers are mentioned, as well as his play with the Cameroon national team, but otherwise nothing on his life before he is already in Spain.
• Per WP:ITALIC abd WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations are in "quotation marks" and are not in italics. This is an issue throughout the article.
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Article needs more references, for example the International career section has very few refs and Career statistics has none. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. John Wark is an FA about a footballer and may be a good model.
• The language is rough in spots and needs a copyedit. Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, as they impede the flow of the prose.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks a bunch Ruhrfish, I'll implement your suggestions over the coming week. Sandman888 (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hugh Candidus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This 12th–century monk of the Benedictine monastery at Peterborough was an historian, hence my choosing this peer-review topic. If you feel that this biography should be reviewed as a philosophy and religion topic, not a problem; let me know. I have been advised to submit this article for peer-review as it may be a suitable GAN candidate. I will do all I can to assist any reviewer by addressing any issues as quickly as I am able.

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs some work before it would pass GAN, though it is not too far off - here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead is only one sentence and should be longer per WP:LEAD. One thing that could be added are his alternate names as listed in the infobox and article.
• To expand it further, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• The major problem I think that this would have at GAN is with a lack of references in places. For example the entire second paragraph of Written work has no refs, and three of the other four paragraphs end with at least two sentences with no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I would also say anything that sounds like it is quoting someone else needs a ref - "it has been remarked that" or "it has been conjectured that" - who said this?

*Current ref four is "See "Abbot of Peterborough"." with a wikilink - but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:CITE and WP:V  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC) *1st sentence of Life is long and complex and could probably be split into two.  Done --Senra (Talk) 22:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Any idea where he was born or anything about his family or more on his brother? If this is unknown, it could be mentioned that it is unknown

*Awkward Hugh's chief teachers were Abbot Ernulf and his brother Reginald, of both of whom he speaks in terms of warm affection.[1] perhaps something like Hugh's chief teachers were Abbot Ernulf and his brother Reginald; he wrote of both in terms of warm affection later in his life.[1]  Done --Senra (Talk) 09:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since he is known chiefly for his history, I would add more to the article on the history of his manuscript and critical reception / study of it by later scholars. Where are the manuscripts (or is their just one manuscript) today?
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Stigand is an FA and may be a good model. There are also numerous FAs on authors that may be good models.
• Could File:Hedda stone.jpg be used in the article - would he have likely seen it in the old church? Could a map of the location of Petersborough be added? Just trying to think of images that could be added.

• This is a useful observation though not sure if it is appropriate for the article for two reasons (1) two images would be bad (small article) and (2) there is not too much about the Hedda Stone which would allow us to confirm it was present in the monastery when Hugh was there --Senra (Talk) 22:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another way to expand the article would be to add more background and context - what were the jobs he did / positions he held in the monastery, for example?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. I will work on this over the next few days --Senra (Talk) 09:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of current sovereign monarchs

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have just recently redeveloped this list. I'd like some feedback regarding where and how other editors feel I can make further improvements.

Thanks, Nightw 04:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Comments Sandman888 (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Tables

• I'm not that crazy about the layout, it is hard to read on other devices. Consider using plain wikitables.
  • Thanks for your comments, Sandman888! The layout change was made back in 2008. Is it the colour scheme that makes it hard to read, or the actual table format used? Nightw 07:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Notes + Refs

• Per WP:ACCESS don't use collapsible/scrollable, as it wont show on mobiles.

Y Removed. Nightw 07:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• We don't start lists that way anymore, have a look at WP:FLC and check some of the list with many supports for an idea of how to start a lead section.

Y Done, although I'll need to reference it. Nightw 15:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Get rid of the background color as it serves no purpose
• Need a longer lead section
• Notes need references

—Chris!_c/t 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Chris. I've expanded the lead section. With regards to the notes, all of that information was obtained through the sources cited in the refs column on the main table. Is it necessary to put inline citations within the notes also? Nightw 15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Lat

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My first BLP! It is about a cartoonist named simply Lat, short for bulat, which means round. This man is indeed a celebrity and for mostly the right reasons. He seems to have done nothing wrong (seriously, there is no reliable source that says otherwise) and is a respected figure in his country. Southeast Asian adults readily recognise his name. I was happy to find so much information on him (I had expected only his books and its introductions), especially those from scholarly sources. I am aiming for Featured Article for this and glady welcome any comments and criticisms that would help it achieve this. Jappalang (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am carrying out a full copyedit, but there are a few points in the text which you need to address yourself. The following relate only to the first few sections; I will post more over the next few days, as I go through the article. Most of these are minor points; the article makes enjoyable reading.

• Lead
  • "Lat spent his life in the rural..." Not idiomatic; we might say "in the countryside" or possibly "in rural areas". I think the former is preferable.
    • Changed to "in the countryside". Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Lat became a reporter" - Needs a little more detail; a newspaper reporter?
    • Fleshed out per your suggestion; I am not sure if "criminal/crime reporter" might be more specific and sound better, though... Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is an editorial cartoonist?
    • Linked it to an article, but I thought it was a fairly common term?
      • It probably is, except to ignorant buggers like me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Childhood and education
  • The phrasing at the end of the first paragraph is odd, with the two key words bracketed. Would it be better to use a complete paraphrase rather than this awkward semi-quote?
    • Used the quote with slight omission of "a". Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Who are "Sinaran Brothers"?
    • The publishers, I made it more explicit. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Reporter to cartoonist
  • What is Berita Harian?
    • Umm... it is mentioned that it is the regular edition of Berita Minggu a few sentences back. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
      • So it is. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...and his regular job proved to have certain benefits to it." What benefits are you referring to?
    • Doh, it was supposed to indirectly introduce the movement of his job and such, but I later inserted his transfer detail (so I guess it broke the linkage). It does not really fit into the scheme now, so I changed the entire sentence the clause was in to "Aside from taking the job, he continued contributing cartoons to other publications." Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "groused" is informal, and very old-fashioned; "grumbled" would be more orthodox.
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "exposed to" → "introduced to"?
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The next instalment

• After the Kampung Boy
  • "A year or so later..." Too imprecise. And there isn't an obvious time reference at the end of the previoud section
    • Changed to 1981; although some sources and later versions of the book said 1980, the book (first print) itself states "copyright 1981". Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "One of the park's attractions is..." Presumably "will be", as the park doesn't open until 2011
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "His last involvement with animation was in 2009..." As he's still with us, wouldn't it be better to say "most recent" rather than "last"?
    • Agreed, it sounds better. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Aside from pulling a slight retreat from the cartooning scene..." "Pulling" in this context sound colloquial; I would say "Aside from retreating slightly from the cartooning scene..."
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• His art
  • "His" should not be in a section title, per "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer (Early life is preferable to His early life when his refers to the subject of the article; headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated)" in MOS:HEAD
    • Changed to "Art syle". Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • His portfolio was diverse" - shouldn't this be present tense?
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "Lat started out drawing cartoons in Malay..." Do you draw in a language? Would it be more accurate to say "Lat's early cartoons, such as Tiga Sekawan and Keluarga Si Mamat, were captioned in Malay" or some such wording?
    • Changed to use "narration": some of his works (such as the Perak Wedding) had long text instead of brief sentences. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Later art style
  • "was reconciliatory of" is verbose and passive voice; why not "reconciled"? Also, "Rezda's judgement" might be better than "Redza's thought", and it is not clear to me which two views his "thought" reconciled.
    • Dropped the entire train for simple "judgement"; I was trying to link the evolution of Lat's art with Redza, but the results show this to be a poor attempt. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "The art critic was not alone in having a high regard for Lat's works." Rezda or Lent?
    • I was referring to Redza (Lent is considered a comics scholar and was quoted earlier), but both are positive to Lat's art. Changed anyway to be explicit on Redza. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am unsure of the benefit of the quote box, which at present seems intrusive and also interferes with the adjacent image. Someone more adept than me can no doubt sort that out, but I am still unconvinced of its necessity.
    • I feel that Adibah's quote is an eloquent and succinct summary of the opinions on Lat's work. I dare not and find no way to summarise her view without hurting that eloquence, so I left it as a quote box. I fixed the formatting so that the box will not overlap with the image. I believe Adibah's quote (a local respected view) complement Lent's earlier thought (Western respected view), giving two cultural views of the author. Furthermore, it helped to set up a case for At a Sikh Wedding, illustrating Lat's particular sensitivity to the customs of other races. I did not set it up as a {{quote}} because I think the quote box makes for a nice break in reading (after all the earlier and before the later text) by giving an expressive opinion. Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Third instalment

(sorry this is short but I have other problems, e.g. TFA)

• Sensitive topics
  • "The local political scene grew comfortable with Lat's caricatures..." Can a "scene" grow comfortable? And what is meant here by "local"? In the UK, local politics means parish-pump stuff. Do you mean Malaysian politics (as distinct from international)? Perhaps reword as "Malaysia's political class soon grew comfortable..." etc
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "enough to compile into Dr Who?! (2004)" A published cartoon collection, presumably, but you should say so; "Dr Who" otherwise means something very different to the vast majority of Brits who watch TV.
    • Bah with the British Dr Who&madsh;<raise ruckus about systematic bias and such>—anyway, made it explicit that this is a book. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "He heeds the advice of his mentor..." We need to be reminded of this mentor's identity.
    • Rejabhad mentioned again. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The "Regardless" which begins the third sentence form the end looks unnecessary.
    • Agreed, dropped. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Interests and beliefs
  • First line "he revealed that listening to songs..." etc. Where did he reveal this?
    • Made explicit. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The quote marks around "fashionable girls" don't seem quite right - I'd get rid of them, and replace "girls" with "young women".
    • Eh, it is a quote. Is there some perculiar connotation with this phrase I am not aware of? Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You say "Malaysian society used to look down on cartoonists", implying that this was something in the past, but later in the paragraph we have "Despite the lowly reputation of his profession..." as though this still prevails. This needs clarification.
    • I meant "at that time" (now made explicit). However, he was proud at that time and remains proud till this day. Does the sentence now read better, or does it still remain confusing? Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally...

• Influences and legacy
  • In general English usage, "branding" someone as something tends to have a negative connotation – "branded a liar" etc. Thus it might be better to say "styled" or other more positive verb.
    • Yikes, changed. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The sentence "He has admirers in the cartooning field, local and abroad" reads very flatly, after the paeans of praise that precede it.
    • I tried a change, please have a look. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The paragraph break after "Rejhabad" does not look natural. It would be better to merge the paragraphs, and move the mage to the top of the section.
    • Done. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • "...look to the cartooning industry for potential careers" - is it right to talk of a cartooning industry? "Profession", perhaps?
    • Changed per your suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Self-evident sentences such as "Such cartoons did not help to sooth racial tensions that were simmering then" should be avoided. I have copyedit around here, to remove a POVish feel that was beginning to dominate.
    • Noted. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Was Lat made an Eisenhower Fellow during his second US visit, or had he received the honour previously? The sentemce needs to make the situation clear.
    • Clarified: the Fellowship was "given" to him before he arrived in the US. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We do not need declarative sentences such as "Lat stands prominent among his country men." This account of his work and influence should make that clear. Likewise, phrases such as " was accorded the honour of being" are contrary to encyclopedic neutrality. Just "became" will do.
    • Changed. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't need two accounts of his datuk award. One of the accounts should be edited out.
    • Merged. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect, the "tale" told at the end of the article is corny. Exactly the same story is asserted about celebrities the world over. It may be true, but it is far from being unique. I'd drop it.
    • Okay, removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That's about it. I have had to fit this in around various activities (i.e. multi-tasking which I am not good at) and some of my reading and copyediting has been rather hurried. I think, when you have worked through my various points, it would be good to have a final copyediting pass before the article goes forward. I'll check out your earlier responses to this review later. I've enjoyed reading about Lat, and I'd like to get to know his work better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and copyedit. It highlighted failings of my writing and improved the article further. If you are interested in more of Lat's work, I have The Kampung Boy and Kampung Boy (TV series) up as well (heh). Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

I'm concerned that there's overuse of non-free content. If I understand correctly from the current rationales, the aspects to be communicated are summarized as follows:

1. Convey Lat's humor
2. Convey sensitive/accurate portrayal of Malaysian culture
3. Illustrate Lat's detail and care
4. Illustrate handling of political topics

The five non-free images and the aspects they seem to cover are as follows:

• A. File:Keluarga Si Mamat by Lat.png (1)
• B. File:Bersunat by Lat.png (1, 2)
• C. File:Scenes of Malaysian Life by Lat.png (1, 2, 3)
• D. File:At a Sikh Wedding by Lat.png (2, 3)
• E. File:Hussein and the Pay Raise by Lat.png (1, 4)

Questions:

• Image A has a purpose related to "multiple levels of humorous interpretations". Do the other images with rationales mentioning humor (B, C and E) not contain multiple interpretations themselves? If not individually, can some combination, taken as a whole, be described as containing "multiple levels of humorous interpretations"? Why are those images not sufficient to convey understanding of Lat's use of humor?
• Image C has a purpose related to the "accuracy of cultural depiction the author" (i.e. Lat's detail, accuracy and incorporation of real life experience). Don't images B and D also accomplish this? B apparently handled a cultural aspect (an important ceremony) so well that it led to employment. Image D is described as having "naturally acute observation". Why are those images, individually or as a whole, insufficient for "readers [to] understand the accuracy of cultural depiction the author"?
• If you were to remove A and C, the "mathematical" implication is that there's still redundancy with B covering 1 (also in E) and 2 (also in D). E, however, is an oddity, and I'm not sure it's really the same 1 as the others. Its success at number 4, however, is questionable. The rationale is poor "To help readers understand the humour imbued in this art that made its author's editor, Tan Sri Lee Siew Yee, laugh" isn't helpful. We can see the cartoon, but that in no way conveys the editor's thought process, or what about it caught his fancy. It's important to distinguish the notions of importance to the subject and importance to reader understanding. This cartoon was apparently the first of Lat's political cartoons to be published (significant to the author), but that's not knowledge we gain by seeing the image. An example of a political "style" and humor may be acceptable, but the current rationale doesn't really make a sufficient case for it. Эlcobbola _talk 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Image A was specifically used because Muliyadi's specific example was this cartoon; I have reworded the fair use rationale to point out that the image is to help further the reader's understanding of the Malaysian scholar's comments.
  • I have reworded Image E's fair use rationale—it is to illustrate his style, much of which is commented with quotes. Such quoted descriptions (and likely most readers' unfamiliarity with Malaysian traditional approach to political criticism) would be helped by this piece. There is another possible cartoon (that would also have critical commentary in the vein of Image A), and it features Dr Mahathir (also mentioned in the political cartoon section). Would this be a better choice?
  • I can see the redundancies between Images B and C (both on ethnic Malay culture). I am trying to illustrate Lat's sensitive/accurate approach to Malaysian Sikh culture (a different culture/race from his). Would it be better if I eliminated either B or C, and highlight D's purpose is to illustrate Lat's sensitivity to other races? Jappalang (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm struggling with conceptually is that there's an image with the perhaps singular purpose of depicting humor amongst other images which also depict humor. It does indeed, however, give context to the commentary, so I've been trying to sort out whether supplying that context is a purpose distinct from the former. I suppose I'm satisfied that it does if you're not aware of alternative, "multi-tasking" images.
    • The revised rationale resolved the issue with E; it just needed to more clearly articulate the elements being conveyed.
    • Image B is the image I believe to be the weakest. Perhaps try giving your proposed change a try and see how successful you believe the result to be. If it doesn't work we can go back to the proverbial drawing board. Эlcobbola _talk 22:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Razer (robot)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently rewritten the vast majority of the article for Razer, a combat robot that was twice world champion on the British television series 'Robot Wars'. You might be interested to see the diff between my version as it stands now and the most up-to-date previous version. Working alongside other editors interested in this robot and series, I'm hoping that this can become the first 'Robot Wars'-related article to attain a good article stamp. It is, in my opinion, mostly well sourced for a topic whose online presence has been all but completely lost following the cancellation of the television series. There are admittedly a few small gaps in the referencing, but I am finding more and more in the archives each day.

Image-wise, I have taken a photograph of an item of merchandise produced in the image of the robot, and am in contact with one of the 'roboteers' who constructed Razer to request images for the article. (He has replied and sent me several images; they will be uploaded as soon as he confirms under which licence they should be released.) I've also messaged a Flickr user to seek permission to use his photographs. If you can suggest any free illustrations or graphics which might enhance the article, I would certainly be interested to hear your ideas.

My main question is regarding the text of the article and, in particular, the section currently headed Combat history. In your opinion, is this the best way to display such information? Is it too detailed? If so, would a format more akin to Chaos 2#Battle summary be more appropriate? Perhaps something tabular? Again, any and all comments and suggestions would be richly appreciated.

Thank you very much for your time. Best regards, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Thank you for your desire to push this article to GA standing. It is a commendable goal. My comments will therefore be in reflection of the GA criteria, and will address the specific questions you raise as well as give some general comments you may want to consider prior to nominating at GA.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of all the points in the article. See WP:LEAD. I think the design portion of the article is not fully represented in the lead (save a mention of the arm and the use of hydrolics). I recommend you read through the article and make sure that the lead is a skeletal version of the article.

 Done I've written a much longer summary of the arm as a weapon and self-righting mechanism. I personally feel the allusion to "subsequent modifications" suffices for the new wheels and thicker bodywork. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No need to link toy, watch for unnecessary linking per WP:LINK. Any words in common English usage don't need to be linked. Check throughout.

 Doing...

• What is an "antweight"?

 Done Replaced with "miniature" in the lead, with a short summary of antweight robots at the appropriate place in the body of the article. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Usually links in the lead are not necessary given the assumption that they will appear in the body of the article. Not a huge deal but something to consider.

 Doing...

Construction

• Normally in-line citations are placed at the end of the sentence rather than in the middle. Also I see a template in this section, this should be addressed.

✗ Not done

Combat history

• The wording on this sentence is a bit awkward:

Immediately after filming series 3, and keen to shed its 'unreliable' status through a victorious run in battle, Razer participated in the International Championship.

The subject is "Razer", which is an inanimate robot, how then could it be "keen" to shed its unreliable status? Instead the developers were "keen" rather than Razer. I suggest rewording.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• This quote needs a source, "Ian Lewis likened this attack to 'some horrible little kid out in the garden, pulling the legs off a spider'."

 Done Dug the tape out, and it turns out that it was Blood that said it. Have sourced and added context. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• No need to link to generic country names.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• House robots in linked late in the article, earlier uses of the term are not linked, please link an earlier use and unlink the later term.

 Done CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Razer's response was to attach a hook to the front of the arm, allowing Razer to lift the framework.

Again, Razer is an inanimate object, it could not "attach" something correct, or is it capable of switching weapons remotely during the battle?

✗ Not done A very fair point - will improve this once my copy-editing reaches Series 6/Extreme II.

• Comments to your questions about this section:

1. I feel the information is too detailed, especially in the early rounds of the tournaments. I feel this could be summarized by simply saying Razer defeated X, Y, and Z robots to advance to the semi finals or finals. Describing the significant battles that garnered Razer titles and tournament victories are fine. Does that make sense?

 Doing... An excellent suggestion, thank you! I am in the process of simmering down the prose as you suggest. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 10:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think a table or list would be better.
2. I think the prose is a bit cluttered. Here's an example:

"Equipped with the lower front wedge introduced at the start of this series, Razer was able to get underneath Spawn Again, negating the flipper, and crush their adversary until they broke down and were dropped into the pit, an open hole in the arena floor."

Remove "introduced at the start of the series" as unnecessary information, and add "a new" in stead of "the" so it would look like this, "Equipped with a new lower front wedge..."

This is just an example to help tighten the prose and make the section cleaner.

 Doing...

1. Try to expand or combine one-sentence paragraphs.
2. Your sourcing in this section is a bit light. A good rule of thumb is at least one source per paragraph. I count six possibly seven (depending on how you view in note referencing the victory streak) unreferenced paragraphs, all of which are ripe of templates.

 Doing... The victory streak note is in itself sourced, which I hope is an acceptable style for such additional information.

• Also the Extreme II section is completely unreferenced, this should be remedied.

1. The retirement section is one sentence and unreferenced. This should be expanded and cited. To that end why did it retire? What were the causes of its retirement?

References

• Take care when sourcing to Razer's website. See WP:Verify for thoughts on reliable sources. Not saying the site can't be used but be careful with it. Third party sources are far more credible.

 Doing... I'll endeavour to supplement the more widely published information (i.e., results and information which was on the programme) with third party sources.

• Otherwise the reference formatting and use of reliable sourcing is fine.

Images

• Before taking this to WP:GAC be sure to get the image license question ironed out.
• Use of non-free images is ok when necessary, I see two non-free images, which is fine but I wouldn't add any more.
• Finding images are not my strong suit. See WP:COMMONS for possible images already uploaded. Sorry I don't have many more suggestions. Generic suggestions for searching for images can be found at WP:IMAGE.

I think that does it for my review, I wish you the best in your run to GA. Please consider reviewing other articles here or at GAC in order to reduce the backlog. I don't traditionally watch review pages so if you have a question or comment please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from CountdownCrispy

Thank you for your superb and detailed response. I genuinely appreciate the time and effort that went into this, and also that you have made it so clear how to improve the article. I will work towards achieving the above targets and let you know if I have any questions. Thanks once again, CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

A Journey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becaus I'm interested to know in what direction I should be taking it. Currently the article is about 2,000 words in length and covers the topic quite comprehensively. There are more events to come with regard to this book's publication so more will be added. It also needs a picture, although I may not be able to add that myself because of problems with my browser. I would ultimately like to get this up to GA, or possibly even FA, status, so would like to know what else it may need to get to that level. Thanks, TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I haven't actually read the book yet so my summary is based on newspaper reviews of the book. It could do with someone who has read it taking a quick look to make sure all is well, adding things that are missing, etc. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments by Jappalang

• As the book was just released (and with constant news pieces), I think I can safely say that this is unlikely to be a stable article for some time. It would be best to revisit this with the aim of higher level assessments after at least half a year. Just as an example, the New York Times has released an article that gives the sales figures for this book (which is not reflected in the article here).

• Some parts are falling into recentism and sensationalism. Focus on the items that have "longer legs to stand on". Items that typically would not be bothered with after a few months have passed should be passed over or reduced in text per WP:WEIGHT. Of note, why should we have an entire quote from the person who tried to make a citizen's arrest? It does not help to clarify the situation in an encyclopaedic sense; no insight was given into the motive behind this little act or such. It was simply a descriptive statement.

• Major image issue: File:Gordon Brown at G-20.jpg is a copyright violation. It is an AP photo; it was not taken by a US government employee as claimed.

• Image conundrum: Although I replaced File:A Journey.jpg with a better image, I am not certain if this can pass WP:NFCC. The project allows for identifying pictures unless a free alternative is likely available. The book cover is simply a portrait of Tony Blair with text of his name and the book's title. Those words cannot be copyrighted and Blair certainly has free images around. The fair use rationale used for the cover is also pretty much a "cookie cutter" type (generic), thus becoming even weaker under scrutiny. One can help boost the need for this image if the article has commentary that concerns Blair's visage on the cover (critical comments on the image Blair gives on the cover); however, the only mention of the cover is "Preliminary images of the book's cover showing Blair in an open-neck shirt were also released.", which certainly would not fall under critical commentary that requires illustration to aid understanding.

Just the above after a quick read. Jappalang (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I haven't read the book either, so I can't help in that way. I assume you're going to read it, although there is an old joke about Professor A, who claimed to have taught books he had never read but was one-upped by Professor B, who claimed to have published articles about books he had never read. This is not the recommended approach even though Norman Tebitt risked it. :-) I agree with Jappalang's comments above, and I have a few other comments and suggestions.

• The citations have no dead urls, but the dabfinder tool finds one dab, "The Queen" (in the final section).

• I found and fixed a few typos and other small errors.

• Possibilities for expansion:

Should the book's length appear in the main text as well as the infobox?

How well is it illustrated? What kinds of illustrations?

Can "fastest-selling autobiography" be quantified? Since the claim applies to a rate that can vary, has the rate fallen since the first few days? My point is that "fastest-selling autobiography" sounds like an advertising slogan rather than a meaningful statistic. Can you add any statistics that would clarify just what kind of big seller the book actually is?

Lead

• "Blair is donating his £4.6m advance, and all subsequent royalties, to the British Armed Forces charity the Royal British Legion; a decision which received a mixed reception." - Misplaced semicolon. Perhaps "... British Legion; this decision has received a mixed reception."

• "Anti-war protesters disrupted a book-signing in Dublin on the weekend after the launch, leading to a similar event in London, as well as a planned launch party, being cancelled amid fears of even greater hostility." - A bit awkward. Perhaps "Anti-war protesters disrupted a book-signing in Dublin on the weekend after the launch. This led to cancellation of a similar event in London, as well as a planned launch party, amid fears of even greater hostility."

• "The memoirs received mixed reviews from the media, with the Independent on Sunday's Geoffrey Beattie calling it "revelatory" and "candid"; while The Observer's Andrew Rawnsley was critical of Blair's prose which he dismissed as "execrable", although he praised the book's honesty." - The "with plus -ing" constructions are often more awkward than various alternatives, and this sentence is a bit wordy as well. Suggestion: "Mixed reviews of the memoir appeared in the media. Geoffrey Beattie of The Independent on Sunday, called it "revelatory" and "candid", while The Observer's Andrew Rawnsley called Blair's prose "execrable", although he praised the book's honesty."

• "A Journey is reported to have been received negatively by Queen Elizabeth II, who was believed to have been disappointed that her former Prime Minister had disclosed details of private conversations between them, against protocol." - The two "to have been"s are a bit awkward. Suggestion: "According to reports, Queen Elizabeth II was disappointed that in A Journey her former Prime Minister had violated protocol by disclosing details of their private conversations."

Publication

• "Blair was heckled and jeered by anti-war protesters as he arrived for his first book-signing at Eason's Bookshop in Dublin's O'Connell Street on Saturday 4 September." - Unless there's some special reason to include "Saturday", it should be deleted. Dates in Wikipedia articles don't normally include the day of the week. Ditto for "Blair appeared on the inaugural edition of ITV's Daybreak programme on Monday 6 September" a bit further down. Ditto for "doubts over whether a forthcoming book signing at Waterstone's in London on Wednesday [8 September]".
• "Something that is not legal within the Irish Republic." - This is not a complete sentence.
• "Demonstrators consisted of anti-war protestors and republicans... " - Should "republicans" be linked to Republicanism in the United Kingdom? Or Fianna Fáil perhaps? American readers may otherwise take it to mean Republican Party (United States)

Synopsis

• Since you haven't read the book, where does the synopsis come from? Even if you had read the book, it would be good to attribute as much of the synopsis as possible to reliable sources. Each paragraph in this section needs at least one source, and each of the direct quotes needs a source that includes a page number.

• ""[h]ad not abandoned the strategy of WMD, merely made a tactical decision to put it into abeyance". - Nothing inside a direct quote should be linked.

Reviews

• "Former Tory minister Norman Tebbit wrote in The Telegraph "A Journey seems to be... " - A Journey should appear here in italics?

Images

• The Gordon Brown image has been marked for speedy deletion from the Commons on grounds of copyright violation. Perhaps you can find a free replacement.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that its very close to FL standard. I'd like a few more pairs of eyes to see if anywhere can be improved before I nominate it. At the time of writing, there are 12 red links which will be gone soon. Thanks. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Oldelpaso

• I shouldn't worry too much about redlinks, FL candidates should have a majority of bluelinks but a few reds aren't a problem.
  • Indeed, but I thought I should mention it since red links are ugly (in my opinion).
• Positions for players in the first half of the list are largely anachronistic, specifying defenders and midfielders, not half-backs and full-backs. The key already seems to account for those positions, strangely enough.
  • I should really change them over for the pre-1965 players!* Credit to WFC for that table, which I nabbed from List of Watford F.C. players.
    • On this point, why is there a key to playing position abbreviations when the abbreviations aren't actually used in the list......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I missed this comment before! I've removed it now since I agree it served no purpose. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
• The key states wartime goals are excluded, presumably the same goes for appearances. Probably best to explicitly explain that wartime matches are not generally included by statisticians rather than call them unofficial.
  • Good point. I'll add that to note C.
• I take it the expunged games from the abandoned 1939–40 season are not included.
  • Included in note C.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• *Nevermind. I did a few and previewed it just now; it made the list more cluttered and I forgot about note B which provides a link for specific positions. I like the table in the key so I'll leave it for now and if I have to take it out in FLC then no worries. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I notice that the old photos are tagged as PD-US on the grounds that they were published outside the US prior to a certain date. If you do take this list to FLC, expect to be challenged to confirm/prove exactly where and when they were published, which is not currently stated on any of the image pages as far as I can see. For the use of that tag, as I understand it, "published" means exactly that - the image has to have been published prior to the date, not merely created..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I feared that. Do you have any suggestions? A different tag maybe? I'm not an expert when it comes to pictures on Wikipedia. If there isn't a solution then I'll have to remove them because I have no publication dates or author names. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm no expert either. They'd certainly be eligible to be tagged with {{PD-UK}}, although I've seen conflicting opinions on whether or not that is acceptable........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
      • That seems much better than the current tag. I'll change them over later and see how it holds up in FLC. If some people don't like it then I'll just have to remove them. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Aang

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good article. I want to know if it's got what it takes to be a featured article.

Thanks, Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, some comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aang/archive2 may be helpful in addition to the responses at this peer review. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I heard you did that. But you did copyedit some of those problems right. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I copyedited some of them, but mainly the comment of how the article sounds ORish, etc. Mainly I just wanted to link the page here so that when the review is over and we go through the article everything will be in one place. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if this article can become a Featured List. Its been about two years since we last did one on this article and I would like to know how much this page has changed since then.

Thanks, Nascar king 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a start, but the article has several serious problems and some minor ones that make it far from ready for FLC. Here are suggestions for improvement.

• The link checker at the top of this review page finds three dead urls in the citations.

• Citation 4 is malformed; other citations are incomplete.

• It's doubtful that all of the sources meet the WP:RS guidelines. What makes Bella Online reliable, for example?

• The caption contains extraordinary claims that require inline citations to reliable sources. The caption says, "WrestleMania is one of the most successful sports entertainment events in the world. Pictured, WrestleMania XXVI which had a record setting 72,219 fans at the University of Phoenix Stadium in 2010." - What reliable source says that WrestleMania is "one of the most successful sports entertainment events in the world"? What reliable source says that the crowd at the University of Phoenix consisted of "a record-setting 72,209 fans"?

• The archived peer review of this article has good ideas about how to improve it. Some have been responded to, but others appear to have been ignored, such as the advice to expand the lead to conform to WP:LEAD and to be more careful about the sourcing.

• The article needs a careful copyedit to tighten the prose and to eliminate small errors such as the cap H on "high definition" in the last sentence of the History section.

Lead

• Link WrestleMania on first occurrence.

• "Pay-per-view events are a big part of the revenue stream for WWE." - How big? Is it possible to provide any specific numbers?

History

• To help readers unfamiliar with this kind of wrestling or with pay-per-view, it would be a good idea to include a sentence or two explaining those two concepts. What is the WWE? What happens at these events? What kind of wrestling is this? I think you need to make explicit that these events involve professional wrestling and a kind of showmanship that works well on television. I suppose (but don't know for sure) that books have been written about professional wrestling that might have this kind of information.

• "It is a commonly held misconception that the first WWE, then known as the World Wrestling..." - The claim that anything is a "commonly held misconception" needs a reliable source. The source provided at the end of the sentence in which this claim appears does not support such a general claim. Be careful that the sources provided actually support the claims in the article.

• "scheduled to conflict with NWA's Starrcade" - Abbreviations like NWA need to be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use for readers unfamiliar with the sport.

• "the resulting financial blow to Starrcade was in many ways the beginning of the end for Jim Crockett Promotions" - Does the WWE have any remaining competitors, or is it a monopoly?

• "Initially, the WWF used the In Your House brand, but beginning in 1996 began using other names... " - Does the WWF own all the brands? How do the brands differ from one another?

• Most of the third paragraph and all of the fourth paragraph of this section lack reliable sources. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the inline citation should go at the end of the last sentence of the paragraph.

Active and upcoming events

• "Active and upcoming" does not seem to be the same as "current, active". Would "Scheduled events" be a better title for the table?

Tables

• The tables look inefficient. For example, the "Notes" columns are very big, but the notes themselves are very small or nonexistent. Is there a better way to present this information?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The World of Strawberry Shortcake

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I began this page on an animated TV special almost four years ago, and now I've saved it enough to avoid a tentative merger into Strawberry Shortcake (80s Annual Specials). A long-awaited Triple Crown and a GAC are close by.

I'm planning to do the same for the remaining specials in the coming weeks or months, perhaps enough to merit a good topic on the subject.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot: I submitted this page as a Did you know? suggestion yesterday. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Review by ResMar Bleh, Strawberry Shortcake. Still, in the context of a complete encyclopedia...not much to say really, a nice short article that's ready for a nice short GA nomination.

General

• Please see WP:DASH for instructions regarding the use of short (-) and long (—) dashes. Using clause-clause is simply not correct. I've fixed this using {{ndash}}.

Lead

• The special received generally favorable reviews in the School Library Journal, which reviewed it twice in different decades. Clarify please: what decades?

• Changed to "...reviewed it in 1983 and 2007." --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot

• Strawberry's foe, the Peculiar Purple Pieman... Is foe the right word? It's a kid's show after all :)

• Changed to "villain". --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Release

• Some time after the title character's debut at the 1980 American International Toy Fair, The World of Strawberry Shortcake was offered to the major U.S. television networks. What networks?

• The source I have on hand doesn't say which ones, but I'm implying ABC/CBS/NBC (the only ones back then). For now, I've reworded it thus: "...major television networks in the U.S. were given a chance to air..." --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• A soundtrack album, with contributions by Flo & Eddie of The Turtles, was released by Kid Stuff Records some time after the special aired. Can we get a specific date or year?

• Tried looking it up—nothing at hand. Ended sentence with "...the same year as the original airing" instead. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I the {{mdash}}; you've picked up on it :) ResMar 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Animal (Kesha album)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on listing it (soon) for GA and GA Topic once i complete Take It Off as well.

Thanks, - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The prose reads poorly at times, with some odd phrasing and grammatical errors. I have corrected some, but I feel that if this article is to progress, a full copyedit is essential.

• Lead: I have copyedited the lead, in particular the last paragraph to improve the flow.
• Development: Very scrappy, with facts assembled oddly. Who is "Pebe"? At least two of the sentences need attention:-
  • "The abundance of material extended it from its original planned album consisting of twelve tracks, to a length of fourteen." Revise to "The abundance of material extended it from its originally planned twelve tracks to fourteen."
  • "...after Pebe passed it to a friend at BMI and were impressed" - who was impressed?
  • What does "through Luke's imprint" mean?

 Done

• Background and inspiration: far too much (about 90%) of this section is quotation. Articles are supposed to use brief quotes of key phrases, not verbatim chunks. Also:-
  • Explain what "Stephen" and "Dinosaur" are (songs, presumably)
  • The sentence which begins: "Stephen" was written by Kesha which she explained, "it's [about] this guy..." is ungrammatical. Try "Stephen" was written by Kesha; she explained: "it's about..." etc

 Done have removed and thinned out and rewritten.

• • (In the box) "steez"? What does this mean?

I do not know, its a direct quote. Her words not mine.

• Music and lyrics
  • Reviewers' comments should be given in present tense, e.g. "Jeffries notes...", "Jeffries concludes..." etc
• Critical reception
  • What does "holds a 54 out of 100" mean?

Fixed.

• • Punctuation attention here (and elsewhere): "Andrew Burgess of musicOMH was impressed with Kesha calling her..." - needs a comma after "Kesha"
  • More dodgy prose: "calling them 'completely unsatisfying' and should be avoided".

Please comment on whether the copyedit I did was good enough. Fixer23 (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That way I can know if I'm going in the right direction if I were to want to copyedit the rest of the article (or if I should stop editing articles altogether and go back to grammar school and writing school). Fixer23 (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Chart performance: Sentence needs sorting out: "The charting of the album made Kesha the first act to simultaneously have their debut album and single at the number one position on both charts since Leona Lewis led the lists with Spirit and "Bleeding Love," respectively, on the chart dated April 26, 2008."

I tried to edit the sentence. Fixer23 (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The tables and lists look comprehensive, but why is some of the information hidden?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Central Atlas Tamazight

Previous peer review This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the previous Featured Article Review didn't pan out and I would like to ensure that this article is up to standards before trying again. Please be very picky! I have been looking at this article for so long that I think I am blind to any current problems with it.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks much better compared to the version I reviewed back in July 2009 - thanks for all your work on it. I think it still needs some polish before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, general first, then I will try to point out as many specific issues as I can.

• The biggest issue I see is a lack of references in the History section, where there are whole paragraphs with no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The external links checker tool (in the toolbox on this page) shows several dead links.
• The disambiguation link finder finds one dab link (back to this page) that will also need to be fixed
• The external links section seems pretty long - are all of these needed? As WP:External links asks, are they all "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article"?
• WP:See also says that see also links are usually not already in the article
• As a general note, the article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impede the narrative flow. There are two such one-sentence paragraphs in History, and some other later sections also have many short paragraphs - Syntax is especially choppy.
• The article refers to the language mostly as Tamazight, so I think this should be the first alternate name listed first in the lead. I know it used to be under the name "Central Morocco Tamazight" and it still uses this once in the Algeria section and in the Berber languages nav box at the bottom of the article.
• The article also uses general time terms like recently or currently in several places - wherever possible these should be replaced with things like "since YEAR" or "as of 2010", Something that is recent now may not seem so in a few years. Even non-specific statements like Berber languages are not official state languages in Morocco and Algeria. might read better with an "as of 2010" added.
• On to specifics, starting with the lead. The lead is a summary of the whole article and as an introduction, should be written at a more accessible level for the general reader than the rest of the article. Nothing should only be in the lead, and the amount of space devoted to subjects in the lead should roughly reflect the weight of that topic in the article. I think the lead could be a little easier to follow for the general reader, note that all of the alternate names are not really explained in the body of the article, and also note that the History section is given pretty short shrift in the lead compared to its size in the rest of the article.
• The dab link at the top of the lead calls it a dialect, but the lead does not use that word until the second paragraph, and then only once. I realize this is probably a contentious issue and Classification goes into more detail on this, so perhaps the lead should too.
• The lead first talks about four languages Central Atlas Tamazight is one of the four most-spoken Berber languages... but then refers to three Additionally, the differences between all three groups are largely phonological and lexical, ... which is it 3 or 4?
• Use double quotes like this " in this sentence: Differentiating these dialects is complicated by the fact that speakers of other languages may also refer to their language as 'Tamazight'.[2]
• Seems incomplete The standard word order is Verb-Subject-Object but sometimes [is?] Subject-Verb-Object [or add "is used"?].[17]
• I am not sure I follow this sentence in the lead Even borrowed verbs will undergo native patterns, including ablaut, due to pervasive borrowing from Arabic.[18][19] Borrowed words follow native patterns because words have been borrowed from Arabic??
• I also think Using <gh> for [ɣ] when embedding Berber words in English text follows the tradition set by French-language publications, even those written by Berbers.[22] could be made clearer - explain what the <> and [] mean.
• Problem sentence The name "Tamazirt" results from French transcription of Tamazight /ɣ/ with the letter <r>, which in French represents the similar-sounding phoneme /ʁ/.[nb 2] First off the note is just a reference, so why not make it a ref? Second how is /ɣ/ different from [ɣ] used earlier in this paragraph? Why is Tamazirt in quotes, when other foreign langiage words / names are in italics in this paragraph? Finally, there is no explanation of the word Tamazirt - is this the French name? Who says it or uses it? See WP:PCR
• Dialect continuum is already linked, so is a link to "dialect continuum between" needed? How is it different from a regular dialect continuum?
• Is AS a dialect or a tribe? Ayt Ayache (AA) and Ayt Seghrouchen (AS) are two mutually intelligible dialects of Tamazight (Ayt Seghrouchen being a much larger tribe).[27]
• Is Ayt Atta in Southern dialects (e.g. Ayt Atta) may also be differentiated syntactically the same as Ait Atta in the Additional groups speaking Tamazight list? If so, spell consistently.
• I would add the dates to the caption King Juba II of Numidia and Mauretania. Also does not need a period as not a full sentence
• The article says Carthage fell in 146 BC, so this seems out of chronological order Masinissa's line survived until AD 24, when the remaining Berber territory was annexed to the Roman Empire. After the fall of Carthage, the area was annexed to the Roman Empire in A.D. 40,...
• I would mention that IRCAM comes from the Frnch name
• In Geographic distribution the first sentence uses "Berber languages" (plural) while the second sentence use "Berber language" (singular). Later Shilha and Riff are called languages, then called dialects.
• OK, I am stopping here for now. I think the article needs a copyedit. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Language_and_linguistics that may be good models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your useful advice. It will take some time to work through all your points. Mo-Al (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A recent case (2005) involving intelligent design; see also the Scopes Trial. Long overdue for PR (despite at least two small problems), I've listed this page now.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The topic is interesting, and this is a good start, but the article needs a lot of work. The introductory paragraphs are well-written, but the article deteriorates further down. Just briefly, I'll list several problems that pop out.

• Many claims in the article lack sources, and the article therefore fails to meet the core WP:V guidelines. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every direct quote, every set of statistics, every claim that is apt to be questioned, and every paragraph.

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists says in part, "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The existing article is much too list-y, and most, if not all, of the lists would be better as prose paragraphs.

• Many of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include the author, title, publisher, url, date of publication, and date of most recent access.

• Some of the quotations are much too long. It would be much better to paraphrase Judge Jones' decision, with a citation to the full decision, than to insert the long blockquote.

• Using a Wikisource document as a reliable source WP:RS violates WP:CIRCULAR, I believe. It would be better to use in-line citations to government sites that have published the proceedings.

• The link checker finds five dead urls in the citations.

• The dab tool finds one disambiguation link.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments by Ruhrfisch

• I glanced at this article as I have heard the judge speak. Hear are a few comments (I agree with all of Finetooth's comments above)
• I also think the article needs to follow WP:NPOV better - the response to the decision is mostly about the intelligent design side's responses, with relatively little about the other responses.
• I also note that the nominator of this at PR seems to have not made any edits to the article. In general, articles at PR are nominated by those who have worked to improve them already. The expectation is that a PR is at least prepatory to improvement.
• I would also see if there could be a lead image - perhaps the picture of the judge?

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Super Mario Kart

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting ready to nominate the article as a Featured Article candidate. This article has recently undergone major expansion and was recently promoted to Good Article status.

Cheers, CarterRodriguez 02:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, and I think I would like playing the game, but the article is not ready for FAC. The main problem is a lack of precise prose, especially in the earlier sections. This leads to confusion about three words: player, character, and kart. They need to be kept distinct, and the language used to describe them needs to be exact. The article also needs line-by-line copyediting to fix errors in grammar, logic, and word order, and to repair or eliminate some of the compound adjectives. I made a few c/e changes to the lead. Here are some specific suggestions or comments, but they don't cover every small problem.

• No dabs, no dead urls in citations. This is good.

Lead

• "The game is also seen as having been key to expanding the Mario series into non-platforming games... " - "Non-platforming" needs a link or a brief explanation. What is a platform game?

Done! Posted by Pepperman 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the other human player." - It's important to maintain a distinction between living human players and their virtual karts. Suggestion: "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the karts of the other human players."

• "During races players can pick up power ups... " - I changed a couple of these to "power-ups" in the lead, but this one and any others should be changed too. Just add a hyphen.

• "Having more coins increases the racer's top speed and protects players from spinning when hit by another kart... " - Here's another sentence that confuses the living human players with the players' karts. The players don't spin, but their karts do. Also, I think you may mean "characters" or "avatars" sometimes when you say "players".

• "Players also lose coins when they are hit by power ups and when Lakitu returns them to the track after they fall off." - Confusing. Players (I guess) may lose coins, but they are not hit by power-ups; their karts might be. Furthermore, is "hit" the right word? Do power-ups hit karts, or do karts hit power-ups (bananas, shells). The language needs to be precise.

Game modes

• Shorten subhead to "Modes"?

Done! Posted by Pepperman 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• "In Mario Kart GP one player races against seven computer-controlled characters in a series of five races called cups." - Shouldn't this say, "In Mario Kart GP one player's character races against seven computer-controlled characters in a series of five races called cups"? I think you could use "avatar" instead of character to avoid using "character" twice in the same sentence, but either would maintain the important distinction between the human player and his or her virtual character.

• "In order to continue through a cup a position of fourth or higher must be achieved in each race." - The position doesn't continue. Suggestion: "In order to continue through a cup, the player's character must achieve a position of fourth or higher in each race."

Legacy

• "and the Mario Party series of board game based, party games" - Quite a few compound adjectives with multiple parts appear in the article. They are often awkward and seem to demand hyphens, but this can lead to too many hyphenated strings. Another kind of solution is to re-write them to eliminate the strings, like this: "and the Mario Party series of party games based on board games".

Sequels

• "Eurogamer stated that problems emulating the Mode 7 graphics were responsible for its absence." - The problems didn't emulate the Mode 7 graphics. Maybe "problems developers encountered while trying to emulate the Mode 7 graphics... ".

Images

• It's doubtful that you can make a convincing case for using three fair-use images. The lead image should be no problem, but do the other two convey information that isn't and can't be conveyed by text alone?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

I was going through the article at the same time as Finetooth, so I might be repeating some of his concerns.

General

• Why are – used in place of —?

• Watch the noun plus -ings...

Gameplay

• Super long paragraph; can be split; recommend at "... attack the other human player. During races ..."

• "While racing the player's viewpoint is from behind the kart, the view behind the kart can be displayed on the lower half of the screen in single player mode."

  "Racing the player's viewpoint"? This is where commas help: "While racing, the player's viewpoint ..." Even then, I am not entirely certain whether it is grammatically sound... Suggestion: "During a race, the player's viewpoint is from behind his or her kart." I would drop the second clause in the original sentence because I think the possible location of the display for single player mode is not that important. Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "In race modes players attempt to finish in front of other opponents – which can be computer controlled or controlled by other human players – or aim to complete a circuit in the fastest possible time."

  Why not simply, "The goal of the game is to either finish a race ahead of other racers, who are controlled by the computer and other players, or complete a circuit in the fastest time." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "There is also a battle mode in which the aim is to attack the other human player."

  There is a mode in which the game monitors and judges your physical assault on another player?

• "... player can <do this> ..."

  I am not particularly enamoured with this sort of sentence, although I understand the difficulty in writing about gameplay. Use it sparingly. If the action is very much common, it is better to use an assertive voice to describe it.

• "During races players can pick up power ups by driving over question mark tiles on the track; these are used to gain an advantage during the race. Examples of power ups include shells and bananas which cause racers to spin if hit and stars which make the player temporarily invulnerable to attack."

  As such, "Tiles marked with question marks are arrayed on the race tracks; they give special abilities (power ups) to a player's kart if the vehicle passes over them. Power ups, such as the ability to throw shells and bananas, allow racers to hit others with the objects, causing them to spin and lose control. A kart that obtains the star power up is temporary invulnerable to attack." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "Computer players have specific special powers associated with each character, that they are able to use throughout the race."

  Human-controlled characters do not?

• "In competitive race modes coins can be picked up along the tracks. Having more coins increases the racer's top speed and protects players from spinning when hit by another kart: they instead lose a coin. Players also lose coins when they are hit by power ups and when Lakitu returns them to the track after they fall off."

  Who is Lakitu? Is he or she that relevant? "Lines of coins are found on the tracks in competitive race modes. By running over these coins, a kart collects them and increases its top speed. Having coins also helps players when their kart is hit by another: instead of spinning and losing control, they lose a coin. Coins are also lost when karts are struck by power ups or fall off the tracks." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "Players are able to "power slide" around corners in order to maintain their speed, although power sliding for too long causes the kart to spin. Karts are also able to hop which can facilitate faster, tighter turning."

  "The game features advanced maneuvers such as power sliding and hopping. Power sliding allows a kart to mantain its speed while turning, although executing the maneuver for too long causes the kart to spin. Hopping helps a kart execute tighter turns: the kart makes a short hop and turns in the air, speeding off in the new direction when it lands." Note: I have boldly implemented my suggestion but am offering my reasoning here.

• "IGN stated that the gameplay mechanics defined the genre."

  Defined what? In what sense?

• Why is there a See also to Mario Kart#Gameplay when this section is more detailed than that?

• I think an opinion (and likely copy-edit) from a non-gamer viewpoint is needed. As such, I am not going through the other parts of Gameplay.

Development

• "The intention to create the racing modes of the game had been present from the start of the project ..."

  I am quite certain no one would create a racing game without having "racing modes" as their initial design... or is there a particular mode or such that this sentence is about?

• "The choice was made after the development team, when observing how one kart looked to another driving past it, decided to see what it would look like with Mario in the kart."

  This sentence does not feel quite right to me...

Reception

• "Aggregate scoring sites GameRankings and MobyGames both give an average of more than 90 percent, ..."

  If I still remember my last interactions with WP:VG correctly, MobyGames is not a reliable source for aggregate scores. Regardless, do we need another two (GameStats and TopTenReviews)? Do we need any even?

• How are Thunderbolt and HonestGamers reliable (or often quoted experts by third-party sources)?

Images

• File:Super Mario Kart characters.jpg

  Fails NFCC#1 and #8, File:Super Mario Kart screen shot.jpg can also "illustrate the playable characters and their design which is described in the article text"; furthermore, Super Mario Kart screen shot.jpg shows gameplay, which is harder to describe than a rectangular screen with two rows of four boxes that shows the characters in them. How much critical commentary is focused on this character selection interface? Whatever is there in the article points to actual gameplay graphics than the selection screen. I would concentrate on beefing up the rationale for the gameplay screen shot since it helps on more fronts than this character selection screen.

I agree with Finetooth in that some more work needs to be done. In particular, a non-gamer's viewpoint should be considered. A copy-editor should also be roped in to give the prose a final polish. Jappalang (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you, right now, that the review sources aren't going to cut it for FAC. GameRankings isn't good for specific review references; all it gives is the score, which is the least important part. The article provides the reviews from less-reliable sources like Nintendojo, Thunderbolt, Cubed3, et al, but does not contain those from the critical, reliable sources at the time of the game's release. These included Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Nintendo Power and GamePro. The Nintendo Power review for the game is available from the WP:VG Reference Library; as shown here, Pagrashtak has the issue, and is willing to provide excerpts/scans.

If the other reviews I mentioned are too difficult to locate, there are more options. You can use less-reliable-but-still-reliable sources from the time, such as VideoGames & Computer Entertainment. While he doesn't list the information for the issue, if you give him a general idea of when the game might have been reviewed by this publication, MuZemike would probably be willing to help you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Rob Ford

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because as detailed on the talk page the article does not and has not for at least 21 months conformed to BLP policy. The Subject is a controversial politician currently running for Mayor of Toronto and as can be readily seen by talk page contents some Editors express quite openly negative views of the Subject and these views have been finding their way,perhaps unintentionally, into the article. There is also a well reported and admitted incident of edits to the article originating from an ISP owned by the Toronto Star, a paper which is being sued by the Subject and which other newspapers have recently criticized for printing vicious attacks against the Subject, some of which also are in the article. Most of the negative content is,while well sourced, not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" as required by Wikipedia BLP policy.

What I need right now is:

• A: for Editors to review the content within the article I have deleted over the past 24 hours, almost all of which has been re-inserted, and advise your opinion as to the relevance/suitablity of those contents and
• B: for 1 or 2 senior Editors who habve no interest or knowledge of Canadian politics to put this article on their watchlists and contribute as needed. (We do have a couple of local senior Editors doing that but their talk page comments and sparse edits have only reinforced the biased nature of the article, in my opinion. Its just a human nature problem when it comes to politics,I think, nothing intentional implied.)

Thanks, Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in Canadian Politics, for years I've only focused on basic fixes (typos), so you can consider me for Editorial Claimsfour (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Gabriel Fauré

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because having revised and expanded it to more than twice its previous length, and having then had the benefit of copy editing by the distinguished Wikipedians User:Ssilvers and User:JackofOz, I should now like to take the article to GA (and perhaps beyond), to which end further input would be most gratefully received.

Merci, mesdames et messieurs, Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Magicpiano

This article has come a ways since I first reviewed it more than a year ago; you've certainly addressed the deficiencies I mentioned. I think content-wise it's in pretty good shape, although I wonder if you quote the clearly-admiring Copland a bit much.

Good point. I have cut back the Copland quotes. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're considering this article for GA or FA, the media will require some attention. Some images and audio (I only spot-checked) don't have adequate sourcing, which will at FA lead to questions about copyright or licensing. This includes the multi-image montages you assembled -- the sourcing and rights on all subsidiary images need to be verified. I recommend adding {{Information}} templates to image pages that don't have them.

I'm a bit out of my depth here. For the composite pics I have used images from Commons, which are ipso facto freely usable, are they not? My own recent additions are accounted for on the copyright front, I believe. I have to admit that I don't know how to apply the {{Information}} templates. Perhaps I'd better seek expert advice from an image specialist. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because images are uploaded to Commons does not mean they actually are freely usable; I've seen many images where the metadata is obviously wrong (uploader claims "own work" for an image of an historic painting, for example). These things are not normally scrutinized that I am aware of, but they are checked during FAC.

Consider File:Ambroise Thomas3.jpg, used in the montage File:Thomas-dubois.jpg. There is no useful metadata about who took the photo, when it was taken, or when it was first published, on the image's page; at least some of these items are necessary to determine the image's copyright status. It does contain a link to Swedish WP that is in fact for a different image of Thomas. This lack of provenance and sourcing for this one image will raise immediate objections from an image reviewer at FAC; every image, including montage sub-images, will be scrutinized in this way, as will the audio.

You might say "well the subject died in 1896, it must be PD". If the photographer was French, and took the photo in 1895 as a young man, and died only in 1945, this photo is still copyrighted. (France has copyright until 70 years after death of creator for most works.) If the photographer was American, and did not publish the photo until 1925, it is still under copyright. (I imagine the latter case to be farfetched, but the former case is entirely plausible in the absence of any claims of origin.)

Adding information templates to images is easy: the image page is editable (you have to click through to the Commons version of the page for images stored there, and may want to set up an account there if you haven't already). Magic♪piano 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember now finding when working on an earlier article that Commons files are not always what they seem. I've removed all inadequately documented images and replaced them with images that have creators' and/or publication dates documented. Thank you for this. I had already asked an image specialist to check the article, and I hope it will now merit the thumbs-up. - Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest breaking up the audio; there is enough space in the article to place some of them near where the work is mentioned. (It would of course be nice to have more audio, but then this is what's available at the moment...)

Oo-er! This sounds a bit technical, but I'll have a go. The point is certainly taken. – Tim riley (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can see how I did it at Franz Schubert. Magic♪piano 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

--Magic♪piano 20:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Moved to vocal and chamber sections accordingly. - Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these pointers. I shall revisit accordingly. - Tim riley (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung

Hi Tim. The lead and the first para of section music contains the same statement: The composer Aaron Copland wrote of them, "The themes, harmonies, form, have remained essentially the same, but with each new work they have all become more fresh, more personal, more profound. I would suggest that you could remove the one from the lead without having a negative effect on the article as a whole. I have made a couple of very minor tweaks. The article is quite long, and broad in its scope, is well well sourced, especially from paid-for sources to which I assume you or the co-editors have subscribed.

Good point. Done - Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest slightly rearranging the Biography section. I would rename the section Personal life, and split sub-sections such as First musical appointments and any others to do with his professional musical development into a main section Career. Otherwise, stuff such as Marriage looks a bit odd in amongst everything else.

I'll ponder on this. Extracting the Viardot engagement from the 1877 events could be a problem. Tim riley (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Later: My means of getting round this is renaming the "Marriage" section, thereby keeping the narrative chronological. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless I have missed anything very important, IMO the article is certainly a GAC, and once promoted, could rapidly become a FA. I hope this helps. -- User:Kudpung 04:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Copied here from Kudpung's talk page Tim riley (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

Smerus

1st para - 'His harmonic and melodic language affected how harmony was later taught.' - well, maybe in France, but it is rather a far-reaching claim (and not justified by the article text) unless so qualified. Otherwise it seems to me a very thorough and informative coverage of a composer whose music I personally find I can respect but not esteem - you might by the way cite an example or two from those less overwhelmed than Copland and Slonimsky, as I think Fauré's reputation still remains for many un cas discutable. (This seems by the way a mean response to your kind comments and review on Wagner, so as a consolation if you are passing through Levoca in October I will give you a free ticket to hear Julian Lloyd Webber playing the Elegie there).

• Good point. I inherited this opening from previous editors, and shall be very happy to revise it. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PS I don't want to bang on about Copland (which I suppose means I do), but on further consideration - his article is now over 80 years old, and was specifically written as a eulogy. I think relying on it for plums as a contemporary source could therefore be a bit iffy. (Its attitude also shows in the rather doubtful (to modern commentators) comparisons such as Mendelssohn = talent vs. Bach = genius). Against that you could set the use of Newman (published in the 1930s) as a source in the Wagner article; but in Newman's case all subsequent writers have acknowledged his objectivity as well as his research and he continues to be regarded as a gold standard (for Wagner anyway). I don't know if similar could be said for Copland.

• The difficulty is that unlike the exceedingly extensive Wagner literature, the main Fauré literature in English consists of Nectoux, Nectoux and more Nectoux, with a dash of Jones - so one is wont to grab anything off piste like the Copland. But your comment is fair, and I'll look again at the amount of stuff quoted from him. I'm grateful for, and will certainly act on, your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Cohen

An interesting article, I was particularly struck by your approach to disucssing the music which is an interestign contrast to what we have in the Wagner article.

Like some of the people above I do think that the selection of quotes is somewhat hagiographic. The comment in the lede on his being recognised as the greatest French composer of his day is not, as far as I can tell, substantiated. Perhaps they discounted the already dead Debussy and Saint-Saens, but Ravel and Satie were still going. I should have thought that most writers would place at least two of those four ahead of Faure. And the careers of Bizet, Franck (okay not necessarilly French), Poulenc, Honneger, Chausson, Lalo, Duparc, Massenet, Dukas and Offenbach all overlapped with his to a greater or lesser extent.

• Fair cop. This was drafting I inherited from previous editors and I am by no means bound to it with hoops of steel (though I have an idea it was a paraphrase of Grove - I'll check and amend as needed.)
• As above, I'll revisit and prune the Copland quotes. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that, please consider how you order or present the list of trips abroad with Messager. The trip to London in 1882 is before a lot of those mentioned earlier. (Parsifal was first performed in 1882 and Mastersingers wasn't presented at Bayreuth until 1888.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• That is very helpful indeed! When one is agglomerating facts from several sources, chronology is apt to suffer. I certainly hadn't checked the dates against those of Wagner premieres, and will attend to it without delay. Thank you for spotting it! Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, as the author of Bayreuth canon I knew where to look for the specific dates I gave you. (Well, Parsifal I knew...) Glad to have been of help.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

Sorry to be late for the party (blame Monteverdi) but I am reading the article now with much interest. Here are a few comments relating to the lead:-

• To give the opening a bit more impact, suggest transfer the sentence beginning "Among his best-known works..." to the first paragraph, so that this reads:

Gabriel Urbain Fauré (pronounced: [ɡabʁiɛl yʁbɛ̃ fɔʁe]; 12 May 1845[1] – 4 November 1924) was a French composer, organist, pianist and teacher. He was one of the foremost French composers of his generation, and his musical style influenced many 20th century composers. Among his best-known works are his Nocturnes for piano, the songs "Après un rêve" and "Clair de lune", the Élégie, for cello and orchestra, the Pavane, the Dolly Suite, incidental music to Pelléas et Mélisande, Masques et bergamasques and his Requiem.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd actually reduce the list of best-known works, which at present is rather too long to suit its purpose. Choose three - four at most.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Combine the shortened third and the final paragraphs. I've tried this, it works well.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• There may be nothing you can do about this, but...it really is a bit disturbing, seeing old Gabriel staring resolutely away from the article in the lead image. Have you considered an exchange of positions with one of the others?

Point taken, but this is by so long a distance the best-known portrait of Fauré that I don't think I can really relegate and replace it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

More to follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Second instalment

Early years

• Try and avoid "...Saint-Saëns. Saint-Saëns..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "the first of his choral works" - or "earliest"?

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

First musical appointments

• Image placement rules require that the "young Faure" image should be placed after, not before, its section title.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "was offered the post" → "accepted the post"

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "ing" warning: the "ing" count is rising ("supplementing his income by taking private pupils, giving..."

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe this is a little cumbersome: "In March, Saint-Saëns retired from the Madeleine, succeeded as organist by Théodore Dubois, who had until then occupied the subordinate post of choirmaster, to which Fauré was appointed in his place." I'd simplify to: "In March, Saint-Saëns retired from the Madeleine, succeeded as organist by Théodore Dubois, his choirmaster, to which subordinate post Fauré was now appointed"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "grief" is usually associated with death and bereavement rather than being dumped by one's girlfriend (not that that ever happened to me, oh no). Maybe "distress"? Or replace the whole phrase: "To distract Faure, Saint-Saens..." etc

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "They jointly composed, and frequently performed as a party piece, the irreverent Souvenirs de Bayreuth, a short piano piece for four hands using themes from The Ring in what the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians describes as a "skittish" manner." Too long and complicated for one sentence. Suggest: "They frequently performed as a party piece their joint composition, the irreverent Souvenirs de Bayreuth. This short, skittish piano work for four hands sends up themes from The Ring.

Excellent! Done. (Also pinched for recycling in the Messager article) – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle years

• Avoid "many" repeat near end of first para. Make the second one "most"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Last line, perhaps "to emphasise the positive aspects of a work."[2] (rather than "see"

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Head of the Conservatoire

• I'm a bit concerned that neither of the images give a date of original publication, which might affect their PD status in the US if this cannot be established as before 1923.

Happily, both the photographers died more than 100 years ago – their dates are firmly established and there's no doubt that these two pictures are out of copyright in the UK. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• It's a while since Widor was mentioned. Perhaps give his full name or other reminder?

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Requiem: this is the first mention of the Requiem since the lead. AS this is Faure's best-known work (in the UK anyway, and perhaps elsewhere) we should at least have been told when it was written. I reaise that the work will be much discussed later on, but a few brief words about it would be helpful here.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The list of tributes from other composers is a bit confusing. Chronologically we have reached about 1910, so its odd to see Tchaikovsky (d. 1893) among figures such as Richard Strauss and Aaron Copland (b. 1900) Maybe "Tchaikovsky had thought him adorable..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Last years and legacy

• Two successive quotes in first paragraph is difficult; they should be separately cited, and I think the longer should be attributed as well as cited.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Give date, not just year, of death.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Give the author of the centenary tribute, rather than "The Musical Times wrote..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That does for the biographical element. I'll look at the music tomorrow. This is an excellent article, informative and easy to read. Up to now I have known little of Faure beyond the Requiem; I feel my musical education is continuing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is hugely helpful – thank you. Please don't hurry to complete your comments, as I'll be in deepest Cumbria with little internet access until next weekend, when I shall greatly enjoy addressing the above. - Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the Music sections

Music section

• The Copland quote at the start of the section is a little long. Would it be possible to paraphrase most of it, and restrict the quote to a key sentences and/or phrases? (You have done this successfully in the next paragraph)

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Despite the links, I think that Sackville-West and Shawe-Taylor ought to be described as "Critics..."

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "learned learnt" - which one do you want to keep?

Dealt with. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Third para: the word "subtle" appears twice in one sentence

Dealt with. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• The opinion that Fauré's later works do not display the easy charm of his earlier music, and the following quotation, need to be attributed in the text.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Vocal music

• Again, views such as "there is little sign of the artist to come" need to be attributed.

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just a comment. "The Requiem is acknowledged as a source of inspiration for the similar setting by Duruflé." This seems a somewhat downbeat tribute to Faure's geat work. Personally, I have never heard of Duruflé's Requiem, or Duruflé (though maybe that's due to my slight knowledge of French music).

The Duruflé comment was inherited from an earlier editor, and I am not bound to it with hoops of iron. I've deleted it. (The Duruflé is a lovely work, nonetheless.)

• Incidentally, Poulenc hated the Requiem and said it was a real penance for him to hear it. Source available on request.

Interesting. I love Poulenc, and am very surprised he thought that. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Piano works

• More attribution needed

Done. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the punctuation in "above all others'." You may be right, but it looks odd.

Redrawn. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No comments on the "Orchestral and chamber works" and "Recordings" sections. I think, however, that the "Musical assessment" needs more than a quote from an anonymous biographical dictionary entry. It makes a weak ending to the article.

Two other modern assessments added. – Tim riley (talk) 11:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's it. Don't hesitate to contact me if any of my comments don't make sense. I look forward to seeing the article advance. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Story of Miss Moppet

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review and hope to take it eventually to FA. I need feedback. I've exhausted the sources, there's no further information as far as I know. Comments are welcome about layout, images, etc. Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly a good article. However, it seems far too short for an FAC. Perhaps you should do one of the other wonderful storybooks you've chronicled...? ResMar 21:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on Beatrix Potter's stories (I was always partial to Squirrel Nutkin myself ;-) ). Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

• There is no length requirement or minimum value at FAC. There is a list of 10 shortest FAs here, and this is currently just slightly shorter than the shortest FA there. I think if some of the things suggested can be added or moved into the text, it will be longer than the shortest FA. As long as it is a comprehensive article about the subject, that is the relevant FA criterion here.
• I added the metric conversion for the acreage of her farm. There should be non-breaking spaces between the numbers and units (I did this for the hectare figure I added).
• Someone at FAC might ask for a ref for The farm became her home away from London and her artistic retreat.

 Done Deleted this sentence. Cannot recall where I read it and it's not critical to the article. I'll restore it when I come across the source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the number of illustrations (14 in the Project Gutenberg version) could be mentioned.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also was curious as to the size of the paper panorama and the layout of the panorama version - was the paper printed on both sides or were all the illustrations on one side? Also where were the captions relative to the images?

 Done Have done my best on this but the sources are not clear. I think the image helps but I cannot discover whether both sides of the strip were used. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I see there is some more on this as well as an image here
• The page size tool does not count notes or captions - I think the note on the three planned books could be incorporated into the main text.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CAPTION says captions should be succinct. I think the part on Joel Chandler should be in the text too. The part about catching the mouse by the tail could be in the caption or in the text (with some briefer version in the caption)

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Every FA on artistic works I can recall (books, movies, music albums, etc.) has the Style / Themes / Critical reception section last, or at least after the creation process. I would move the Illustrations section before the Style and themes section.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would refer to "Academics" with more specific terms if possible, so perhaps "professsor of children's literature" or even specify the university or college if it is likely to be well known.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The story has a very limited cast of characters with one dominant character... I would make it clearer that the cat and mouse are the only characters.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think per the MOS that "Atglen, PA" should be spelled out as "Atglen, Pennsylvania" in the refs - could be linked too, if desired.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Otherwise I really enjoyed this and think it would stand a good chance at FAC, especially if the issues raised here are addressed.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I originally found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

• The article now has 6.5 kB of prose, so it is bigger than the smallest FAs
• I would explain or link 32mo - perhaps link it to Bookbinding#Terms_and_techniques? Did not check to see if Wiktionary has the term.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence with 32mo in it is quite long and complex - not sure if it can be smoothed out as is, or if it needs to be split into two sentences Miss Moppet was released in a 10,000 copy first printing for Christmas 1906 in an oblong 32 mo, 94 mm (3.7 in) by 112 mm (4.4 in) panorama format of 14 colour plates and 14 pages of text printed from left to right on a long strip of linen backed paper that folded accordion-fashion into a grey cloth wallet with blue lettering and decoration that closed with a flap and tied with a ribbon.[4][5][6]

 Done Made two sentences. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I like the panorama image very much.
• Please let me know if you take this to FAC, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Justice Party (India)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, i would like to nominate it for GAR and then eventually a FAR. Because of my own "extensive" knowledge of the subject, i am not able to judge how this article comes across for uninvolved readers. I would like to know if this is comprehensible and easy to understand for people unfamiliar with the subject and if it is not suggestions for improving it. Thanks, Sodabottle (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This looks avery substantial article. I am sorry that I do not have time to read it in detail, but here are a few observatioins arising from a quick run-through.

• There are numerous instances of information requiring citation, sometimes involving whole paragraphs. See, for example:-

• Brahmin and non-Brahmin divide: last two sentences of first paragraph
• Conflict with Home Rule Movement: first paragraph
• Transformation into Dravidar Kazhagam: last sentence of second paragraph
• Organisation: first paragraph
• Alienation of Dalits and Muslims: contains an uncited blockquote.

These are not necessarily all the instances which require citation, but are the most obvious cases. Please check carefully for others.

• Some of the page ranges in the references have hyphens rather than dashes. Ref 39 is a "p" not a "pp".
• I am dobtful about the validity of some of the image licencing, and suggest you consult an editor with experience in this area. User: Jappalang may oblige.

• The link in ref 51 is dead.

• Prose: I have not been able to consider this in detail, but there are cases of awkward and sometimes repetitive prose. Here are just a couple of examples:-
  • "After four years of sitting in the opposition, the Justice party won the 1930 elections and B. Munuswamy Naidu became the Chief Minister.[27] His tenure as Chief Minister was beset with controversies. He assumed the Chief Ministership at a critical juncture." Very cumbersome: easily reducible to "After four years in opposition, the Justice party won the 1930 elections and B. Munuswamy Naidu became the Chief Minister.[27] He assumed office at a critical juncture, and his tenure was beset with controversies."
  • "Periyar's take over the Justice party shook up its' outlook and functioning." "Takeover" is one word, and "its" does not require an apostrophe.

The whole article could beneficially be copyedited to remove similar cases of dubious phrasing. It's a good and important article and worth the extra effort. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle's reply

Thanks Brian for the review. I have done the following to address the issues raised:

• uncited portions - all of them except one are cases of splitting the paragraphs after writing them. The refs at the end of the next para are the sources for the first paragraph as well. I am now adding them the first paragraphs in all the cases. Similar case for block quotes. One exception was my own OR, which i have now removed.
• Fixed the deadlink in ref 51;
• fixed the pp in ref 39
• Fixed the awkward phrasing where you have pointed out, going through the others (i am hopelessly repetitive :-)).Will ask for someone from the guild of copy editors to take a look.
• Same for the images. will ask Jappalang for help.

--Sodabottle (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Richard Cantillon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Richard Cantillon has been an interest of mine for a while, I finally got around to writing a complete article on him (when I started, the original article had been deleted for plagiarism). He is an obscure character in history, but nonetheless one of the most important economists (although, not one of the most influential) in the history of economic thought. Indeed, Jevons considered his Essai the "cradle of political economy", while some economists consider him the true father of political economy. With that said, I've tried to make the article as uncontroversial as possible. Over the next days I plan to revisit the article time and time again and add in information that I might have left out (including all information, no matter how meticulous is a daunting task when starting from scratch). My objective is to take it through FAC.

Knowing how difficult the FAC process is, as well as the process to prepare the article for FAC (and this article is not quite there yet), I'd like to ask for a peer review. Any and all advice is welcomed.

Thank you, JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources review

I often review sources at FAC

Bibliography

• Is Mises considered a scholarly publisher, or a partisan non-scholarly press? Has it passed RS/N?
• Finegold and Jonathan, requires page range... no it doesn't. Is Mises Daily an RS. There's no indication of an editorial policy. You could alternatively establish reliability through a claim that Finegold and Jonathan are specialists. Also needs a retrieval date. Mises blogs are discussed negatively at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Anarchist publishers can't publish WP:RS?, is this more than a blog?
• Higgs, Henry (1959). Place of publication required. If a reprint of an earlier work (suspect by author dates), needs original printing data as well.
• Jevons, William Stanley (January 1881). Volume and issue number?
• Good mixture of Austrian and standard Economics sources. Any heterodox / Political Economy Movement / Marxist takes? Surprised there's not a reference to Marx (Grudriesse probably) did Marx not use him ever? What was he wasting all his time in the Library for then?  :) Quick and nasty MIA search: [Economic Manuscripts: Capital, Vol.3, Chapter 47 ; Anti-Duhring ; Capital Vol. I - Chapter Twenty-One] Anti-Duhring is positive; vol 3 is passim on theory of ground rents as a general theory of surplus value; Praise in vol 1 for recognising time-wages and piece-wages as identical.

Citations

• ""He was born in Ireland, in March, 1897, according to Hone, and" surely _not_ 1897
• "Burke's Heraldic Illustrations, 1845, plate 51." italics requires, no?
• Full citation please: Potter, William (1650). "The Key of Wealth". Johnson Reprint Corp.. ? Original date and publisher, reprint date and publisher, locations?
• Cantillon (2010), [repeated issue], out of format and style, remove parenthesis
• Smith (2009), out of format and style, remove parenthesis
• Otherwise good! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Problems with citations should be fixed, excluding further information for Potter's book (if you follow the link provided you'll see that the original book is provided by a digital representation over Google books; I don't know any other information except that which is provided) and for Jevons (I don't know the issue or volume, although I linked to the pdf file).

Regarding Marx, I don't know enough about Marx to know the context his analysis is made in. Furthermore, his analysis seems more like an opinion based on his criticism of profits, and I'm unsure how I could include Marx (he says Cantillon's profit theory is a general surplus theory, but I'm not sure if that's even true). Maybe I'll revisit it tomorrow and see how I can include him; if anybody else has any ideas, please go for it. On the topic of the Mises Institute as a reliable publisher, I think it's more sensible to consider the authors (Cantillon, Rothbard, and Thornton); in any case, the burden of proof is on whoever claims they are unrealible (and, there is no reason that a Mises Institute book would be less reliable than any other publisher—in fact, there is greater reason, since the Mises Institute is relatively well known and values its reputation). Finally, Mises Daily follows a review system in which the article is first considered by a lead editor and then passed on to another editor, who may then ask fellows of the institute to validate facts (for example, my review of a book by L. Albert Hahn was deferred to Joseph Salerno for validation). It may not be as rigorous as an academic journal, but neither is The New York Times. In any case, I think the case for its reliability should be made on an article by article basis (you can check citations on both articles), and can be made during the review(s). For the record, Mises Daily is a daily, reviewed publication; Mises.org has a separate blog.JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes me feel more confident about the reliability of the sources I questioned. If you're in touch with Mises, can you let them know that their publications, like Mises Daily need to have, or need to have made more prominent, their about page which discusses the editorial process of the publication? It would help wikipedia editors, and other readers! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think I figured out a way to incorporate Marx's Capital into the article. I just have to get my hands on a physical copy of volumes 1 and 3. Volume 1 also references Cantillon in passing, although he confuses Richard Cantillon with the later theorist Phillip Cantillon (he mentions that Adam Smith drew from Cantillon). See my annotations here: Cantillon/Marx. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Megan Joy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article covers a variety of information abut the topic. The singer's history is well referenced and the topic covers all the major milestones theyshe had in her career.

Thanks, Tr33 swalow (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am archiving this as the nominator opened three PRs in one day, while the PR rules allow only one per nominator per day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Allison Iraheta

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article covers a variety of information abut the topic. The singer's history is well referenced and the topic covers all the major milestones theyshe had in her career.

Thanks, Tr33 swalow (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am archiving this as the nominator opened three PRs in one day, while the PR rules allow only one per nominator per day. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Alex (2010)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article about a hurricane from two months ago is getting close to GA level as we speak.

Thanks, Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is rather more detailed than most hurricane articles I've read, and it seems to be very comprehensive. I'm not an expert on hurricanes, so if my points seem a bit trivial or naive, I'm sorry.

• Lead: The last sentence introduces an unnecessary level of specific detail, which I believe would be better in the main body of the article.
• Meteorological history
  • The following sentence is overlong and awkwardly structured: "When Alex was still located over the Yucatan Peninsula, the NHC noted the potential for significant strengthening due to low wind shear and very warm water temperatures, possibly to a major hurricane, or a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale." My suggestion is a split: "When Alex was still located over the Yucatan Peninsula, the NHC noted a potential for significant strengthening. Because of low wind shear and very warm water temperatures, the possibly existed of a major hurricane at Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale."
  • "By early on June 28..." Ugly: delete the "By".
• Caribbean subsection: combine the two very short paragraphs.
• Western Gulf coast: "Prior to moving ashore, the Brownsville, Texas National Weather Service issued a flood watch for the southernmost region of the state." This reads as though the Weather Service issued a flood watch and then moved ashore. That is not the intended meaning, surely?
• Impact - Caribbean and Central America: "In the Dominican Republic, the rainfall causing flooding that prompted the evacuations of more than 3,000 people, mostly due to swollen rivers." This is not a sentence. Try "caused" for "causing". These regular incidences of wobbly prose indicate the need for a copyedit from an uninvolved hurricane expert - there are a few around.
• Northeastern Mexico
• The phrase "torrential rainfall" in the firat line also occurred in the last line of the previous section, and looks repetitive. Try to rephrase.
• What is "CNA"
• I suppose it's my ignorance, but how does a dam operate at 114% or 124% of maximum capacity?
• Tamaulipas
  • "...a 25-year-old man was rescued from a storm drain in which he had become trapped". Last six words unnecessary.
  • There needs to be consistency through the article in the usage of either "%" or "percent".
• Aftermath: the tendenct to write in very short paragraphs increases as the section progresses.
• References: I haven't checked these for reliability, etc , but I notice that some are incompletely formatted. Refs 1 and 41–44 are the obvious ones.
• A couple of links go to dab pages (use the toolbox top-right of this review to identify, then fix)

Overall this looks thorough, though in need of a prose tidy. The points I have raised above should be taken as samples, not as a complete list, hence the value of a copyedit. I have done a small number of tweaks myself. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address most of those issues, except the Aftermath, which will take a bit more time. The dam capacity thing is a bit weird. There are two dam capacity levels: conservation space, which is the water level that can be used for water consumption, and flood control space, which is everything between the top of conservation space and the crest of the dam. That space is reserved for storing excess water during heavy runoff, and such water must be released within a set amount of time. (In Spanish, the two levels are the nivel de avenidas máximo ordinario [NAMO] and the nivel de avenidas máximo extraoridinario [NAME], by the way.) The dam is usually said to be at 100% of capacity when it is at the top of conservation space/NAMO; however, there is still some space available at the top, so readings of 114% and 124% just mean how much excess water there is on the dam. (When the water level exceeds flood control space/NAME, that's when we need to worry about.) I'm not sure how to phrase that into the article without adding lots of unnecessary detail, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hutchinson Central Technical High School

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have recently revamped this article and added references from the Official History, and news sources, as well as pictures of older buildings of the past. Thanks, Wolfnix • Talk • 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: At present the article looks in a very incomplete state. Some obvious areas of concern are:-

• The lead is not a summary of the whole article, and needs to be expanded

• Is there a specifc way I can improve this? This is one of the first articles I have revamps. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The History section is very superficial, with lengthy gaps in the chronology. One example: no details of how the school grew from 64 pupils in 1904 to over 1,000 in 1918

• An good explanation of this is the opening of the new building which is stated in the article. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In September 1905, the school's name was changed to Technical High School, pending the move to a new building to be built on Cedar Street and Clinton Ave; its corner stone was laid on November 14, 1912.[1] The Cedar Street building opened on July 14, 1918 with an enrollment of 1009 students, 863 boys and 146 girls. It offered evening classes, the first of its kind in Buffalo at the time.

• The section carries very few citations to sources. Some paragraphs carry no citations at all, others hardly any. Every significant statement needs to be cited.

• This can be fixed. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the information is overdetailed, e.g. "This computer, with 20,000 BCD words of memory, was quite advanced for the time, and classes were taught in assembly language, symbolic programming, Fortran, Cobol, and numerical analysis."

• How do you mean over-detailed? Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The main source for the history appears to be an internal school history project, which does not constitute a reliable source.

• How exactly does the internal school project not constitute a reliable source? The information is compiled from records from the school district, yearbooks, and other primary sources. A high school's history normally can not be reliable sourced elsewhere. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The "In the news" section is mainly trivia and does not constitute encyclopedic content

• This information can be merged into the history, but much of it constitutes recent history. If you can suggest a better name for the section, please do. I was just trying to separate, how do you say

• There are style issues, e.g. inappropriate italicisation, use of abbreviatios ("Ave"), inconsistent formatting of larger numbers (sometimes written out, sometimes numerical), hyphens in number ranges etc

• I will look into this one, thank you. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• There are two wikilinks to disambiguation pages: Public school and Swimming. I'd say the latter link was unnecessary any way.

• Both of these are fixed, the second link was to list the fact the school has a swimming time, a full listing of the sports time in {{infobox school}} is why it is there. Replaced with [Public_high_school|Public]] and Swimming respectively Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• The link to ref 4 is broken.

• Fixed, an extra m, after the link. Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In short, although your additional images and other work have improved it, I don't think the article is developed enough for the peer review process. You should use the points I have raised as a basis for improving it, and perhaps try again later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, for your times and efforts in replying to the evaluation this article. I have replied inline, Thanks again. --Wolfnix • Talk • 01:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} or {{Whisper Back}} message on my talk page.

---

Princeton Tigers men's basketball

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am going to nominate this at WP:GAN and want to prepare it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A few quick comments:

• I assume this is being presented as a list, not an article?
  • I am not sure if it should be a list or an article. Most of these college team articles are not lists. I guess I better overhaul the page so it is more proselike.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• What is the use of the redlink immediately over the infobox?
  • We were hoping for a season article while the team was in the post season. Most of these team articles have a link to the current season.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Licensing of the logo is inadequate. The image does not "only consist of simple geometric shapes". The all-important factor is the specific coloring pattern.
• Something is up with the connection to ivyleaguesports.com. Refs 5, 6, 7 and 9 all return page not found messages.
  • They moved their server. I will try to check some archives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• William Roper leads to a dab page
• The rash of redlinks in the lead disfigures the page. But anyway, why is it necessary to list 15 names in the lead? The object of the lead is to provide a summary overview, not this level of detail.
  • I addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• The table in the Arenas section is completely empty.
• Ivy league table: Does "Pct." mean "per cent"? The figures in the column are not in percentage form.
• "Bradley has won numerous distinctions as a Princeton Tiger. He is the team's only Rhodes Scholar". That is not a distiction that he won "as a Princeton Tiger".
  • I don't understand this point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The Ivy League Media guide lists Rhodes Scholars in its year by year summary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
• Far too much "See also"

Something to work on, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Needs a history section if you even want to think about GA. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• In the Postseason section, the "Field size" parameter should be deleted. How about replace it with "seed"? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Rehab (Rihanna song)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for GA-Status but would appreciate any input on what in the article could prevent it from achieving GA-Status.

Thanks, Blizzard01 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

I'm reviewing the article, and if I were the GAN reviewer I would comment:

Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

*Background on ref 3, Songfacts is not a reliable source. Done American actress, Kim Kardashian, concurred Rihanna's explaination of the song by saying that any girl that has gone through a break-up should listen to it.[8] David James Young of Sputnikmusic felt that the track consisted of sentimental lyrical analogy.[9] While Bill Lamb from About.com summarized its lyrical inspiration as being about a "bruised break-up".[10] -> Does not sounds for the section itself, also ref nine is not a reliable source, it is an user review. Done Composition "Take a Bow" (2008) and "Unfaithful" (2006). -> Maybe "Unfaithful" (2006) and "Take a Bow" (2008). Done The song opens with a tension-filled string section[13] played by Stevie Blacke[1] as a contrasting violin and cello instrumental groove with Hannon Lane's keyboard melody. -> Commas again, "The song opens with a tension-filled string section,[13] played by Stevie Blacke,[1] as a contrasting violin and cello instrumental groove with Hannon Lane's keyboard melody." Done in similarity to Justin Timberlake's -> in similarity to Timberlake's Done It is composed in the key of G-flat minor -> source states that it is composed in G minor. Done Entertainment Weekly -> overlinked Done ref 19 is reliable because... Done It's a little late where I live, so I cannot continue with the review. I'll take it later. TbhotchTalk C. 06:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Infobox

File:RihanHab.jpg need to be at most 300px.

B-side = Rehab (insrumental)

• Lead

December 8, 2008 -> December 8, 2008,

"What Goes Around.../...Comes Around" (2007). -> Maybe the release date could be used after the first Good Girl Gone Bad.

it has reached eighteen on the Billboard Hot 100. -> Billboard Hot 100, and maybe "it reached" because it could re-enter, but it is not probably.

Rihanna performed "Rehab" at the 2008 American Music Awards as well as on The Last Girl on Earth Tour and the Good Girl Gone Bad Tour where she performed the song while wearing a revealing leather outfit. -> I would add some commas like "Rihanna performed "Rehab" at the 2008 American Music Awards, as well as on The Last Girl on Earth Tour and the Good Girl Gone Bad Tour, where she performed the song while wearing a revealing leather outfit.

I am currently editing from Opera, I'll fix these sections as soon as I have pc access.

• Background

Rihanna and Justin Timberlake -> overlinked Done

At About.com, -> id.

'id' meaning?

id. -> idem, the same, in this case overlinked. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Composition

File:Rihanna Rehab.ogg.ogg should be reduced per WP:SAMPLE

Do you perhaps know where I can get hold of a reduced sample?

You may ask to another user if s/he could upload a new and reduced sample. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Critical reception

Sal Cinquemani of Slant Magazine -> Slant is not a printed magazine

Entertainment Weekly, About.com, Justin Timberlake, What Goes Around.../...Comes Around, Good Girl Gone Bad, PopMatters, Madonna (entertainer), Babyface (musician), Take a Bow (Madonna song), Timbaland, Metro Weekly -> overlinked

• Chart performance

Billboard Hot 100 -> Billboard Hot 100

Ref 25 must be a Billboard link, it is the sixth highest debut of that week, so it exist.

on Billboard's Pop Songs chart[27], -> on Billboard's Pop Songs chart,[27]

"Rehab" debuted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number fifty-six and reached a peak of nineteen -> "Rehab" debuted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number fifty-six, and reached a peak of nineteen

"Rehab" debuted on the Canadian Hot 100 at number fifty-six -> source does not state it

on the issue dated November 17, 2008 -> on the issue dated November 17, 2008,

The song has peaked -> The song peaked

giving Rihanna her thirteenth -> Actually was her twelfth

the issue of October 27, 2008 and reached -> the issue of October 27, 2008, and reached

on January 11, 2009 -> on January 11, 2009,

after twelve weeks on the chart, shipping over 7,500 copies. ->

The song debuted on the UK Singles Chart at number fifty-one in November 2008. -> source does not state it.

aCharts should be avoided, only can be used when the information is not available on the official chart. Why you not try the Official website or chartstats?

top five hit there. [35] -> top five hit there.[35]

song has also debuted-> and it still debuting?

The song has also debuted on the Dutch Top 40 at number eighteen on the issue dated January 17, 2009.[36] -> Why the aCharts link is used when the Hung Medien or the official are availables?

It has peaked -> It peaked

• Music video

Hoy File:Rehabmusicvideo.JPG pass WP:NFCC#8? Exist other better screenshots

"Rehab" with Justin Timberlake -> overlinked

outside of Los Angeles -> Los Angeles, Texas? or maybe Los Angeles, California?

It was directed by Anthony Mandler and preview -> It was directed by Anthony Mandler, and preview

"Take a Bow" and "Unfaithful". -> overlinked

including: "Disturbia", "Take a Bow" and "Unfaithful" -> source does not state it

Timberlake's girlfriend and American actress Jessica Biel was -> Timberlake's then-girlfriend, and American actress, Jessica Biel was

It begun impacting music television stations in the United States on November 10, 2008. -> source does not state it

music video won an award for 'Best Music Video' at the 2009 Urban Music Awards where Rihanna also won the award for 'Best Female Artist' -> music video won an award for "Best Music Video" at the 2009 Urban Music Awards, where Rihanna also won the award for "Best Female Artist"

• Live performances

File:Rihannna good girl gone bad live.png -> Several issues: break the rules of fair use, especially number 8, also there is no summary of why it can be used on this article; the image is not discussed anywhere; the performing "Rehab" is no sourced.

On April 28, 2008 -> On April 28, 2008,

on November 23, 2008 -> " on November 23, 2008,

"Rehab" features as the twelveth track on Rihanna's setlist for her 2010 tour, Last Girl on Earth Tour. ->

She performed it on a therapist's couch adorned with metal casts of human heads and limbs ->

• Purchasable releases

The table needs a fix

• References

In general overlinked

Ref 3, 9, 16 work=Entertainemnt Weekly publisher=Time Inc

Ref 4, 5, 41, 46 work=Digital Spy publisher=Hachette Filipacchi Ltd

Ref 7, 51 |work=MTV News |publisher=MTV Networks or Viacom

Ref 8 |work=About.com |publisher=The New York Times Company

Ref 10 |work=IGN |publisher=News International

Ref 19 |work=The Village Voice |publisher=Village Voice Media

Ref 21 |work=The Boston Globe |publisher=The New York Times Company

Ref 22 |work=Yahoo! Music |publisher=Yahoo!

Ref 25 Billboard. Billboard.com. -> consistency -> |work=Billboard |publisher=Nielsen Business Media, Inc

Ref 24, 26, 27 and 28 the "for Rihanna" is not needed

Ref 32, 41 need accessdate

Ref 48 |work=Daily Mail |publisher=Daily Mail and General Trust

Ref 55 |work=Variety |publisher=Reed Business Information

Ref 56 |work=New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company

Ref 57 |Work=Chicago Tribune |publisher=Tribune Company

Rev 59 |work=The Providence Journal |publisher=A.H. Belo Corporation

Ref 60 needs consistency (check ref 102)

Ref 61 needs consistency (check ref 62, 63)

Refs 90, 92 and 101 need consistency

• General

some links need update

In general, the article needs commas in general, throughout it is like a "read n'run" article, I could not tell you exactly where but some of them are lacking.

---

List of extreme weather records in Pakistan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review i want to make it better, and in near future i will nominate this article for Featured list candidate. Thanks

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I am glad that each entry is sourced. There are only a few suggestions I would like to make.

1. Although floods are now an yearly phenomenon because of presence of flood plains in Pakistan, they have become part of climate of Pakistan. List of floods should instead be redirected to List of natural disasters in Pakistan or List_of_floods#Pakistan. We can try having two featured lists instead of one...right? :P

I would suggests that instead of floods we can replace it with List of Floods.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

2. Not necessary but I suggest use of footnotes instead for a separate section of 'notes' at the end of each list. See my sandbox to have a look on another list which uses footnotes.

I am thinking about it, after viewing some more articles i will change as you said. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Done ! Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Instead of these long heading which seem to be messing up the content menu a liitle, I suggest use of table heading as below:

{| class="sortable wikitable"

|+ <font size="+1">List of cities where 45°C or above but below 50°C temperature was recorded</font>

|-

! Bla Bla Bla !! Bla Bla !! Bla

I think the long headings are correct, in the sense that most articles on Wikipedia have the same trend of long headings where needed.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

4. I also suggest removing the sortable option from column of 'notes' as below:

! class="unsortable" | Notes

Ok Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done ! Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

5. 'Date' column in third table is taking two lines on my computer screen (don't know about you guys). We can always set the width of columns like below:

! style="width: 12em;" | Date

Ok

6. Another small problem needs to be reported. When we use sortable option of 'temperature' columns. The star thing * messes up the ascending/descending order. See for yourself. The star/footnote needs to be placed at the end of the temperatures.

Done ! Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if these suggestions would actually help but they might increase reading experience. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, i will check these all problems.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of navigational stars

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A previous version of this list received some support as a FLC in May 2008. At the time, it became clear that some improvements were possible:

• addition of interactive star charts
• improvement to table sorting
• enhancement of table design
• addition of explanatory text
• addition of citations

I think I've addressed these concerns and am considering nominating it for a second FLC. Any suggestions are welcome. In addition I have two ideas that I'm pondering:

• remove the distance column in the table, as it is of no purpose navigationally, and
• adding external links to wikisky in the table, as is done in articles about individual stars. This would allow the reader to view the stars in an environment similar to google-maps (example)

Cheers. Haus^Talk 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• comments by Sandman888

Given that this should be a list of stars it would make sense to have the list immidiately after the background section.

Y Moved.

Please don't add backgrond-colours to any of the table headers

Y Removed.

why is "Common Name" uppercase?

Y Changed.

"Key to the Star charts" has an odd vertical line in the table?

 Question: I looked again with chrome, firefox, and IE — couldn't get it to happen for me. What browser are you using?

this entry "UPPERCASE Constellation name " is a little confusing and perhaps writing it in prose instead could explain it better.

I agree this is a little iffy, but am not sure removing it is the best solution. For the time being, I've changed it to "UPPERCASE TEXT." In the prose, there is a line "In the star charts, constellations are labelled with capital letters and indicated by dotted lines collecting their stars."

remove some of the numerous references to [1], at the end of a section is fine if it refs all of it.

the image description in the lede is not the best in the world as it's not only a sextant. How about "the use of sextants to navigate by the stars began in...."

I've reworded and changed the link from sextant to sextant observations.

image in background section doesn't add a lot as is (i.e. without clicking it). consider getting rid of it.

Mixed feelings on this one — I think I'll see what happens at FLC.

Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it. Haus^Talk 20:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Squirt and the Whale

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to be a good article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts

Comments by Jappalang

• There is a Simpsons-fansite-like feel to the article. Trivia and favorite tropes (e.g. relating Bart's chalkboard opening to another episode, detailed character references like Shatner without critical analysis, etc) are mentioned without any critical sense to them. With what encyclopaedic reason are they highlighted? Had they been critically analyzed or had played a factor in the reception of the show?

• What is so notable about "The opening movie parody lead to the creation of a real website."? If it did not receive any attention from third-party reliable sources, why should it be noted here?

• The Reception could receive a copy-edit (restructuring and rewriting). I am not enamoured with the "gave a score" plus a quotation approach, especially when the pattern is repeated ad nauseam. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Firefox News a reliable source? What makes the Simpsons Archive a reliable source, especially when they permit free submissions without any editorial control? What makes TV Fanatic and TV Squad (a blog) reliable sources? Please refer to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches on how sources are generally judged.

The above are a few issues I spot after taking a gander. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

St James' Church, Stretham

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I developed this article from scratch. I have tried to maintain a high article quality on this nearby church, seeking sources for every fact. I thought I had recently discovered a source for the clock maker but in the end, was unsuccessful; I have had to make do with an image as a source. I am aiming for this article as a GAN candidate if a reviewer thinks it is able to reach that standard. I would like a re-grading from Start-class if possible. I did initially submit this to the Christianity project but on further looking into it, they look dormant

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• Why is Grade II* capitalised in the lede but not in the main body text? What is the context of this grading; i.e. is this grading for architectural design, historical significance, sturdiness, or preservation? I think it would be better to give readers a sense of what the grading is for than to send them off to another article (leaving this article).

• agree  Done Grade II* is now capitalised throughout --Senra (Talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• disagree  Done I disagree as there are 500,000 buildings in the UK to which are listed! However, I have inserted some prose which I hope meets with your approval --Senra (Talk) 12:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a bit too much added...

For the lede's "Founded in the 12th century, this Grade II* listed church was heavily restored by the architect J. P. St Aubyn in 1876.", might I suggest changing it to:

"Founded in the 12th century, it was heavily restored by the architect J. P. St Aubyn in 1876. The English Heritage, a body responsible for preserving historical sites in the United Kingdom, assessed the church a Grade II* structure."?

For the main body text's "Historic buildings in England are protected by Acts of Parliament and listed in a publicly available register. The first act, in 1882, [...] warranting every effort to preserve them. There are approximately 374,000 listed buildings in England. <break> St James' Church, Stretham, is a Grade II* listed building which was originally listed Grade A on 5 February 1952 until a resurvey and regrading on 19 August 1988.", might I suggest adopting:

"St James' Church, Stretham, is a historic building protected by England's Acts of Parliament. Originally, the church was listed Grade A in a publicly available register on 5 February 1952 until a resurvey and regrading by the English Heritage on 19 August 1988. Since then, it is listed as a Grade II* building, which makes the church particularly important to the country's heritage and warrants every effort to preserve it."? Jappalang (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• agree  Done thank you for the suggestion. I used it with minor tweaks --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Care should be taken when interpreting what the 12th century historians write, as there were known political motives; in this case, however, the written record seems to agree with other evidence, as fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century."

  This tone does not sound right to me; it comes across as if it is instructing the reader on what to do, not exactly what an encyclopaedia (reporting the facts) is supposed to be doing. Furthermore, this cautionary tone is not sourced (Pugh does not address this). Perhaps, "This record of the church's existence in the 12th century is corroborated by the dating of certain of its structure to that period." or the like.

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "This record of the church's existence in the 12th century is corroborated by the dating of certain of its structure to that period as fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century."

The general statement with the example seems a bit redundant. How about "Fragments of the east chancel are known to be from about the 12th century, corroborating the record of the church's existence in that period."? Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• agree  Done thank you for the suggestion. I used it wholesale --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Like what I said at the peer review for Mount Rainier, I think it is best to acquaint the subject with the reader before launching into cold hard facts. This can be done by stating up front in the History section where the church is and its significance to the people.

• comment not certain I agree; I may need further specific guidance. The lead clearly states where the church is and its listing gives its significance to the English country as a whole. I have added distance to Stretham from Ely and London early in the history section. Please make further comment --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think what you did is fine; I tweaked it a bit and hope it is okay.[7] Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... at a cost of £4,400 or £306,773 at present worth, as of 2010."

  It sounds weird to me. Why not "... at a cost of £4,400 (equivalent to £306,773 in 2010)."?

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The church records for baptism 1558–, banns 1759–1963, marriages 1558–1952, and burial 1558–1956 (C of E only) are kept in the County Records Office, Cambridge."

  I am not enamoured with the numbers there... especially the baptism date which seems partial (though I eventually figure it is supposed to mean from 1558 to current). Why not take out the years and put them in a single footnote? Furthermore, abbreviations are to be stated in full on the first mention. There could be readers from other countries who might not know C of E is the Church of England.

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of rector, has a black marble slab in the chancel dated 1667."

  So what is so significant about a "black marble slab" that is lying around in the church and used to belong to the rector's wife in 1667?

• agree  Done added "... is commemorated by a memorial ..." --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of rector, is commemorated by a memorial black marble slab in the chancel dated 1667."

I am not certain of two nouns in a row ("memorial black marble slab"). How about "Lying in the chancel is a black marble slab that dates back to 1667; it is a memorial, commemorating Anne Brunsell, sister of Sir Christopher Wren and wife of the rector then." Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• agree  Done Thank you for the suggestion. I used it wholesale after checking carefully that it was not a copyvio from Pugh (1953) nor Pevsner (1970). WAIT. I am not accusing you of copyvio at all. Recently, someone else made a correction to another of my articles and changed a word which happened to accidentally match exactly the source --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, it happens at times (tweaking a sentence until somehow it inadvertently becomes the same as a source's). Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• "... at a cost of £350 or £27,449 at present worth, as of 2010;"

  The same as two points above.

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The oldest bell as at 2010 ..."

  "As of 2010"?

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• "According to Canon K W H Felstead's (and subsequent) records, ..."

  Subsequent canons?

• agree  Done removed "(and subsequent)" and added "now" before "maintained" --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that hidden lists tend to be frowned at (if this is brought to FAC); collapsible lists in the text should be shown on default.

• agree  Done I did not know this, thanks --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is the church still open? What is the number of its parishioners? Are there any notable parishoner or priest who have contributed to this church (or made news while still with the church)?

• agree  Done The church is still open as it says in the infobox. I have added the word 'active' to the lead and early in the history section --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• comment I do not know the current congregation size. It will be small. I will try and find out --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• comment yes, a small number of vicars (rectors? parsons?) have some small infamy. For example, Henry Law was one of the magistrates involved in the Ely and Littleport riots 1816; Mark Ridley was born in Stretham whilst his father was rector there; John Sparke became Canon of Ely, Stuart Stitt was (and still remains) the longest serving rector of Stretham. Not sure any of these people are really nationally notable. Would you be kind enough to provide further advice on this one please? --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is one of those fields that can degrade the quality of the article if done incorrectly (filling it with a list of trivia). What I was suggesting is to look for notable events that involved the church in some form (e.g. a church personality who is associated with the church and hence by becoming notable, brought the church into public view). It might not need to be nationally notable (although it needs to be well known in a region larger than a single town or county). For example, if a vicar of this church is known to lead members of his parish in performing charity work in the region, it might be reasonable to report on that (by extension of the vicar and his parish's work in the name of the church). However, incidental events (such as relations by birth and actions done not in the capacity as a church official) would be trivial and best be ignored. Jappalang (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• comment ✗ Not done We are losing this one. There is no one notable enough (other that the trivia I mention above) --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well, do not fret over it. If there are no sources for this, nothing can be done. I will leave this unstruck, in case someone else has an idea or source to help out. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cambridgeshire outline map with UK.png: what base map was this image derived from; i.e. from which public domain map or set of data were the geographical lines based on? See commons:Commons:Image casebook#Map and satellite images, WP:CITE#IMAGE and WP:IUP.

• comment I have never been asked this before. It is a good question. I made the assumption that as the file is automated in an {{infobox}} it would be appropriately licensed and sourced accordingly. I will look into this --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• I have raised this issue with Jza84 (talk · contribs) at File:Cambridgeshire outline map with UK --Senra (Talk) 22:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• agree  Done completed but not in the way I expected. I did raise the issue with Jza84 (talk · contribs) at File:Cambridgeshire outline map with UK who kindly corrected the file in question by adding source information. Shortly after, and apparently coincidentally, Jza84 reports that the new and better sourced file has been released. In any case, whatever file is included is done automatically without my intervention by my use of the {{infobox church}}. I have checked the new file and sourcing looks ok to me --Senra (Talk) 12:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Replaced with the excellent File:Cambridgeshire UK location map.svg. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• It would be good to put in where did you get the data to draw File:St James drawing.jpg (personal visit, maps, brochures, etc).

• agree  Done --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I actually meant to put it on the image page; I took the liberty to do so. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am totally ignorant of the history of bell music, so it would be best to give information on why Bob Minor is no longer a copyrighted score (if it dates back to the 17th century or earlier, we are absolutely safe). Otherwise File:Bob Minor, Synthesised Bell Sounds.ogg might be a copyright violation.

• comment Not sure. I have raised this question at Media copyright questions(Note the perm link - refresh to get latest posts to this query) --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• I managed to find the Bob Minor's definition in an 1829 book (which explains it better than our articles here...) ; I think that pretty much proves it in the public domain (it is published before 1923 and if there is an author, he would certainly be dead more than 70 years ago). This sound file is good now. Jappalang (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Would you provide the reference please? Just in case this comes up again --Senra (Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is on the media's page, File:Bob Minor, Synthesised Bell Sounds.ogg. Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the copyrighted File:Logo of the Church of England.png used on this page? How does it comply with all 10 criteria of WP:NFCC?

• agree  Done I pulled it whilst I seek clarity on this one. the file is linked to 10 other articles, including the C-class Church of England. As there were no FA-class articles using it, I pulled it --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done The logo file has been modified. Specifically, the permission remains WP:LOGO and the FUR now (I believe) meets all WP:NFCC so I have restored it --Senra (Talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, I am not sure what transpired there has cleared this image for use on this church. I would say that it might be fair use for the article on the Church of England organization. What makes it necessary (that words cannot effectively convey) for this logo to help readers understand further about St James? That (strict use of copyrighted images) is generally what compliance with the 10 criteria of WP:NFCC is supposed to do. If the logo is one without copyright (in the public domain or licensed in compliance with the aims of the project), there is no issue with using it in any article (except maybe content-wise). A copyrighted image, however, has stricter rules to it. Jappalang (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am no expert for sure but it seems to me that the FUR in this file is fair use for this article (and I did not write the FUR) especially points 3 and 4 ...

From http://www.cofe.anglican.org/ for fair use on Church of England

1. This image is a low-resolution image of the logo of a Christian denomination.
2. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization.
3. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone.
4. Use of the logo visually identifies the denomination's doctrines and operations in a manner that mere prose cannot, and meets all criteria in WP:NFCC

... of course I may be wrong --Senra (Talk) 00:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The crux of it is: I do not need to see the logo to know this church is under the C of E. Words explain it very well (NFCC #1 failure - free equivalent available). This church is not the C of E; it does not need the logo as an identifying marker, which the picture of the church serves in that capacity very well. How does seeing this logo help the reader understand more (that is not covered by the previous two points) about the church (NFCC #8 failure - contextual insignificance)? Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

agree reluctant agreement as in my opinion, the logo describes the doctrine far more quickly and efficiently than mere words can achieve. Nevertheless, your points are well made. I have removed the logo --Senra (Talk) 14:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and graded the article C-class. It is a conservative assessment. Jappalang (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I really very much appreciate the time you have taken to conduct this review. I also appreciate the C-class regrading you have issued. I would further welcome you checking my work above and if there are any matters arising I will gladly handle them as expediently as I can --Senra (Talk) 17:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this article. If you are happy, please close the review or I will close it around 10:00 am 29 September 2010 (UTC). Once closed, I will be submitting this article as a GAN unless you feel the article has gone as far as it can go --Senra (Talk) 15:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is up to you to close the review (no one else is to close it unless it violates procedure or something). I think there is not much more I can help with this article. Good luck! Jappalang (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Russia

Previous peer review

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

Hello, pls review this article for peer review. The text is well written, contains much informations about culture, economy, histoy and other issues. The article is very informative and written in a good english language. It also contains huge amount of picture, which are all copyrighted, and I realy liked the government and politics part, especially the subdivisions and demography. This article includes everything about a country what constitutes to call a country! its already a good article, and so it should be a featured article imho. thank you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page regarding a GA review; this article should not be listed at PR when a GA review is pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I could not find which talk page you mentioned. I have never known of any restriction on an article being at both PR and GAN at the same time, and I just looked at WP:GAN and the linked pages there and found no such restrictions. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I put a {{GA request}} at Talk:Russia after it was nommed at FAC, and Geometry guy has responded there. Work is underway to reduce the size of the article, and (hopefully) address the lack of citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, I agree with SandyGeorgia that this peer review should not have started (I agree that simultaneous GAN and PR is no issue, but Sandy is talking about a request to GAR and PR). There is considerable discussion over the article on its talk page (that is still ongoing) before this peer review request was even raised. I do not think peer review should be used to distract their train of thought or as a side way introduction of third-party opinions. We have RFCs and 3Os for that. Jappalang (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have closed (archived) the PR per the above discussion. If GreatOrangePumpkin or anyone else wants a new PR after the GAR concludes, please feel free to open one. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

sry sandy, didnt knew that it need a GAR nomination.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

---

James Watt

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We are working towards GA status for this article. There have been major changes since the last review and it would be very helpful to see where we stand now.

Thanks, Thparkth (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

• Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix it.

• Checklinks show two dead links; please fix them.

• Most of the structure seems good, but some parts seem repetitive (the founding of Boulton and Watt is mentioned twice).

• Many paragraphs of this article are not cited to sources. This failing makes it pointless to continue reviewing (the content might be incorrect or unfounded).

The serious lack of citations would cause the article to fail straightaway at GAN or FAC, so this must be rectified before any review or assessment can commence. Jappalang (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Kuala Lumpur

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to nominate it for featured article status soon. I would like to obtain creative feedback from experienced editors regarding the changes that can be made to this article so that it fulfils the featured article criteria. Kuala Lumpur is already a good article, so it probably doesn't require a major overhaul in order to become a featured article. Is it incomplete in any way? Does it have enough citations, and are these citations valid? Does it need copyediting in terms of grammar and style? Does the lead section accurately represent the general idea of the subject, hence making it comprehensive? Are there any rules of thumb that ought to be followed when nominating an article for FA status? In addition, is the Kuala Lumpur category underpopulated and do these relevant articles contain substantial information?

Your cooperation is appreciated. Thanks, Acs4b ^{T C U} 14:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I note that it is your intention to bring this article to FAC. That's a reasonable objective, but please be aware that it is a large step from Good Article to Featured Article, and much work will be required to bridge that gap. I have not had time for a thorough read-through, but here are points that will require attention:-

• Many sources are not fully formatted, lack publisher details and access dates
• A large number of your sources links are dead or give timeouts. Check the toolbox at the top right of this review page.
• Use the same toolbox to identify and correct numerous links to disambiguation pages.  Done
• Citations are uneven throughout the article,with many uncited statements often encompassing whole paragraphs. A "citation needed" tag has been placed in the Geography section; there could be many more.
• Lead citations: The lead should be a concise summary of the whole article, avoiding too much specific detail. If the lead is doing its job properly, I would not expect to see so many citations within the lead; the citations should be within the main text.

I have moved several citations from the lead to more applicable sections of the article. I have also rephrased two or three sentences within the lead so that the section represents a more concise description of the topic. I assume that there is no specific rule on Wikipedia regarding the number of citations that should be placed in the lead, since some articles invariably have longer lead sections than others, but what is the ideal number for an article like Kuala Lumpur? There are currently 9 citations there (initially there were 14); some of the sentences are general and therefore do not require citations of any sort within the lead, at least. Acs4b ^{T C U} 13:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:MOS advises that a lead should not consist of more than four paragraphs  Done
• There are some wonderful images in the article, but too many. The text is often squeezed. I'd say you could get rid of three or four of the least interesting without detriment to the article.
• Image licence issues. You need to establish that File:Japanese troops mopping up in Kuala Lumpur.jpg is PD in the USA. A check of the licensing on all images is advisable before FAC.where image reviewing is especially rigorous.
• There are some out of date statistics in the text, e.g. GDP figures given for 10 years ago  Done
• Prose: although I have not checked this out in detail, I have observed a few things:-
  • The History section fails to clarify the colonial context (British rule) at the time of the city's foundation, so that a sudden reference to "the British administrative offices" makes no sense.
  • There is a tendency to write in very short paragraphs, often one line or less. This destroys the prose flow.
  • Some of the sentences are over-complicated and awkwardly worded, e.g. "Despite the relocation of federal government administration to Putrajaya, certain government’s important machineries such as Bank Negara Malaysia (Central Bank of Malaysia), Companies Commission of Malaysia and Securities Commission as well as most embassies and diplomatic missions have remained in the city." This is one example, there are many more. A thorough prose check throughout is necssary, if this article is to have any realistic chance at FAC.

I hope these pointers will help you improve the article on the way to achieving your goal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. Your review is very helpful in the sense that it has highlighted some of the major flaws in the article's structure that need to be rectified before nominating it for FA status. Acs4b ^{T C U} 13:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Nathan Drake (character)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has failed multiple Featured Article nominations; I feel like its close, but it just needs that extra push to gain support for FA. That being said, I would appreciate any comments that would work toward that goal, basically, I want to take care of any problems before I even consider nominating it again. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Since most of the issues have been regarding 1a (prose), I'm just going to perform my own copyedits and respond here with queries that require a deeper understanding. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated! かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Dead link needs resolution. ResMar 21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jappalang

Lede

• "... who influenced the character ..."

  Influenced the character's what (since a video game character has no sentience to be influenced)?

• "To encourage players to relate to the character, the designers gave Drake an "everyman" persona and clothed him in t-shirt and jeans."

  Please rephrase. The current sentence makes it a fact that clothing a character in t-shirt and jeans would encourage players to relate to the character. This is just their goal, not a fact; i.e. "Aiming to ..."

• "Drake possesses a strong personality, and often jokes and quips during the game."

  Suggestion: "Drake is given a strong personality that is prone to making jokes and quips in the games."

Character design

• Start off by stating what is Uncharted and what the team wants out of its protagonist.

• "... through his reactions with the environment ..."

  I believe it would be "interactions", not "reactions".

• "To do this, they developed ..."

  "To do this" is redundant, especially if the previous sentence was ended with a semi-colon...

• "... allowing him to display reactions and his a snarky disposition in context."

  What is a "snarky disposition in context"?

• "... if a reaction did not work as planned, or took too long, the production team removed it."

  Suggestion: "... they removed any animation that produced effects contrary to their intent or that took a lot of time."

• "The blended animation system in the game, with more than 30 animations comprising one movement, was implemented to make Drake a more relatable character."

  The concept that it would be easier to relate to a smoothly animated character does not make sense to me.

• "The Naughty Dog staff looked to several sources in creating Drake."

  Is "references" meant instead? Sources could mean the staff went to those people and asked for their opinions in making a video game character.

• :Series writer Amy Hennig described Drake as a gritty, charming mixture of actors Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, continuing that influence came from romantic action-adventure heroes, including Cary Grant:"

  Somehow, "... continuing that influence came ..." does not read well to me here...

• "E. Daniel Arey, former Naughty Dog creative director, ..."

  Why was he "former" when the character was created?

• "Neil Druckmann, lead designer of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, explained that Drake was meant to react to situations in the manner that the average player might."

  Different people have different opinions. Druckman's perception of the behaviour of an average player is his perception not a fact. I would suggest: "Neil Druckmann, lead designer of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, said they made Drake react to situations in a manner similar to what they believed the average player would do."

Personality

• "Drake has a strong personality;"

  What is a "strong personality"? The subsequent sentences do not seem to elaborate on this either.

• "North was told to bring his own personality to the character while voice acting."

  Suggestion: "Drake's voice actor, North, was instructed to imbue his own personality into the character."

Outward appearance

• "Drake's outward appearance is fairly generic, consisting of a simple white shirt and pants in the first game, and a darker shirt in the second. He was deliberately costumed simply in a t-shirt and jeans to provide a "blank slate" on which the everyman persona could be imposed."

  I believe I had read this earlier in Character design.

• "Half-tuck", "three-quarters-tuck", it seems only the game developers notice these things. Does anybody else care how Drake wear his shirts? It seems rather amazing for this self-introspection to warrant an entire paragraph (WP:UNDUE)...

Appearances

• "Drake realizes that the idol is cursed, and turned the Spanish and Kriegsmarine searching for it into zombified monsters."

  Drake has powers to turn people into zombies?

• Somehow I think the Appearances are just "copies" of the plot sections of the games (especially since Drake is the protagonist). I think it would be better if possible to rewrite them, focusing on the character's actions and situations that made him appeal to (or disliked by) the reviewers.

Merchandise and promotion

• There is a lack of encyclopaedic context (importance) to this section; it could be due to the way it is written. I could easily just say "so what?" How does the advertising and a toy of Drake's gun relate to this character's notability? Is "action figure" not a better and more understood term than "urban vinyl toy" (do we want readers to remain confuse or to wander off to that urban vinyl article and forget about this Drake)? Were the figures all sold out? How does "it appears there's Drake, Hellboy Drake, Berlin Nightclub Drake and Radioactive Drake" relate to reviewers' lack of enthusiasm over the toys (and why "reviewers" when only a Kotaku blogger is cited)?

Critical reception

• "Comparing Drake to a similar character, ..."

  Leon S. Kennedy is another "'lovable jerk' who is 'light, flippant, and just plain fun'"?

• "Drake's attractiveness has been cited as an example of a character who [...] was not designed to be a sex object."

  "Attractiveness" is not a video game "character"...

• I think there is an overwhelming use of quotes that, seriously, could be pared down. Summarise the reviewers' opinions, using one or two of the more outstanding quotes. Throwing a flood of them makes it a corny read—not really encylopaedic.

Overall, I think there is justification in the previous FACs that this article does need copy-editing (in prose and structure). Jappalang (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

---

L'Orfeo

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Monteverdi's L'Orfeo, composed in 1607, has claims to be considered, if not as the very first opera, as the first of any consequence. It is certainly the earliest still in general repertory, and is a musical revelation (listen to the bracing Toccata for a taster). I hope eventually that the article can join Monteverdi's other two surviving operas on the Featured list, and comments on all aspects will be most welcome. One small point: each of the two earlier Monteverdi opera articles includes a detailed list of the opera's musical items. In the case of L'Orfeo, I intend to hive this off into a separate list, with a link to the parent article - I shall be working on this as the PR proceeds. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments transferred from talkpage:

Just casting a peer's eye over your sources:

• Further reading "Neef, Sigrid (ed.) (2000). Opera: Composers, Works, Performers (English edition). " is (English edition) really part of the title?

• No, you are right. Fixed.

• In external links can "Damian H. Zanette (February 2007)" be fully cited? (It may not be able to be)

• Zanette has something useful to say about clefs, so I've cited him in the "Roles" section. From a quick google search he appears to be a scholar of some significance.

• Bibliography references from Claudio Monteverdi: Orfeo. are a little confusing, particularly "Sternfeld, F.W.; Whenham, John (ed.) (1986)." Is Whenham always the editor? Is he also an author of Sternfeld and Whenham? But he isn't listed as the editor of Whenham in same work? This may be cultural because for chapters I'm used to Author (Year) "Chapter" Editor (ed.) Work Place: Publisher.

• Whenham is the overall editor, and also a contributor. The cite book template isn't designed for such complexities. However, I have taken your advice and reformatted.

• Bibliography: Source diversity including age diversity looks good. Presses all look good. Source specificity looks good, finding a scholarly collection of chapters was a great idea.
• Footnotes (all futher comments are footnotes): "Oxford Music Online." is surely a containing work, does it deserve Oxford Music Online. Italics in your style?

• WP:MOS reserves italics for print sources. Oxford Music Online is by definition not a printed source

• Footnotes work authors with multiple works inconsistent, Fenlon, "The Mantuan Orfeo" (Author Short title) but yet Carter (2002) (Author Year).

• The date in Carter (2002) is to distinguish it from Carter OMO. The two Fenlon entries have to be distinguished by title since they are both 1986. Likewise the two Fortune entries.

• "Carter (2000)" repeatedly given in footnotes, couldn't locate in bibliography or previous citation in notes?

• That is my mistake. All 2000s should be 2002 (and now are).

• Hugill, Robert (24 April 2006). ; Music and Vision appears to be an online magazine, Italics?

• Per Oxford Music Online, if it's not printed it doesn't get italics

• "Uwe Schneider's Letters from Berlin 2004". ; operajaponica appears to not be a magazine or a publication, just a publisher, non italics?

• This citation was added by someone else. I have now fully formatted it.

• "Monteverdi's Orfeo" (BBC) has a radio station (Radio 3), a last broadcast date, and an episode number in a continuing programme series. Consider adding at least the broadcast station?

• Details added.

• ""Royal Opera House Collections"" Broken link :( They must have changed their internal website methods.

• I don't think it's broken. It goes to a page that confirms that there are no recorded ROH performances of L'Orfeo. I will investigate whether there is a better way by which this same information can be conveyed.

• Looking good! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for visiting this page, and for your very helpful suggestions which have largely been implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for writing such good notes / bibliography. Caught by my own inability to triple check multiple works by authors! MOS, what a silly thing, dead trees versus digital bits determining source formatting, and not mode of utterance (formally published versus just put up on line). I didn't expect that a reference would be used to indicate a "no search found!" Perhaps that reference needs a pre or post-note to indicate that for people simply reading the refs. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Voceditenore

These are some preliminary thoughts, will add more as I look through the article over the next few days. Overall, it's looking very good, but here are couple of things to think about in the 20th century revivals section

• It could be usefully pruned. For example why this one?...

  including a much-praised production in April 2006 by the Chinese director Chen Shi-Zheng. The composer-critic Robert Hugill called this performance "a masterclass in how to integrate performance practice into a modern opera house"

  The reviews in the mainstream press were rather mixed, actually, and why the space given to a quote from Hugill, who is of very marginal notablity as a composer and who virtually never gets his reviews into print sources. The one used here is from mvdaily.com. If keeping mention of the production better to state what was unusual about it, if anything. It's certainly no more unusual or notable than this one, which incidentally had a baritone, Simon Keenlyside singing Orfeo (a role he has reprised several times).

• I have been concerned about the length and detail of this section (see comments/discussion on talkpage), and have struggled to keep it within bounds. Following your comment I have struck the Chen Shi-Zheng production, and also the Innsbruck Music Festival, which otherwise looks oddly isolated in the section. I don't see that much else can be removed without the section losing its purpose - a brief survey of the evolution in productions from occasional experimental versions within music institutes to regular full-scale productions in mainstream festivals and opera houses. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Given the immense range of Francesco Rasi's voice, the fact that baroque tenors were actually quite baritonal, and the several high baritones who have successfully sung the role (see also [8] and [9] for example), perhaps this:

  Gérard Souzay, who sang the title role despite being a baritone

  might be changed to

  Gérard Souzay, one of several baritones who have sung the role.

• Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Red link to Innsbruck Festival should be changed Innsbruck Early Music Festival (There's also an Innsbruck Film Festival.)

• I have removed this link. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments; I will look forward to more anon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It's much better now. I agree that you don't want to take too much out. I think modern performance sections are very important. Even that ENO production was interesting for the use of Javanese dancers which is much more relevant to the article than Hugill's quote which was not terrribly informative. Voceditenore (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Been looking at the Music section and noticed that both madrigal and ritornello are not currently linked either in that section or anywhere else in the article. Suggest they be linked. You might also want to "courtesy-link" again toccata and maybe also chitarrone and cornett, but that's not essential. I know opinion is divided on that practice. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Added the links as suggested. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Re the referencing to Oxford Music Online. It's a bit generic. The various references to this should make it clear at some point that these are online versions of the full text of printed Grove reference works, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition (2001) and The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (1992) both edited by Stanley Sadie, so that readers without a subscription can access them in a library or at least know what they are. The Whenham "Orfeo" is from The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, the "Striggio" and "Monteverdi" articles appear in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've not done this before with OMO, but I've added notes to the appropriate refs, referring to the print versions. If you can suggest a better way of doing this, please do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes that seems OK. Alternatively, you could list the hardcopies in Sources and just add to each ref: (online version of Sadie and Tyrrell (2001)) or Sadie (2004), whichever applies. Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Just a few comments. It seems ready for FAC.

Lede

• "one of earliest music dramas" article missing here?

  In the second paragrph, the transition from the second to the third paragraphs seems a bit jarring. It's the change of subject.

  "Gonzaga's particular passion ... " sentence could possibly use a split.

Libretto

• I don't understand why the Striggio ending is enigmatic. Just because Orfeo's death is "threatened"? What's that mean anyway? Physical or verbal? perhaps add a little more context here from the plot.

• Perhaps "ambiguous" is a better word. We know from the myth that the Bacchantes tear Orpheus apart. In Striggio's version they utter threats, but we don't see these carried out. So we are left wondering. I have made a minor text alteration to clarify this, and the point is reinforced in the Synopsis section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Composition

• "he had acquired". I wonder if the word "acquired" actually adds anything here.

  "would have expected to collaborate creatively at each performance". Was it expected that the work only be put on once during each production? If it is put on multiple times, that is multiple performances, than a single collaboration would be sufficient, no?

• Individual productions tended to be the norm in those days; the concept of a "run" came later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Embellishment of arias. It would be interesting to know if composers of that time allowed embellishment as the singers saw fit, or prepared (as Monteverdi did) prewritten embellishments.

• Monteverdi composed some embellishments and left others to his singers. I think most composers did the same. From my eading I get the impression that Monteverdi was something of a control freak, so he probably composed more embellishments than most. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Instrumentation

• "music scholar" A slightly awkward phrase, perhaps "musicologist"?

• We have four musicologists already! (Tomlinson, Pirotta, Donington, Redlich). I'm trying for a bit of variety in the descriptions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just curious, are small violins not part of the violin family?

• Yes, but I think Monteverdi separated them because they are not part of the two five-strings ensembles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• "However, as Harnoncourt indicates ..." Why is this "however"? It doesn't seem to contradict what was said before.

Synopsis

• Act 3, " Having pointed out the words inscribed on the gate ("Abandon hope, all ye who enter here") Speranza leaves." Is there any way of pointing out the obvious pun on Speranza (hope) here without holding up the flow of the text?

• The best I can do is to insert a footnote, which is what I've done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

20th century revivals

• It might be a good idea to mention why major opera houses are reluctant to stage it, if this is known.

• Only some major houses are still reluctant; I can guess that the reason they continue to hold out is their perception that L'Orfeo is "early music", a niche genre rather than mainstream, but this is a personal view. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Music

• "ritornello" should probably be linked someplace.

Editions

• "After the publication of the L'Orfeo in 1609" I think the word "score" is missing here but I am not sure.

  "there have been many further attempts to edit and present the work," I think you could do without either the word "many" or "further".

  " Nikolaus Harnoncourt" Referred to as "Nicholas Harnoncourt" two paragraphs ago.

Again, very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much for your comments. Wher I have not responded I have followed your suggestions. I hope it looks better. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

• No image issues; nicely done.
• File:Orfeo - Toccata.ogg - it would be optimal if it were explicitly articulated that Trisdee indeed made this recording (different, of course, than being a performer therein) and had the consent of the other performers. This is a relatively minor issue, however. Эlcobbola _talk 19:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment. I will see what further information I can garner on the recording, though Trisdee has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2006 and may not be contactable. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Precious little to add. This is a comprehensive, readable and well-referenced and illustrated article. A few quibbles, so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

• Lead
  • still performed on a regular basis – regularly, in fact
• Libretto
  • "clear" and "clearly" in close proximity in fourth sentence of first para
  • but there is no question that Monteverdi believed… – always a potentially ambiguous construction; safer to say "no doubt", I think, though you'd have to reword the earlier part of the sentence to avoid repetition – "Striggio's original ending was almost certainly used…" or some such
• Composition
  • You are inconsistent (here and passim) with your elliptical dots. I believe the preferred form is a space on either side of the three dots.
• Premiere and early performances
  • First image caption – rather odd and seemingly gratuitous to tell us that the photograph is "modern"
• 20th century revivals
  • Hindemith's 1943 edition – its first mention: should be bluelinked to the Hindemith article, and perhaps fleshed out in a few words at this point
  • London on 7th February – for consistency and house style this should be "London on 7 February", I think
  • On 6 May 2010 the BBC broadcast a performance of the opera from La Scala – A blue link and even a "Milan" might be good here. (I don't suppose your readers will take this to be La Scala, Cleethorpes, but it would still be useful, one feels.)
• Music
  • While Monteverdi was not in the generally-understood sense an orchestrator, … it is the element of instrumental improvisation that makes each performance of a Monteverdi opera a "unique experience, and separates his work from the later operatic canon." – this seems to set up a false antithesis: is it not because rather than "while" Monteverdi didn't orchestrate his stuff that it is unique and distinct from later operas?
• Recording history
  • and from the mid-1950's – otiose apostrophe
• Editions
  • some of great distinction—Carl Orff … Ottorino Respighi – of great distinction? Up to a point, Signore Rame.

A meagre haul, but I can find no more. A model of its kind, as usual. – Tim riley (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I have followed your suggestions, with an occasional variant of my own but I think all your concerns are met. In particular I have cashiered Respighi, poor man. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Thanks for all the above comments. I have closed the review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 60 or more points in a game

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm ready to send it to be a WP:FLC but need a peer review first.

Thanks, Jrcla2 (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Be prepared to answer why the cut-off point is 60 and not 50 or 70. Is 60 the magic mark according to reliable sources? Sandman888 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Two main reasons: 1. Precedence – List of National Basketball Association players with 60 or more points in a game; and 2. Yes, the official NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Media Guide lists the all-time single game scoring highs beginning at 60 points. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - while it is an interesting list, I think it needs a bit of work before FLC. here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I do not think the lead follows WP:LEAD, which says The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. The first sentence here is In basketball, points are the sum of the score accumulated through free throw or field goal.[1] which is an OK sentence, but not a proper first sentence. I think this sentence would be a better first sentence: This is a comprehensive list (through the 2009–10 season) of all occurrences of an NCAA Division I men's basketball player scoring 60 or more points in a single game.
• From the title, this seems like it is only for NCAA Division I games, but the article says divisions have only been in place since 1955. However, several games (in both lists) took place before 1955, so this needs to be better explained. Since Division I was only established in 1973, that probably should be expalined too.
• The current lead is 5 paragraphs - WP:LEAD says a lead should only be 4 paragraphs max. I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs could be combined. It is also possible to have background material after the lead but before the tables
• Does the note in Against non-Division I opponents need a ref or refs?
• I understand what it basically means, but am not sure what "legitimization" means in: For legitimization purposes, the official NCAA men's basketball media guide has two lists... Could it just be "The official NCAA men's basketball media guide has two lists..."? Why do the lists need to be legitimized?
• OT needs to be explained in the tables (presuambly overtime)
• Otherwise looks good to me - not sure if all the refs meet WP:RS

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---