Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Endgame (Megadeth album)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get suggestions on how to upgrade this article to Featured article-level quality. I don't believe that any one section needs more attention than any other, so opinions on everything are welcome.

Thanks, L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Retrohead[edit]

  • link Roadrunner Records in the lead ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • first album featuring guitarist Chris Broderick→to feature ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • unlink insanity; I think it's a common word, like torture and crime ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • there is inconsistency with Ellefson's name; it's Dave in the lead and David in the 'Singles' ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • 52nd Annual Grammy Awards→2010 Grammy Awards (for better time orientation); piped link would be the best solution ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • since one of the FA criteria is that the topic is fully-researched, I think the 'Writing and recording' could use some expansion
  • can you reshuffle the 'Songs' section, so that the description would read as the track listing goes? ( Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • I'll be back with additional notes; may also invite an outside contributor.--Retrohead (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's some help with sources over expanding the writing & recording section: Metal Insider, Guitar World, Ultimate Guitar, About.com, Rolling Stone, Blabbermouth.net

Review by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • It's not generally a good idea to set image sizes unless you have a really good reason---it'll appear differently on different screens, anyways, and setting the size overrides individual user settings to make them bigger or smaller. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't my doing (I'm not that good with images), but I removed it. Added it back for the pic of Andy Sneap though because otherwise, his pic took up too much space.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's what's normally done on rock album articles, but it always bugs me how technical information (such as the producer, lineup changes, etc) precede the content of the album. I'm not saying you should or must change it, just something to think about.
With all due respect, I'm going to keep that as is, at least for now. Generally, at least in my view, that kind of stuff plays into the background, which seems like it should come before content. Still something to think about though and I appreciate your input.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should avoid using megadeth.com as a source except for very strictly factual information. Press releases, etc. should be avoided. I'd drop the "the title was announced" bit entirely. Ditto roadrunnerrecords.com.
I agree. Gonna take a closer look at that.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • with lyrics inspired by subjects ranging from: this sounds like each of these tracks have each of these themes.
  • The album was produced by Andy Sneap, who also produced Megadeth's previous album, United Abominations.: Short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon. Either mergewith the following paragraph or find some other logical place to stick it.
Thought about that issue before. Merged it with next paragraph. Just realized how underwhelming that section is though... I got some work to do there.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 27, 2009, Dave Mustaine: we shouldn't assume that everyone knows who Mustaine is. Maybe "group leader"? "the band's singer and rhythm guitarist"?
Thanks for catching that, I'll fix that one right up.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dave Mustaine confirmed twelve songs were complete and they were currently: the antecedent of "they" could only be the "twelve songs"; obviously the songs aren't mixing and mastering the record.
Done.--Retrohead (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • mixing and mastering the record: you mix to make a master, don't you? I'd drop "and mastering", as it's implied.
  • Dave Mustaine had said about the album:: I wasn't sure if I should change this or not---you use the "had+p.p." construction a lot where it's incorrect (it implies and action that had taken place before another past-tense action, as in "I met Mike yesterday, after he had taken the test."). I don't see any reason for using this construction here. Also, it's a short one-sentence paragraph. Is there more that could be added to it, to do with the writing, style, etc? Or maybe put this in the "Songs" section (perhaps rename the section so it's more like a general overview of the music?)
  • As of May 19: was it finished May 19, or some unknown amount of time before?
  • The release date for Endgame was announced on the Megadeth official website as September 15, 2009: was that the actual release date, or only the announced release date?
  • Mustaine announced on TheLiveLine: what's TheLiveLine?
  • it was stated there was new music playing in the background of the message: who stated this?
  • can be heard near the end of the film: what film? TheLiveLine?
  • You have the exact end date of the tour. Can you find the first date?
  • Did the band play in Las Vegas or Las Vegas Valley?
As dumb as it may sound, I did not realize that there was any other meaning other than the city. Looking into the source though (band site and a dead link at that) I'm gonna need to re-research the touring for this album. Been a long time since I did GA on this, so I have no idea if this was there then or not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Probably was added after GA process--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was American Carnage in 2010?
As per above, touring will need to be re-researched--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from the cited source. Just removed the quote--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • about nitro fuel funny cars: can this be reworded so the links don't bump into each other? They appear to be a single link.
I'll just remove "Nitro Fuel"--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is a two-piece song: is it two songs on one track, or a two-part song?
Kind of both, actually, but "two-part" would probably work better.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Head Crusher", describes a medieval torture device: this is an WP:EGG---it appears the link will go to a page about mediaeval torture devices. Maybe "the medieval torture device of the same name"?
Tweaked it somewhat. I tend to use piped links alot in my writing style.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was about "warrior creed: "a" or "the" warrior creed?
Original source did not specify an article. Just removed the entire quote.
  • potential depression years of 2000 [sic]": is [sic] in the source, or did you add it?
I added that the other day, so someone didn't think that there was a typo within the quote. Should it be outside the quote?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and received a music video directed by: received a music video?
  • roughly based on the story of Shawn Nelson: could we get a brief description so we don't need to click through?
Rewrote several sentences and gave summary of Nelson's story--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I remedied that when I was reworking something else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rust in Peace anniversary tour: was the tour called Rust in Peace? If is was, then not italics. Either way, I'd change it to something like "the band's anniversay tour for Rust in Peace".
Done.--Retrohead (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I heard somewhere that {{Album ratings}} was to be avoided these days.
  • A lot of the quotes could be paraphrased succinctly, and would read better if you did. The quotes are really much more extensive than they should be.
  • Musician Slash gave a favorable review: "musician"? How about "rock guitarist" or something that gives the less-informed reader an idea of who he is?
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No negative or neutral criticism of the album?
  • You could add a {{Portal}} or {{Portal bar}}

That's all I gots. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Salamis Famagusta[edit]

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

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

Thanks, Xaris333 (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romania[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've heavily reworked this article for some days now. I will continue working on it, but I would like somebody else's opinion, especially on its contents. Is this article missing anything? Is it featuring something too much? Is the article neutral? Does it give an adequate overview?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maharashtra[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… have expanded the whole article recently and planning to take it for GA level. I'll add sources to all which are not referenced. All suggestions are welcome. Thank You. :) --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 14:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
  • Will go through the article and add tags accordingly there itself. But be prepared, many cn & when? tags are gonna come. Lotsa stuff seems outdated now. (like for example there are 36 districts in Maharashtra since 1st August 2014 and not 35.)
  • With cursory glance, many images included are of Mumbai. Maybe hunting images of other places would be good. The article seems more like of Mumbai than Maharashtra if images are seen.
  • And am very glad to see Bhagwat's image. Cliché would be to use Tendulkar. So good! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason why I asked for peer review. Article need thorough inspection. I was so scared to use Bhagwat's image, as someone might call me Tendulkar hater just like Sharapova, LOL. I tried to find images other than which are related to Mumbai (Transportation and Education sections contains most). Will change once I find proper replacement. I am going to add citation from now onward. Please list more issues, all are welcome. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 12:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ugog Nizdast
  • Since Dharmadhyaksha has got here first, I'll start checking from the bottom of the article. I agree with what he says....too many images of Mumbai rather than the state, better do some trimming there. I, too, will tag bomb wherever I check, so be prepared.
  • Again, too much focus on Mumbai even in the hatnotes, I rearranged them per WP:HATNOTE and trimmed down some excess few. Besides "Main" which is essential per WP:SUMMARY, I still feel there is an overload of these hatnotes, mainly the "See Also" ones.
  • There is obviously as issue of WP:DUPLINKS, consider using User:Ucucha/duplinks. If you feel this is too tedious, I don't mind doing it myself. Let me know.
Hi, Ugog Nizdast. I have removed panaroma of the stadium, meanwhile replaced images related to Mumbai. But Transport section contains some, because I didn't find any, so it was necessary. WP:DUPLINKS is totally new for me (never heard it before). It would be so nice if you take care of it. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done this one myself. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sports" section:
    • I feel that panaroma of the stadium shouldn't be here, as there is already too much focus on Mumbai.
    • Along with Bhagwat's, why not try to add Pillay's, Tendulkar's and Gavaskar's...if possible? Maybe by decreasing the sizes and somehow fitting them together.

More to come, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Covered both points.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow, only Bhagwat's pic is still there. Is it possible for you include the others? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Culture" and "Media" sections too seriously lack citations. Better import those from the subarticles they summaries and try to answer all the cn tags. Anything WP:LIKELY to be challenged will need an inline citation. If you can't find a citation and you feel that the information is not that important, I suggest you remove it.

-Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Infrastructure" is well-cited with the exception of the subsection "Energy". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after doing several researches I found that state uses more electricity than any other state of India. So thought it would be good idea to have a subsection with particular name. But nevertheless, please suggest whether to keep it or not.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means keep it! just answer the sourcing problem. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope I'm not being too strict regarding the tagging and sourcing problem. I may be applying Criteria 2b for Good articles too much. But if you can address all of them, it would make your upcoming GA review much smoother. Tell me if you have any problems regarding this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: No, that's good. Like you said it would make upcoming GA review easier, which will be beneficial for me. Anyway, I will try my best to overcome citation problem.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then remember to clear/address all the tags before the review starts. Feel free to remove the unnecessary ones. I think most of the citations you can get from the individual articles linked. -Ugog Nizdast (talk)
Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: Indeed table is important and useful, have restored it. I do not know who removed it(must be an IP user). Actually, I get very less time to check article. Also I have made copy edit request here. I might ask you to review this particular article. This will help me to save my time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bad copy-editor myself...it is good that you made a post at the GOCE. By the way, I'm halfway through my review of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: Tell when you are done. Will nominate it only after you ask me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 09:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need for that. But anyway, now that you say this...I'll try to finish this faster so that you can close this review and do the GA nom. Be aware that GA nominations can take terribly long to get a willing reviewer, right now according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Old nominations, the oldest ones are greater than almost six months. Be prepared to wait. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugog Nizdast: I've convinced myself. You know, nominated Vivah for GA but it's been 3 weeks no user showed little interest. Though have asked some people who are major contributor in film related articles. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, mainly due to the problem of too many people expecting reviews and too few willing reviewers. Best is to wait it out, it will happen *eventually*. No need to {{ping}} me, as this page was always on my watchlist. BTW I should be free tomorrow to resume this review and (hopefully) plan to end this within seven days. Maybe your request at the GOCE will also happen by then. Anyway let's remember there is no deadline. :) -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the last remaining sections and only the lead remains, my review is almost done. Apart from the first para, the History section needs sources...the other sections look fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While writing Uttar Pradesh, I was told that lead section doesn't contain references. I will made some changes in history section as it needs some serious attention.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the guideline is WP:LEAD which is part of the Good article criteria. Unless any claim is really that controversial, it doesn't require a inline citation in the lead since it just summarises what the rest of the article says. I'll see if it has needs any basic copy editing and whether it is comprehensive and summarises all the sections well enough. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done Added references in History section.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks fine to me, except for this statement "therefore, the proportion of the urban population (45.23 percent) contrasts starkly...many large towns". I had to read this two-three times and I'm still not sure whether I understood it. Perhaps you can word this better?
It actually means most of state's parts are not suitable for agriculture so the local people go to cities to earn. Which is the main reason state has more populated cities than any other Indian state. removing since it seems confusing.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 06:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's actually better, why not add it back somehow like this Most of state's regions are not suitable for agriculture causing the rural people to migrate to the urban areas, which is the main reason for it having more populated cities than any other Indian state. Maharashtra also has the highest level of urbanisation. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. I just did. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "History",
    • these statements which I tagged as unsourced seem POVish to me " On 1 May 1960, following mass protests and sacrifice of 105 human lives ... The demand of the local people of merging some of the Marathi speaking areas of Karnataka namely Belgaum, Karwar and Nipani is still pending.". Better try to reword it when you find sources for it.
done: Yes, Source will help to get it. Just added one. Changed that sentence too. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The image of the Ajanta caves fails WP:PERTINENCE--better add some prose about it in the section because right now the section does not say anything about them.
  • -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
done: Removed. Doesn't play any role in particular section.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, no need to remove it, I think this would make a valuable addition to the page. I've did some digging and from Ajanta Caves, there are mentions of it being linked to the Satavahana Dynasty and Vakataka Dynasty. For example, to quote: "According to Walter Spink, they were made during the period 100 BCE to 100 CE, probably under the patronage of the Satavahana dynasty (230 BCE – c. 220 CE) and argued that most of the work took place over the very brief period from 460 to 480 CE, during the reign of Emperor Harishena of the Vakataka dynasty...".
I found this reference Ali Javid (January 2008). World Heritage Monuments and Related Edifices in India. Algora Publishing. p. 101. which can be used. Make it say something like "The Ajanta caves in present-day Aurangabad display influences from the Satavahana and Vakataka style. The caves were possibly excavated during this period." and reword and add this to the image caption as well. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artice is currently undergoing copy editing. Will add 1-2 sentence once GOCE is finished with copy editing.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay done. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for keeping this PR for so long, I've been online but couldn't find time to do any serious wiki-activity. Two more issues have popped up:

That's okay. Actually I wasn't aware of WP:CAPTION. But now will remove all full-stops.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:IMAGE, pics need to be ideally next to the text they support. Better move that Bombay Presidency map back to the last few paras which discuss it.

I formally conclude this PR here, I think its ready for a GAR in addition to me being a little strict on the sourcing. You can nominate it but make sure all the maintenance tags are removed/addressed first. It doesn't matter whether your GOCE request gets answered or not since the GA criteria is lenient on the prose quality. I'll continue to watch this and follow the GA review when it happens. Ask if you have any further questions. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate it right after it's done with copy editing. But the concern you know, as I get less time to visit this place. I may not be able to reply in time.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is the problem with ref. #123. Can you fix it.
Done, the url link was missing the 'https://'. Why don't you do those above two points I said about Ajanta caves and the Mumbai Presidency pic thing before doing the GA nom? or do you want me to do it? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be so helpful. Please do so mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary that every section must contain at least one image file?--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 04:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find good images, then better...as long as they fulfil IMAGE RELEVANCE they should be fine. Not a problem if any section doesn't contain one. WP:IMAGELOCATION may answer your question further. And, I'll make those changes which I mentioned. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I thinks it's ready for GA nomination. Only have to add few references. Will nominate it day after tomorrow.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 16:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eclogue 4[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just created it (all of it), and I'd like to get someone else's opinion on it. Originally, I was just going to research the Christian interpretation of it and add it to the main article on the Eclogues, but eventually it grew so large that I decided to make it its own article. Some of the sourcing was rather complex and a little bit arcane to read and comprehend, so I'd really appreciate someone checking on what I've written and seeing if I've done the source material justice (I'd be more than willing to provide the original texts if anyone needs them; all of them can be found on Google Books, through JSTOR, or a simple Google search). I'm not too concerned about any sourcing issues in the Christian interpretation section, since the source I used for that section was fairly easy to follow. I'm more concerned with the "Synopsis", "Meaning", and "Textual Criticism" sections.

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - the Rose citation is incorrect, what is the correct publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this mix-up? If so, it should be all better.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sega[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want this article to reach a GA class. Any help on how to do this would be appreciated.

Thanks, Λeternus (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

I can't complain about my own article not getting reviewed while I haven't the others, so here you go.

  • Obviously, references. There's a "citation needed" tag, and a few paragraphs do not end with citations.
  • Credits should be listed chronologically, not reverse-chrono.
  • Biography needs to be better-organized. Ideally, it would be divided into at least two subsections, but even if not, the information should be presented chronologically (for example, why is the info about his education after that of his entire career so far?).
  • Is any more information about Iris or his software-engineering career available? Paragraphs this short are discouraged.
  • The lead needs to be rewritten to summarize the article better, and most importantly expanded. It doesn't list any of the games he's worked on or his pre-game history, for instance.
  • Is his last name really "Sega"? (What nationality is that?) Might want to include a note somewhere that it's not related to the game company's name.
  • Can you find reliably sourced information about his musical style?
  • Nothing egregiously stands out about sources - MySpace, LinkedIn, and the normally unreliable publications raise eyebrows, but they're all being used as first-party sources so that's fine.
  • In what context is he known as "Necros"?

Tezero (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Basically the same as Tezero above, with one addition.

  • You should probably de-link the red links. It makes the article look neater in the long run. The links can be added if/when an article is created.

ProtoDrake (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moment of Impact (film)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because why not

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the article and here's what I found:

  • Lead and infobox could be expanded more.
  • A image of the poster could help, if possible.
  • Premise could use some expansion (go into detail of this 'struggle').
  • ^Production: How did this come into fruition.
  • ^Reception: Add. reviews could help boost this article a little.
  • Citations need to include the writer of the article if shown in the link (last= and first=), The work it came from along with the publisher (which you have in the citation), and the date you referenced the source.

It's going to take a long time for this article to upgrade from stub class but if you put the effort into it, I can see this as a start-class quality article. DepressedPer (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keswick, Cumbria[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A town is rather far from my usual GA/FA territory (viz music, lit and theatre mostly), and I am not at all sure how good my current effort is. I should be very glad of any comments to help me improve the article further and to decide whether it has GA or FA potential or neither. Tim riley talk 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto comments[edit]

On the whole, good, although not FAC stuff quite yet. I went ahead and fixed some ref formatting issues and left some hidden comments about others I wasn't sure of. I'm sure after the usual suspects have had a pick and a ponder, this will be the usual winning Riley stuff!

Name

  • Recorded where would be the natural question one would ask upon reading this.

Prehistory

  • "There is clear evidence of the presence of prehistoric man in the area" -- personally, I would give "Kewick" again as it is a new para in a new section. We do it for persons, so the same rules should apply here.
  • "The antiquary W G Collingwood, commenting on finds in the area, wrote that they showed that..." -- that/that awkwardness.
    • Yes - lost the second "that"
  • Second para: Would it be correct to finish a para with a cite?
    • Puzzled: I have, surely?
      • That's a note; after 5 years, I'm still not sure of the rules, would a cite not be needed regardless of the note? Cassiantotalk 18:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I intended the cite within the note to cover what went before, and looking at it again I think it does, but am quite happy to duplicate it if wanted. Tim riley talk 20:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I see, no not really. I think that would cover it. Cassiantotalk 20:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come... Cassiantotalk 18:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Thanks for the first batch. Tim riley talk 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20th century and beyond

  • Last para starts with "the town" as opposed to Keswick.
    • Looking again I think this is all right. A solid phrase rather than a pronoun. If I had said "It", that would be open to objection, I agree. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

  • "The Crosthwaite Free Grammar School was built in 1566, adjoining the churchyard; it had up to 200 pupils, of both sexes." -- I know discipline in schools was strict in those days, but not that strict, surely!?
    • Would you care to suggest an alternative phrasing? I'm wholly open minded on this point, as indeed on all points. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will try: "The Crosthwaite Free Grammar School was built in 1566 and had up to 200 pupils, of both sexes; the building adjoins the [which] churchyard" maybe? Some may call this overtly nick-pickity, but I think another order would sound better. Cassiantotalk 20:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine with me – now adopted verbatim. Tim riley talk 20:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern

  • Why do we repeat ref 44 in close succession?
    • Overtaken by events: ref 44 was potentially not a WP:RS (see the article talk page) and I have replaced all refs to that site. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up to here, sorry for the intermittency. Cassiantotalk 20:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No rush, and be as spasmodic as you like. I'm glad of your comments in whatever sized portions. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last point: Would a pronoun be more suited to the second "Walpole" in the last para of the Lake Poets and other Keswick notables section? Cassiantotalk 17:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The others have beaten me to it. I see no other issues Tim, great work as usual. Cassiantotalk 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very nicely done. I could not help thinking about Chincoteague ... I've wandered around England quite a bit in my time, and spent a few hours here once. I remember very little about it, though. Still, I shall make a point of looking around more comprehensively should fate place me back in the area. Only a very few comments.

Lede
  • "several important developments" This might not be clear to all readers. Developments tend be building stuff in the US.
Name
  • I should put the cheese lovers together, and the dissenters at the end.
    • Ah, well to tell you the truth I started and finished with the cheese lovers so as to deny the dotty old Flom the last word, having which always carries excessive weight. Not quite utterly neutral? I hope it will squeeze past GAN or FAC reviewers if I get that far. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Middle ages
  • "original Barons" just drawing attention to the capitalisation. I guess they were Men in those days.
18th and 19th
  • Is there no article on the rail line? Our rail buffs must be asleep at the switch!
    • Very good point. I have done a bit of peer reviewing for one top-notch railway buff and will go and prod him gently. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, Hellfire and damnation! Of course there's an article and it was boneheaded of me not to think of looking for it! Shall link instanter. Tim riley talk 19:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership
  • " Jacobite rising of 1715." this particular segment seems year-heavy. I might take "of 1715" outside the pipe and make it "the previous year".
Lake poets
  • " Wordsworths had moved" unsure why the "had"
  • Reminder to use convert templates for distances.
    • Off to consult the manual, and will do the deed once I have worked out how. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many memorabilia" this seems to be a rather uncommon phrase, per google. Perhaps "much memorabilia"?
    • Blitzed the adjective altogether: just as good without. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these points, Wehwalt. All attended to except my cheesy bit of top-spin. Tim riley talk 19:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian's thoughts[edit]

Lead

  • "from the 11th century, when Edward I of England granted a charter" I presume this is a typo and we mean the 13th century?
  • "with the Lake Poets, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Robert Southey" do we mean the Lake Poets in general, or just these two?
    • The latter, and I oughtn't to have put the comma in after "Poets", which makes the sentence say the former. Shall correct. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: have redrawn a bit, to avoid any possible ambiguity. Tim riley talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name

  • Do we know which royal charter and/or which year?
    • It was Edward I's market charter of 1274. I'm not sure I want to add the details here and then repeat them where they already are, in the History section. Can you think of a concise way of addressing the point? Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory

  • "During the Roman Empire" seems slightly odd wording to me; perhaps "During the Roman period", "In Roman Britain" or similar might be superior.

History

  • "against the marauding Scots"—I suspect usage of the definite article here might be taken by some as an undue slight on the Scots as a whole. Suggest losing it ("against marauding Scots" does not have the same connotation). Ditto "with the Scots finding richer ... targets"; perhaps "with Scottish attackers" or similar
    • an undue slight? Shall adopt your wording nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not wikilink Edward IV?
  • We refer to "Wad mining". I know we have made clear in the previous paragraph this is graphite but I think it would be clearer for the reader just to use the modern term.
    • Fair point. (I wrote that bit while in Cumbria and must have breathed the local air too deeply – graphite is still widely called wad here.) Shall alter. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not wikilink the River Greta?

Religious worship

  • Perhaps say "Eastern Orthodox" rather than just "Orthodox"? Slightly clearer in my view.
  • Do we know for how long Muslim worship has been accommodated?
    • No. It took the very helpful man in Keswick's information centre long enough to dig out even this exiguous information, and I don't fancy my chances of unearthing any more. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there ever been other religions in Keswick? Do we know anything about pre-Christian worship?
    • Almost certainly, and naturally the Stone Circle has been the cause of wild surmise - Druids and all that, but surmise it remains. No other pre-Christian religions are recorded in the sources. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regular events

  • How old are the beer, film and jazz festivals and the agricultural show, do we know.
    • The agricultural show is long established, and the others more recent, I think. I 'll see if I can dig any dates out. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: Done, so far as the Agricultural Show is concerned (and added some new info published this very day, if you please!) Shall rummage for the other dates. Tim riley talk 17:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK —Cliftonian (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Features

  • Remove link from River Greta and link further up
    • Yes.

Lake Poets and other Keswick notables

  • "probably the best-known resident of Keswick was Sir John Bankes" I think "probably" would do better at the end—"was probably Sir John Bankes" but this is just my opinion
  • wikilink Fitz Park higher up in "features" and remove the link here
    • Indeed.
  • Wonderful ending.
    • Thank you! I like a good peroration when I can get one. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think this looks very good—perhaps not ready for FA yet, but I think a GA nomination would be successful with very little trouble. The article is enjoyable, thorough and informative and I enjoyed reading it. I hope these thoughts help. Cheers, and keep well. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this, Cliftonian. Your comment and Cassianto's above chime with my own feeling, viz that GAN is probably the route to take. Tim riley talk 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: all suggestions attended to as above. Tim riley talk 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting: the article seems to be even better now and looking over it I see no reason not to nominate for FA. The article would be a shoo-in for GA and while I see no reason not to go down the GA route as a precursor to FA, I think the peer review has picked up any issues the GA review would normally highlight. So in my opinion having had this peer review going for GA would simply eat up time and not add much to the article. The decision is ultimately yours however. I will just say I preferred the "my good fortune" quotation at the end where it was before, so perhaps consider moving the "culture" section down to the bottom? Well done again Tim on this fine article. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Cliftonian Tim. My comments were based on what I saw as the first reviewer, but having revisited since then, I see that this PR has helped the article immensely. FAC is the way to go as far as I'm concerned! Cassiantotalk 17:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. comments[edit]

Perhaps mention some of the notable landmarks like the museum in the lead?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Very good idea. I struggle with writing leads, and suggestions like that are most welcome! Tim riley talk 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the dissolution of the monasteries, between 1536 and 1541, Furness and Fountains Abbeys - the Furness and Fountains Abbeys? I believe you and Cass prefer to use the definite article.
    • You may perhaps be thinking of my disdain for the false title, but that doesn't apply to real titles, and putting an article in for Fountains and Furness would be like referring to "the Westminster Abbey" or "the St Paul's Cathedral". Tim riley talk 22:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and at 2014 " ="as of 2014 still continues to be published every Friday"
  • The geography section is rather undeveloped I believe. Nothing about geography, only a bit on geology and climate. I think first you should state where Keswick is located and its distance from four of five other towns, see Aarhus for instance. You can find distances on google here by clicking directions and entering a town. I've added some details myself to help. Then there really needs to be a description of the local terrain, is the area, flat/hilly, are there mountains or hilly areas in the vicinity? Should be OK now with the additions I've made. One thing though can you check the course of the Greta, the channel I mention I don't know if that is it or not. Google maps shows the Derwent river I think passing along the north side of the city and then there's a channel going south to the west of Keswick into the Derwentwater, it might be the Greta. Not keen on the climate table, can you use a more standard one like in Copenhagen?
    • Thank you very much for the additional geographical material, duly tweaked. I have no idea how to do a table like the Copenhagen one, and I don't think this could be seen as a stumbling block at GAN or FAC. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Later: I'm having a play in my sandbox, but we shall see. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now succeeded! Thank you for the suggestion, Doctor. Tim riley talk 12:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport is generally put towards the bottom of city articles, I don't think it belongs under geography. I'm a little concerned that a lot of sections don't follow the general ordering of city articles. Regular events and Keswick culture/notables really belongs under a combined Culture section. -I hope you don't mind but I've reordered a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very happy with your valuable additions and rejigging. First rate stuff, and I'm in your debt. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the infobox box image. Most of it is dark/obscured and only catches the building at an angle. I'd rather see wider general image like the panorama one. Would you be open to a montage image like Paris? Something like File:Keswick,_Cumbria_Panorama_2_-_June_2009.jpg at the top and then say four images of notable landmarks in the town underneath?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. I've added a list of listed buildings. You might want to mention the Grade I listed Greta House, now part of the school and give some architectural details from the listed site. I know you mention it already in the notables section. I also think you should add some architectural detail about the Grade II* listed Church of St John and Church of St Kentigern and The Moot Hall in the Landmarks section.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated that bit. No longer part of the school. Details added. Tim riley talk 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The drop-down list of listed buildings is brilliant. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some terrific stuff here. Plenty to keep me out of mischief tomorrow. The only downside is that your substantial (and most welcome) additions mean you can't do the GAN review which I was rather hoping you might. No matter. Tim riley talk 15:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, actually with a bit of strengthening in places I think you could skip GA and go for FA. Let's just ensure it's as comprehensive as possible first though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing from SchroCat[edit]

Very slim pickings from me: a couple of minor tweaks undertaken earlier: feel free to revert anything you don't like. As to the rest…

16th and 17th centuries

  • "Wad mining continued": you've told us this is graphite, so is there any need to retain the ancient name, or would the modern equivalent be better?

20th century and beyond

  • I wonder why The Manchester Guardian is unlinked, but The Daily Telegraph is?
    • Because I'm a careless old codger. Now amended. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN32 needs sorting out

All ship-shape and riley-fashion apart from those two really insignificant questions. Pip pip! – SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, both for tweaks and suggestions. Tim riley talk 16:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • " civil parish within the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria, historically in Cumberland". This sounds clumsy to me. Why 'within' rather than 'in' (ha revenge for you jumping on my 'amongst'!) and I am not sure historically is grammatically correct in that context. How about "civil parish formerly in Cumberland and from 1974 in the Borough of Allerdale in Cumbria"?
    • I chuckled at that, and I plead that I inherited that wording from the text as it was before I began interfering. Shall follow your suggestion to the letter. Tim riley talk 17:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The town is situated just north of Derwentwater, and 4 miles (6.4 km) from Bassenthwaite, both in the Lake District National Park." As you mention the National Park, I think you should say whether Keswick is in or just outside it.
  • " Eilert Ekwall (1960) and A D Mills (2011), both for the Oxford University Press, and Diana Whaley (2006), for the English Place-Name Society" This sounds as if these bodies endorsed the theory. Perhaps "in books published by"
  • " prehistoric man" sounds dated. I would prefer prehistoric occupation.
  • Collingwood is far too dated to be RS on the archaeology of Keswick. Searching on "Keswick neolithic" in Google Scholar gives more up to date sources.
    • I've replaced the refs for the two factual statements, and added the date for Collingwood's comment, which is a pleasing quote I'm loth to lose.
  • "The last major influences on the area before reliable historical records began" What is the point of this qualification? I would delete it.
  • "absorbed by the Kingdom of Scotland until 1092" The ref should be Haywood pp. 104-5
  • In the lead you say that Keswick was first recorded in 1276, but this is not stated in the main text, and you say Fountains based a steward in the town in the early 13th century.
  • "The buying and selling of sheep and wool was no longer centred" Should not this be "were" centred?
    • This is "fish and chips is/are a good lunch" territory: arguable either way, but I'm happy with the plural and have changed. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century" I would delete "evidently" as superfluous.
  • "During the 18th century and into the 19th..." I got confused in this paragraph as it appears to jump around with dates. McAdam constructed roads - must be late 18th or early 19th centuries but when? It goes on that this made the Lake District accessible by coach, yet a few lines later it says that coach services started in the 1760s, which must be before McAdam. The Grand Tour impossible during war in Europe - McAdam's improvements must have been so late that this means the Napoleanic war, so why link to a list of 18C wars? "Nonetheless, by the middle of the century" Which century? Coach services had not started in the middle of the 18th so presumably the 19th.
    • Blitzed McAdam, who was only one of several roadmakers at work. Chronology now adjusted. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bargain prices, such as six shillings" Presumably for the middle classes. Many workers earned less than that a week.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for these points, Dudley: really precise and helpful, and I so glad you were free to look in. I'm looking forward to grappling with your points tomorrow (my last day in Keswick, and able to use the very fine archive in the library, until late September) Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Any prospect of major expansion of the town was ruled out" It might be just me but this has a regretful tone, which I am sure you did not intend! Maybe instead give a very brief summary of the restrictions on development the National Park entailed.
    • The National Park has been surprisingly undogmatic about discreet and fitting development within the town: I could show you probably a hundred new buildings tucked away here and there put up in the half-century that I've been familiar with Keswick. The real no-no is any outward expansion or development beyond the post-war boundaries of the town. I've purged the (unintentional) suggestion of regret. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a great picture that panoramic view is!
    • Just so. I can claim no credit for it: it was there when I started work on the article. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These fells were formed during the Ordovician period" I think it is best to give a time period as well as saying Ordovician as most people will not know when this was. However I see that the source gets it wrong as Ordovician is 485-443 million years ago and the leaflet says 500 million. Natural England here is a better source, though even this has a typo as it says 495-443.
  • "Climatically, Keswick is in the North West sector of the UK" What does this mean? Is it a Met Office classification?
  • I would make 'Ownership and governance' a sub-section of history. It is all historical.
  • "The first known official record of the town" Was there an earlier unofficial mention? Where does before 1216 come from?
  • "Land to the south and west were part of Greenwich Hospital's forestry and farming estates until the 19th century.[65] In 1925 the National Trust acquired 90 acres of land in this estate, including the foreshore woodland, the gift of Sir John Randles" Did Randles buy it from the Hospital? I would take "acquired" to mean purchased - suggest just saying he donated it.
  • Is it known how long the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School survived?
    • I have an idea that it morphed under Rawnsley's care into Keswick School, but I can't say for certain at the moment. Bott doesn't make it clear, and I'll have to fossick a bit more in the archives. I imagine the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society will oblige. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it from me. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much indeed for that very thorough review and for so many spot-on suggestions. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lake District Louie[edit]

  • I would move the quote box to the left in the Middle Ages section.
  • I removed a stray "e" at the end of the 18th & 19th centuries section. Did this "e" fall off the end of another word somewhere?
  • I added a couple of dates in refs, and I suspect that other refs are missing dates of publication (the access dates are, IMO, of less importance than the publication dates), that can be found in, or divined from, the sources.
  • Landmarks: Why does Grade II* get an asterisk (*) -- but only sometimes -- while Grade I does not? What is the purpose of the asterisk? I can assure you that most American readers will not know anything about the Grade scale for buildings. I would assume that it has something to do with designating it as some kind of historical landmark, but that is all I could guess. Therefore, I think a blue-link would be helpful in both cases.
  • What is a "a double flight of steps"? Are they double wide, double high, or two different sets side by side? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redrawn, but I'm keeping my powder dry on this. I have changed interior to exterior, but I must go and refresh my memory of the interior, just in case, when I'm next there later this month. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and these excellent pointers. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor matters from BB[edit]

I'm at the tail end of a distinguished company of reviewers, so not too many points. But:

  • The slogan "Keswick: famous for pencils" makes me want to giggle, but: "evidently that use did not begin until the late 18th century. Why do we need evidently?
    • Gone. There are worse slogans. My father used to chortle at "Newport – Home of the Mole Wrench", as well he might, you may feel. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at 2014" sounds strange to me, rather than "in". (Late in the article you have "as at")
    • It's an attempt to avoid WP:DATED without using "as of 2014", a construction I abominate. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it correct to refer to the lake as "the Derwentwater" (as in "from the river to the Derwentwater to the east of Portinscale")? I have only heard of it as "Derwentwater".
    • An error that crept in during multiple revisions, and now corrected.
  • Conversely, I would expect to read: "The River Greta, a tributary of the Derwent..." rather than "River Greta..." etc
  • I assume you will pipelink the various listed grades to Listed Building
  • Moot Hall: "a double flight of steps inside" – I see an outside double-flight. It's more usual to call internal steps "stairs"
    • I reserve my position on this. There are certainly outside steps, as you say, but I shall have to look inside when I'm back up there at the end of this month to refresh my memory of the interior arrangements. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Churches: "Until 1838 Keswick had no church within the town boundaries..." but then: "Another parish church, the Church of St Kentigern on Church Lane, is also Grade II* listed. Dated to at least the 14th century...". And what about the Weslyan chapel opened in 1814?
    • Sorry. The unthinking arrogance of one brought up in the C of E. Now rewritten. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the chancel windows, designed by Henry Holiday, also date to that year" – not clear what year.
  • "More than 250 barrels of beer, lager and cider are on offer, accompanied by music from live bands." Sounds a trifle promotional. Likewise: "In July one of the town's best-known annual fixtures begins..."
  • "Before the Lake Poets the best-known resident of Keswick was probably Sir John Bankes, a leading Royalist during the English Civil War." I don't think an encyclopedia should offer this kind of conjecture; the language needs to be more neutral, e.g. "Among the well-known residents of Keswick before the Lake Poets was..." etc
  • Education: I'm not clear as to how the schools mention in the historical summary tie in with contemporary provision. For example, does the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School still exist or did it evolve into something else? Twelve day schools in the town by 1833 suggests a very generous provision, but I imagine most of these were dame schools with only a few pupils – can you clarify? Can you confirm there are no private schools in the town, and also say what is the responsible LEA?
    • Dudley Miles also raised the point about the Crosthwaite Free Grammar School, and I reserved my position: I think under Rawnsley's care it morphed into Keswick school, but Bott doesn't say, and I need to do a bit of on-the-spot research later this month.
  • Population: I would like to have a better account of the stages by which the towns population grew from the 1000 mentioned in the 17th century, and the present-day 5000. For example, what was population in the mid-19th century, or at the time of the 1914–18 war (which would give a context to the 117 war dead)? Also, can we have some demographic details. Is Keswick a popular retirement base with an ageing population, is it mainly families, etc? Some idea of the make-up of the poplualtion would definitely help to form an image of the town.
    • Done the 20th century stuff. I must rummage further for 17th-19th century stats. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parliamentary constituency that includes Keswick is mentioned in the infobox but not in the text. Might be worth mentioning who the MP is (hee hee hee).
    • Added constituence details; I think I'll omit the name of the MP – WP:DATED again.

That is my lot. Aside from my light reservations expressed above, I found this at least as informative as the "Let's move to..." page which features in the Saturday Guardian. A little further attention should see it safely into FAC territory. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points, Brian. All grist to the mill and attended to as reported above. Tim riley talk 11:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Warmest thanks to everyone who has contributed. The article is so much better now than when I put it up for review. With the help of Dr Blofeld I aim to have it up to FAC in a week or two. Tim riley talk 16:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack White[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I worked on it years ago, and have returned because I would love for this to be a good, or even featured, article. I have steadily been working on it for the last week or so, and I would like a second set of eyes to see where the more glaring areas in need of improvedment are.

Thanks, Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. From a quick look, the basic information seems to all be there, sources are all formatted alright (though some links are dead and I can't speak to the reliability of them all), and as a whole the page looks nice enough aesthetically. I would suggest that you find sources for the uncorroborated statements (everything with a citation needed tag and all paragraphs that don't end with a citation) and seeing if you can expand on his "Minimalist style" and, to a lesser extent, acclaim as a musician. I mean, this guy is being ranked as one of the greatest guitarists of the 21st century (I remember being shocked that he'd made it into It Might Get Loud with the Edge and Jimmy Page, but few others were), and my impression is that he's highly esteemed as a catalyst of the garage rock revival (it's basically him, the Strokes, and maybe the Libertines who started it all) and of minimalist music in general. I'm sure there's more out there that this page could include in that vein. Good work so far, though.

(Oh, and if you're a White Stripes fan, can you point out to me how the Elephant cover is supposed to look like an elephant? I've repeatedly stared at it intently over years and years and I don't see it.) Tezero (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Sunderland Square[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for Peer Review as I've had a good shot at writing it, structuring it and including citations. In order to progress the article further to "Good Article" status, expert advice, external reviews, cooperation and assistance are all required. I would be grateful for any help I can receive in improving this page.

Thanks, TF92 (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Why is "St. Mary's Way Redevelopment" in quotation marks?
  • What was in the area before?

This article is pretty short...and as a future development might be hard to get enough substance to this but good luck. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Regiment Alabama Infantry[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because when I nominated it for GA, one reader (who did not initiate review; he only gave it a quick read-over) said it was far too long and "overly detailed," without giving any specific reasons for his assessment. Other readers disagreed, and I just wanted to get a consensus opinion on it. I'm open to any reasonable opinions or suggestions for improvement! Thanks, Ecjmartin (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ecjm, I've advertised the review over on the main Milhist talk page and on the Wikiproject Alabama talk page, so hopefully you should get a few reviews. Unfortunately, I don't get online much during the week, so I probably won't check in again until next weekend, but I will come back then and depending on how it is going, post a couple of suggestions. Good luck with taking the article further, and thanks for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much!! Your help and interest are greatly appreciated, and I look forward to hearing from you again soon. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A particularly tough image review[edit]

This is probably in excess of what's the minimal acceptable standard in a few places, but I think it's worth trying to get the best article possible, and part of that is good images. So, with that in mind:

  • File:Samuel Adams 33rd Alabama.jpg - Date is wrong; that needs fixed. File is very small, but Confederate soldiers are harder to find good photography of. Sharing the name of a founding father is not going to help when looking for other images, either. Likely as good as possible, if date is fixed, and information tidied slightly.
 Done. Got the date fixed, as best I could. Check it out if you would, and let me know if anything else needs doing, here. As you said, this isn't very good, but it's probably the best we can do.
 Done. Just did it.
 Done Also, Will post on your talk page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Godot wrote back and said he's backlogged and will need at least a week before he can check with the SI. Told him to take any time he needs; if he can't find anything better, we'll probably go with this (if that's okay by you) unless I stumble across a better one.
  • File:SAMWoodACW.jpg Terrible image, but half an hour searching the Library of Congress with various terms didn't find much.
 Not done. I found one other image, but I'm not sure this one is much better than the one we already have. Take a look and tell me what you think: http://www.chattanoogacwrt.org/201003.htm. I'll mark this as "not done" until we decide.
 Done. Take a look, and tell me what you think.
 Done. Check my work, if you would, and tell me if this is acceptable. This is all still pretty new to me, but I think I got what you suggested.
 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. I didn't find anything better either, and figured I was lucky to have stumbled across this one.
 Done. Took me a couple of tries, but that was my own fault, LOL...

Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Part 2[reply]

I've noticed I've missed a few, so I've added them in here, and finished the article.

 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
 Done. Agreed. I felt really lucky to find this one, and that he was id'd as being in the 33rd.
 Done. Thank you!
  • File:Rosecrans at Stones River.jpg Ugly crop; bad colour balance, needs restoration, taken from an earlier scan with poor colour fidelity, but a better one has been done since. I'll push this one into my restoration queue.
 Not done. Standing by, per your statement.
 Done. Per your statement here.
 Not done. I had to LOL on this one, as I am the one who did the very bad crop-job on this one and otherwise posted it. I couldn't (and still can't) get to the image you mentioned, as my computer won't let me click on it to download it--I'm not very good at this downloading/documentation thing, so I'll have to plead "guilty" on this one... So where do we go from here with this one?
  • File:Battle Ringgold Gap Drawing.jpg No source link; Probably available at higher resolution if I find it.
  • File:Cleburne_Monument_Ringgold_GA.jpg Not terrible; could use rotation. Lots of noise, though, so it'd be nice to retake this - did you know that, so far as I'm aware, we have never had a featured picture of a memorial from the American Civil War from the Confederate states? The ACW is far too major of a part of America's history to leave out its commemoration.
 Not done. Not sure here if you want to try to do something with this, given what you said here; if not, we can label it "done" if you agree. With this being a rather new monument, it'll probably be difficult to find a photo we can use apart from this one, unless someone happens to take a good one and posts it to Commons. And I did not know that--though before we started here, I didn't even know photos were "features" on WP! You learn something new every day!
 Done. Per your statement, here.
 Done. Per your statement here, unless we stumble onto something better.
 Done. Per your statement here.
 Done. Not sure what we can do here; like you, I wish we could have a better provenance for this photo. But since the guy claims it's his intellectual property and has released it unconditionally, do we just take him at his word and use it, or not? I'm not sure. I'm marking it as "done," but if you disagree, feel free to change the marking and/or delete the image altogether. You're a lot better-versed at this stuff than I am, for sure...
Thanks, Adam! This is awesome--I'm at work right now, but I'll get on this later this evening, and see what I can do. I deeply appreciate your help and candor here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries whatsoever! I mean, obviously, I'm going a step farther; I love how well-illustrated the article is. And, obviously, just because I say something is a bad picture doesn't mean that we'd actually be able to get a better one. There are cases where an image is so terrible that it pulls down the article's professionalism; but it has to be pretty terrible, and even the worst image in the article - the Lowrey - is a borderline case, probably adding more than it detracts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and labeled those photos we've already pretty much decided on keeping as "done;" that way, I can pass them over on the list easily as I come back to this over the next few days. The "not done" labels are for those we've started on but not yet finished; all the others are awaiting initial action--which should be coming over the next few days. Thanks again for all your help; you've been amazing!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a little slow - A WWII veteran, who served on the USS Mahan, created an FA on Mahan-class destroyers. This is creating a rather sudden need for me to get off my arse and work on very specific images. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, my friend. I'm moving rather slow on this myself, so it's definitely no problem. I appreciate all of the help you have given. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments from AustralianRupert
G'day, great work with the article. I have a couple of suggestions if you want to take it a bit further:
  • The following sentences probably need references/citations as they currently appear to be uncited:
  • "General Wood's brigade became separated from the other attacking units, and quickly found itself on its own, attacking the Federals on high ground against overwhelming odds."
 Done. Added reference.
  • "With Chattanooga now out of danger, the new Union commander could turn his attention to Bragg's army."
 Done. Deleted this sentence; it's not really needed, as it states the obvious.
  • "He would lead the Army of Tennessee throughout the first portion of the coming Atlanta Campaign."
 Done. Deleted this sentence, for the same reason as given above.
  • "Moving into the Dallas area on May 26, the Federals attacked Johnston's right flank at Pickett's Mill on May 27, where the 33rd Alabama would once more find itself in the center of the action."
 Done. Deleted the portion of this sentence that begins with: "...where the 33rd Alabama..."; provided a citation for the remainder.
  • "The regiment stopped at a nearby creek to fill their canteens, which gave the Federal defenders time to regroup and bring up artillery and reinforcements; these blasted the 33rd as they emerged from the creek valley and charged through a field and up a hill toward their lines."
 Done. Added reference.
  • New recruits would soon swell the regiment's numbers again, however, and it would return to battle many more times before the end of the war.
 Done. Deleted sentence; as with the others I mentioned, it states the obvious.

AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd suggest converting this to a footnote:
  • "A map of the Jonesborough battlefield may be seen here [3]." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Moved to footnote.
Thanks, Rupert! I'll get to work on this tonight or this weekend. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your efforts with the article. When the peer review closes, you might consider asking for a copy edit from someone over at the WP:GOCE. After that, if you are happy with how you are travelling, a Military History A-Class Review might be your next port of call. (I am hoping that a few more people will stop by and contribute to the peer review, though, first as this will help set you up for success later.) Anyway, take care and have a great weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker 67's review[edit]

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very high level of detail, obviously you have put a lot of work in here. The result, though, is an absolutely enormous article of 15856 words (or 94K) which is well beyond the readable prose size of about 60K. There are a few things you could do, including condensing the summaries of other articles, or WP:SPINOUT the article into two or more articles. In general, I consider there are a lot of quotes whose content could be summarised more succinctly in prose without the need to quote someone.
  • You have a large Bibliography, so I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size.
  • The refs are not templated using Template:Cite book etc, I suggest you template them, as they will then render in the standard way.
  • Some of the refs don't have a numerical identifier, DOI, ISBN, OCLC. You can get the book ones at Worldcat, the journal ones should be available online as well
  • use an endash with 200-300 in the Night Assault... section and the Chickamauga one as well, also the page range in the Morton McInvale citation in the Fire and maneuver section and the date range in the The Union Army: Cyclopedia of Battles citation in the Spring Hill section
  • there is quite a bit of WP:OVERLINKING, generally link once in the lead and once (at first mention) in the body
  • the external link checker says there is one dead link, and a few others which are redirects. Suggest you use permalinks
  • the citation style is very clunky, and results in a huge citation list. I suggest you use shortened footnote "sfn" citations, which will eliminate duplicated citations and reduce the space the citations take up.
  • watch for sandwiching of text between images on both the right and left
  • I suggest moving the non-historical/chronological "regimental details" such as the flag, uniforms, etc to the bottom, and starting the article after the lead with the recruiting, then working through the war in a chronological order.
 Done. SUPERB suggestion, sir. I actually wrote my article on the 43rd Indiana Infantry Regiment (my GGGF's regiment) that way, but didn't even think of that idea, here...
  • I suggest adding alt text to all the images. This is for accessibility reasons for vision impaired readers.
  • support the idea of a GOCE copyedit
  • the lead needs to summarise all the important aspects of the article. Given its size, I don't believe it does that now.
 Done. I think so, anyway (LOL)... Expanded the list of battles and campaigns; also added a paragraph about Matthews' contributions (which can be deleted, if need be).
  • I think the image licenses need some close attention, but that is not my forte so I haven't looked at them.
  • I would make the maps a standard size, the smaller ones are too small, even on my enormous screen

Great work so far, well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll keep plugging away from time to time, as circumstances permit. Thanks again for all your help! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A huge thank you[edit]

A huge "thank you" to all of you who have contributed to this article, whether through changes to the article itself, feedback and insights in this peer review, or both. Peacemaker 67 (together with the other reviewers, as well) has left several excellent comments, which I will be looking into over the next several weeks and months. Many of the templates and other things he speaks of are altogether new to me (I'm not really a very "advanced" WP editor, unfortunately--I tend to write and edit at a very 'basic' level, LOL!), so I will have to take time to learn those, as well. Unfortunately, I am now neck-deep in a major book project of my own that's expected to keep me occupied for a year or more, so I will have to slow the pace here on my end considerably, and work on all of these things listed here as I have time and energy to do so. In the end, I have learned a great deal about what goes into making a truly "good" article in this encyclopedia, and I hope over the following months to bring 33rd Alabama up to the standards expressed here. Again, my deepest thanks to everyone who had contributed, or who choose to contribute in the future, to this article or this peer review. Cheers to you all! God bless! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sdhould have the images finished next week; just this month got eaten by theatre. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries--and no hurries, my friend! I've taken a hiatus from this myself, as I'm neck-deep in a higher-priority book project. Please take all the time you need; I'm just grateful for your interest and help. Cheers! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hanks on screen and stage[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to submit this for FLC soon. The main things I want feedback on is how well the lead reads, whether it is comprehensive and that it avoids peacock words and unsourced claims. I would also appreciate a reference check to make sure everything is sourced according to WP:RS.

Thanks, Cowlibob (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Hi Cowlibob, Just a couple of quickies from me:

  1. The lead is quite long and full—probably slightly overly so, with just a bit too much indo in there. It could possibly do with some of the film plots being taken out: the film articles hold the info for people interested, and it's not important enough to include on a filmog page;
@SchroCat: Trimmed lead it's now less than 650 words. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If Splash was big hit, how come Big was a "breakthrough" role?
Clarified. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is a little peacockery present, and you should lose words and phrases like cult and surprise hit;
Removed all of these I think. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There are no citations in the lead, which will need to be addressed
@SchroCat: Firstly, thanks for the helpful suggestions. For this point, the lead was previously fully cited but another user cited WP:LEAD and said that we should aim for little or no citations as long as the content was cited in the main article which it is and that the text would be easier to read that way. You would feel there should be citations in the lead. This would entail about 30 references, is that ok for a lead? Cowlibob (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its about sticking a balance between the two and WP:CITELEAD is clear that they are allowed when needed and point out that "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Where the information cannot be directly found in the body of the page you need a cite, so saying he was in Bosom Buddies doesn't need a cite (because we have that in the table), going on to say that "His role ... led to guest appearances on a variety of long running television shows" does need a citation, as we don't know it was his appearance led to those appearances (it could have been a good agent, a friend on the production team etc). Saying a film is low-budget needs a cite: mentioning Hanks's appearance in the film isn't a problem, but the budget is. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, will work on that principle. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Tables. You need to do something with the sort so that the films do not sort on A or The. Roles should sort on surname, not first name.

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed sorting issues and added citations. One issue came up after adding sort template the n/a listings are sorted as n when it would be preferable that those listings be moved to the bottom, do you have suggestions on how to do this? Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use n/a as I don't like the differently coloured cells (just not needed), or the fact it centres the text when everything else in the column is left aligned. I also find it slightly misleading because n/a isn't defined. Does it mean "Not available"?. If you look at the Greek Wedding entry, the data isn't "not available": Hanks didn't appear in the film, so there is no data to be available. I tend to go for a dash for any empty cell. Your call whichever choice you go for: in FL terms, both are acceptable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thought I have is to include Hanks's activities from other media - theatre work or radio etc. the title can be tweaked to cover the new additions (and technically it's not actually a filmography already, as it includes television work, so the addition of other media isn't an issue). - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: It could potentially be renamed as "on screen and stage" but so far he's had one Broadway appearance (Tony nominated but still one). Another thing, to avoid peacockery which words would you advice to use if a film is a box office hit or flop or somewhere in between which are encyclopaedic. The same for if the performance was critically acclaimed or panned. Cowlibob (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't refer to the success (or otherwise) of a film: that's what the film's own page is for. Ditto for performances, although yes, you should include the awards info, which is straight reportage of an event, rather than the print opinions of critics, if you get my drift on the difference... - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Yes that would be my preference as well but had seen it in other Filmog FLs. Is it ok to rename article as "on screen and stage" despite only one Broadway appearance. He did appear in city-based theatre productions before films if that counts for anything.Cowlibob (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add as many as possible, regardless of where the performances took place: it's a bit Broadway-centric to ignore all the others, which is often where an actor learns his or her trade. - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on finding reliable sources for his theatre appearances. For his first theatre appearances, it seems he worked at a theatre company for three seasons playing various roles which I'm trying to find out. The last theatre appearances before films seems to be similar in that he played various roles as part of a company with a couple being cited and others seemingly unknown. Cowlibob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The table doesn't have to be complete to pass FL requirements, as long as you've completed it to the best of the available sources. You can always use the {{expand list}} template to highlight the point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lady Lotus[edit]

Just a few questions really.

  • Can the credits where he was only a producer have their own table? I feel like that would be better for navigation for users wanting to see things he did as the producer and not have to search through his filmography. That way the whole "credited as" column can be removed, as I don't see the necessity of it now when that's what the "notes" column is for.
@Lady Lotus: It was originally separated but I didn't want to repeat films and the current sort I think works as it shows the reader films he acted in first, then additional roles in films he acted in and then producer roles. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "Premieres in Winter 2014", that's not necessary and not normally stated in a filmography
Removed. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not saying that Box Office Mojo and AllMovie aren't reliable sources, but with how big his career is, I'm sure there are more reliable sources out there.
I could probably find New York Times sources for most of the films, do you think that would be better? Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you could find more after that, like Variety, Collider or LA Times. I like a variety of reliable sources, but that's not a necessity to have. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would adjust the width of the tables to add in more images LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Will work on adding more images. Cowlibob (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat and Lady Lotus: I've made a new version of the article on my sandbox which hopefully takes on board the improvements that you've both highlighted. Tom Hanks draft Would it be possible for another look through? This article would also hopefully be renamed as "Tom Hanks on screen and stage" when in mainspace. Thanks. Cowlibob (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOP Ranch[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it up to Good Article quality. I am interested in any recommendations whatsoever whether they are grammar, appropriate tone, reference formatting, etc.

Thanks, Dnforney (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal (company)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it as an intern of the company and would like to disclose the conflict of interest and have other editors review the article to check for significant sources and notability as well as complete neutrality.

Thanks, Ejsmiley (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

  • Prices should generally not be included, per WP:NOTCATALOGUE.
  • What was The Map Network? What did it do?
  • Many terms are mentioned, but not defined. For example, what are "Privacy by Design principles", the Infomediary model and the vendor relationship management model?
  • How does the "Small Data Meetup Group" relate to Personal?
  • Information in the History section is not ordered chronologically.
  • Many paragraphs are only one or two sentences long. These should be merged into larger, cohesive paragraphs. Try and fit information into paragraphs which follow the summary or news styles.
  • Names of magazines should be in italics.
  • There are too many quotes in the article which are just speculation. E.g., "Mashable posed the question: 'Never Fill Out a Form Again?'" and the CEO's claim that "the average American consumer would soon be able to realize over $1,000 per year".
  • Use straight quotes instead of curly quotes, per MOS:QUOTEMARKS.
  • Avoid using sources from the company. For example, the CEO's claim that "Personal has helped to popularize the concept of 'small data'" is not at all reliable unless backed up by third-party sources.
  • The products and services sections needs more information about the actual products themselves and less on the media's reponse.
  • Information is organised haphazardly. For example in the Data Vault section, there are four one-sentence paragraphs between description a description of how it works and a paragraph on the product's features. These paragraphs would be better adjacent to one another.

Regarding notability, I think it would be better if more sources were solely about the company, rather than mentioning it incidentally when talking about personal data management. However, I think there is just enough about it to call it notable. EdwardH (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Costa[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made over 100 edits to it and would like to know if it is within the realms of being nominated as a Good Article. There are only a few articles which I have ever edited in a lot of depth, this being one of them, and thus I would be grateful to be notified on how to improve it.

Thanks, '''tAD''' (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arab street[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been rather impressed with how it turned out, and I will be seeking GA status for it at least. I think it handled a potentially touchy subject with great sensitivity and includes a lot of perspectives.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bleach volumes[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for FL. Beside this article, three sub-articles about Bleach chapters should be nominated as well. Any feedback and suggestion is welcome.

Thank you for your time, (Nightwolf87 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You should do the sub articles first to build a stronger case for the general list. Aside from that, the series is incomplete, making it difficult for FLC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rearranged summaries for the Fullbring arc and Thousand Year Blood war, including the latest volume 63. I also added a few sentences about release of digital editions for NA and Japan in the main list. Although series in incomplete I dont see why the list shouldnt get a FL status if it meets a criteria. For example, D.Gray-man and Naruto are still ongoing and their chapter lists are FL. Cheers (Nightwolf87 (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Telescopium[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some expert input before I send it to FAC, as getting the content right beforehand is prudent....

Thanks, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment: I'd expect to see QS Telescopii talked about somewhere in the article; it's a well-studied polar. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made the article now. Just need to flesh it out a bit to summarise and add to constellation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Thomas Strosberg[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It is my first wikipedia article Thanks, Martinscriminalcode (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)martinscriminalcode[reply]

Turkey[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of a possible FA nomination.

Thanks, elmasmelih 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here are my suggestions. Hope it isn't too late as you opened this a few weeks ago.
First, check for broken links in the references section using http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Turkey . There were a couple dozen broken links that I saw, some of which point to Turkish-language sites.
2.1 Prehistory of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace
Third paragraph: "eighteenth through the 13th century BC”: be consistent in naming conventions (18th through the 13th)
5.1 Biodiversity
Third paragraph: "Polonezköy Nature Park”: add a period at the end of the last sentence
6 Economy
Second paragraph: take comma out after Customs Union, add space after comma following “tariff rates”
7.1 Religion
Second paragraph: “some sources” sentence can be reworded to use one of the percentages or as a range (96.4-99.8%)
Semicolon instead of comma after Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı)
15 to 20 million. and according… replace period with comma
7.3 Healthcare
Could add a little bit more here, but take out the top 3 diseases at the end
8.1 Arts
First paragraph: “thirty, forty years” could be something like “thirty to forty years”
8.2 Architecture
First paragraph: "Turkic architectue" to "Turkish architecture" (First word with different suffix, second with corrected spelling)

I think you should have a good shot at FA once you fix the broken reference links and make the above changes. Good luck! Let me know if you have further questions.
Also, I have a peer review request for Liberty in North Korea where I would appreciate any feedback. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Boat Race 1993[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Following in the wake of the success of The Boat Race 2012, this one is next in my pipeline for FAC. A successful GA, this has some interesting facets to it and I'd like some other non-involved eyes to give it a look over.

Thanks in advance for your time and efforts, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NickGibson3900[edit]

Race[edit]
  • "Oxford were strong pre-race favourites, having won 16 of the last 17 races." - third mention of last 17 races. Sentence is not needed.
    It's only the second mention. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Goldie wikilinked but not Isis?
    There's no article for Isis. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References[edit]

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdwardH[edit]

  • "for the first time in the history of the race" could just be shortened to "for the first time"
  • "Cambridge prevented Oxford making it seventeen wins" doesn't sound right to me. Would "Cambridge prevented Oxford winning seventeen times" be better?
  • Images lack alt-text.

Good luck on the featured article nomination!

George Formby Snr[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
George Formby Snr was a music hall star, singer-songwriter and comedian. A Lancastrian by background, he used his regional background and his tuberculosis as a font for his humour. He died at the relatively young age of 46, but his son George picked up his act before coming a major star of the 30s and 40s. This article has undergone a major re-write recently, although there is a dearth of sources. An FAC is hoped for in the near future, and an opinion from reviewers as to whether this is FAC compliant, or only up to GAN standard. – SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from NickGibson3900 Talk[edit]

  • Why no infobox?
  • It's not really needed, and would probably act as a distraction. All the information an IB would contain is in the lead anyway, so is easily accessible. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 27 needs access date.
  • Not possible, unfortunately: it's a fixed template that won't take the date. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about formatting it without that template? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I'll drop those in shortly, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALTTEXT hasn't been considered part of the FAC criteria in about two years (you can check the archives). That being said, I'd still add it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CassiWillie[edit]

  • I support this article having no infobox
  • "Sarah was small—around 4 feet (1.2 m) tall—and a prostitute" -- odd conjunction; I would alter the order to "Sarah worked as a prostitute; she was small, around 4 feet (1.2 m) tall..."
  • "Because Sarah was so often absent from home..." -- Would work just as well without the adverb IMO. Also, two "often"'s...
  • "outside the house, or in the outhouse.." -- two "out", two "house". Would using either "outside" or "outhouse" be just enough?
  • "Because Sarah was so often absent from home, often detained overnight in the local police station, Formby had to sleep outside the house, or in the outhouse, and he developed asthma and became susceptible to bronchitis as a result." -- a bit over-long. Also, two conjunctions in "and" makes for some bumpy reading. Maybe: "Because Sarah was frequently absent from home, and often detained overnight at the local police station, Formby had to sleep outside. As a result he developed asthma and became susceptible to bronchitis."
  • "Later on in his life Formby recalled..." -- pronoun maybe?
  • "To earn money for the low-income household..." -- Repetitive; do we need to be reminded of the "low Income"?

Burgeoning stage career: 1890–1902

  • "Although rumoured to have picked his new surname after seeing it as a destination on a railway carriage, the main biographers agree this story is likely to be apocryphal, with the origin of the Formby name being a suggestion from Daniel Clarke, the manager of the Argyle Theatre in Birkenhead, while George was chosen in honour of the music hall star George Robey." In honour of Robey eh? Well I didn't know that! Also, this maybe a bit over long this sentence.
  • "One of the earliest characters Formby developed for his act" -- redundant "for his act".
  • I love, love, LOVE the montage, nice work!
  • "In August 1897 Formby married Martha Maria Salter, a twenty-year-old music hall performer, and they married in her home town of Halifax." Married/married
  • Link to Blackburn maybe?
  • Does one convert to the "Catholic Church" or Catholicism?
  • A good question, about which I'll claim ignorance! Tim riley is going to be he the font of answers on this one... - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say either "join the Roman Catholic Church" or "convert to Roman Catholicism" (important to include the adjective: the C of E also professes to be a "catholic and apostolic church") Tim riley talk 13:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly stopping for now. More on the morrow. Cassiantotalk 02:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • All covered now, apart from the church point, which our ecclesiastical expert should be able to cover. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London, and a growing reputation: 1902–16

  • "Eliza Formby's recollection of the event differs slightly, and she later recollected..." Recollection/recollected
  • "and was so impressed that she contacted Granville to travel to Leeds to see the act." Tails off towards the end of this sentence: I would say that "she contacted Granville" is redundant and "and was so impressed that she travelled to Leeds to see the act" is more concise.
  • "Two years later Formby made..." -- Pronoun.
  • "After his death ..." I can't quite work out if these tributes are for here or are best suited to later on?
  • "and followed this the following year" -- followed/following
  • I reckon "Standing at the Corner of the Street" was surely a part inspiration for "Leaning on a Lampost" I would guess. Can't cite it, so just thinking out loud
  • The biographers of the son all refer to it, and think there may have been, but have no proof. They do say that "Leaning on a Lampost" was so clean and slightly mournful, and it may be because his father's song, but it's all just guesswork, unfortunatley. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Command Performance of the year, when he performed..." -- performance/performed
  • "short solo performance" →"short solo peice" would help break up all of the "performances".
  • "it was Formby's only film..." -- pronoun?
  • In fact, "Formby" can be cut right back in the whole of this para IMO; I would only use it once.
  • Is "following in his footsteps" encyclopaedic?

Worsening health, and death: 1916–21

*"Formby was injured in June 1916 during rehearsals for the revue Razzle Dazzle, after a stage collapsed at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane." was he injured on stage, or did he collapse, or was he injured owing to his collapse?

  • In my experience with Lloyd, Leno, Tich and Robey, Drury Lane can be called just that and without the theatre, as long as it has been introduced, which it has.
  • ""was working for the short time left to him for the benefit of his large family" →"was working for the short time he had left for the benefit of his large family"
  • "He was taken ill during runs of pantomimes in both 1918 and 1919, and at a performance in Newcastle upon Tyne in the 1920–21 pantomime season, he collapsed on stage." →"He was taken ill during the runs of pantomimes in both 1918 and 1919, and collapsed on stage during a performance in Newcastle upon Tyne in the 1920–21 pantomime season."
  • "In early 1921 Formby was appearing at the Newcastle Empire in Jack and Jill when he collapsed after a show" -- Do we repeat this above?
  • No: the 1920-21 collapse was separate from his final, fatal one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will be finished later today. Cassiantotalk 10:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent: good spots all round, and all all tweaked as suggested. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done, the rest looked spot on! Ping me when you go to FAC! Cassiantotalk 11:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

  • I'll be through in a bit. One thing jumps out at me: per WP:LEADLENGTH, this should have only 2 or 3 paragraphs of lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remedied: I wasn't a huge fan of the last two anyway - too short and stubby for my liking. Cheers, and I look forward to the rest . - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the early 20th centuries - So there's been more than one 20th century?
  • he was popular around the country and in London. - And I'm only now learning that London is not in England?
  • drunkard -> alcoholic? Drunkard's a bit... well, POV
  • His son also used parts of his father's act - this could mean Chaplin's son
  • Sarah worked as a prostitute; she was small, around 4 feet (1.2 m) tall and sang at pubs in exchange for alcoholic drinks; she was convicted 140 times for offences such as theft, prostitution, drunkenness and brawling. - two semi-colons in a row?
  • for coppers - Slang/non-specific language. A link at the very least.
  • I wouldn't necessarily, but in this case I think it is (just about) relevant, given Formby's early death from the same condition. If others also raise the point I'll remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formby secured a job at a cotton mill and spent two years as a loom builder, but supplemented his wages by singing for money, performing in pubs, alehouses and free-and-easies, the latter being those places where informal arrangements were made for patrons to provide their own entertainment. - Way too long. Try something like "Formby secured a job at a cotton mill and spent two years as a loom builder. He supplemented his wages by singing for money in pubs, alehouses and free-and-easies, the latter being those places where informal arrangements were made for patrons to provide their own entertainment.
  • Those biographers are primarily those of Formby's son, - so they wouldn't be Formby Snr's biographers now, would they? I think the term "the main biographers" is a bit problematic for that reason.
  • I've tweaked to "main sources", which should cover it. Although the sources are primarily for the son, the Smart/BH one is subtitled The Authorized Biography of the Two George Formbys, Father and Son (although 75% about the son, to be honest!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to his biographers, Sue Smart and Richard Bothway Howard, - his being Snr or Jr?
  • The couple married in August the following year at Wigan Registry Office, although this marriage was bigamous because of his marriage two years previously to Salter. - If we don't know when Snr and Salter separated, how do we know this was bigamous?
  • Separation is different to divorce, and its the lack of divorce that is the issue. Divorce was a big deal at the time - it needed an Act of Parliament to be completed, which is easy to find. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Catholic Church - I'd say "convert to Catholicism"
  • The Formbys had thirteen children, - We're still with Hoy and Formby, here? If he was bigamous, "the Formbys" might be a little too vague.
  • in his first London performances, - Formby's or Granville's?
  • Tivoli Music Hall, who - who or which?
  • After the Formbys had lost three daughters ... - this paragraph feels a bit short compared to the others. Thoughts?
  • It is! I'd normally merge with one of the others, but the two either side are all about his career, not his personal life, so it would stick out a bit if they were merged together. Happy to look at any suggesttions to overcome this! - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two years later Formby made his first recordings onto phonograph cylinder, for the Louis Sterling Cylinder Company. - what were his earlier recordings on?
  • followed this the following year - can we avoid the repetition?
  • The obituarist for The Manchester Guardian - I'd move this paragraph into #Legacy as that section is quite short
  • a small wooden platform on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal for loading coal, - that must have done wonders for his breathing...
  • After lending a costume and cane to Chaplin in 1908, the young performer [your subject is still Formby Jnr] travelled with the Kano troupe to the US, where he developed the character of the Tramp, the image of which became "universally familiar" by 1915. - this could be read as Formby Jnr becoming the Tramp.
  • Excellent fare: many thanks for all your thoughts here. I've covered pretty much all your points apart from where commented on, and the bit about moving a para to a new section. Cass has come up with something else to move, so I'll deal with these all together at the end. Cheers once again. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr Blofeld[edit]

I'm very concerned that the major problems with the Peter Sellers article have manifested themselves in this one.... :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol - well written, properly sourced and with good structure? I know - it's a shocker! - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles should look like this, containing no real information which makes the reader consider it incomprehensible. Rather it should be short and consist entirely of haphazard quotes. If you want to improve the article further, reduce it to a collection of quotes!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. I haven't read the comments above, so please forgive any remarks below that duplicate anything the early birds have said.

  • London, and a growing reputation: 1902–16
    • "his sight was restored" – if he was born blind, "restored" isn't the right word; I think you need "he gained his sight" or some such
      • Still "restored" in the present version. I'm not going to do a Violet Elizabeth Bott on this, but still... Tim riley talk 00:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure why I tweaked the first part and not the second, but all now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first recordings onto phonograph" – I think I'd add a comma after "recordings", to avoid ambiguity
  • Stage persona and technique
    • "Formby was the first performer to use a delayed entrance" – even if that is what the source says I don't see how Fisher can be certain that no performer, however obscure, had used this technique before. "The first star" would be safe enough, I think.
    • "but it was not contrived and was never mawkish" – this could do with an inline attribution
    • Refs 22, 73 and 74 – rather a lot of blue. Could you perhaps bundle 73 and 74 together?
      • Sadly the SFN template—of which I know you are a huge fan—has a downside when it comes to bundling, in that it can't, unfortunately! - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was nicknamed the "Wigan Nightingale" – you've mentioned this already two paras ago
      • So good I've named it twice...? - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • "After lending a costume and cane to Chaplin..." – this para goes off the rails a bit. I think it means Formby senior lent the kit to the young Chaplin who sailed with Karno and adopted the tramp character, but that isn't clear. You've already mentioned the Chaplin connection, and I'd be inclined to redraw this sentence as something like: "Chaplin, who derived some of his stage persona from Formby's, sailed in 1908 with Karno's troupe to the US, where he developed the character of the Tramp, the image of which became universally familiar by 1915." You could lose the quotes round "universally familiar", I think.
  • Notes
    • Note b – "Sue Smart and Richard Bothway Howard, complain that..." – you make them sound rather peevish. Perhaps a more neutral verb?
      • I've swapped it out for "whinge that..."
  • References
    • You give the location of the newspapers you quote but not that of the one magazine (ref 12).
    • You also give, at ref 38, what looks like an issue number for The Times, which you don't do elsewhere.

I really can't find any more to quibble about in this fine article. I don't see how it could be much improved on or added to, and I'd definitely have a shot at FAC if I were you. Tim riley talk 13:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As always, many thanks indeed for all your thoughts and suggestions, to which I hope I've done justice. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ssilvers[edit]

I didn't read the comments above, so please forgive any duplicates. If you want my opinion on any of the above comments, feel free to e-mail me.

LEAD:

  • "His comedy was particularly Lancashire based". This is rather vague. How about something like "His comedy played upon Lancashire stereotypes".
  • Several times you use "north-west" or "north-western". According to the Oxford dictionary, it should not be hyphenated.
  • "he spent most of his youth being maltreated". I don't think that's how he chose to spend his time. I think you mean that "during much of his youth he was maltreated".

EARLY YEARS:

  • "poor, working class". Isn't that repetitive?
    • Not necessarily: some working class can be relatively (not absolutely) well off. In Marxist terms, I think the Formbys were from the lumpenproletariat, rather than just the proletariat. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 feet tall - doesn't that seem like an exaggeration? Are the sources really solid on this assertion? Also, a 4-foot tall woman convicted numerous times of brawling? I'd like to know if she ever won a brawl.
    • Height doesn't mean much. Yayan Ruhian is perhaps five feet tall, and apparently he trained the Indonesian presidential guard in the 90s (shame I don't have a more solid source than Yahoo! for that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to be correct, and comes out of a few of have sources. I suspect that after arrest she would have been been weighed and measured for the arrest sheet. - SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BURGEONING CAREER:

  • I find footnote "c" confusing: which sources are the "main" ones, and which ones are the ones that accept the "destination on a railway carriage" story?

LONDON

  • "In 1902, while performing in Leeds". Who was performing in Leeds, Granville or Formby? I think you mean Formby, but the sentence currently indicates Granville.
  • "£325 a week by 1922". He died in early 1921, so was this a posthumous salary? :p It might be helpful to put some salary info in the "Worsening Health" section below.
  • "playing three of the capital's music halls a night for £45 a week". Do you mean £45 total, or £45 from each of the music halls?
  • "Formby was worried his son would watch him on stage". When do you mean? Does this have anything to do with the film, or are you commenting on some earlier period of time?
    • All done down to here (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WORSENING HEALTH:

  • Do we know when he contracted tuberculosis?
    • Unfortunately not, none of the sources cover exactly when. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you should use the archaic term "consumption" if you can avoid it.
  • Apparently, even through the health issues, these years were very financially successful for Formby. Can you mention any more of his important later gigs?
  • I'll go back to the sources and work on this aspect post-PR. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are a bit disappointing on this time: they focus on his worsening health, and on Formby Jnr's (horse racing) activities, rather than Snr's gigs, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings

  • He made over 190 recordings. Can you say more about his bestsellers or most important recordings?
  • I'll go back to the sources and work on this aspect post-PR. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done: I've moved the info down into the Legacy section and added a few more of the bigger ones. - SchroCat (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--That's it for me. Many thanks for this major upgrade to the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Ssilvers! All covered, I think, apart from where commented on. There's a few things I'll go back to the sources on and clear up after I've finished the PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the PR: many thanks to all who came and commented: it's all very much appreciated! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Donnelly (Irish republican)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because that's what you do

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... I'll take the privilege of reviewing this article.

Here's what I found so far:

  • Lead could use some expansion.
  • An infobox containing info and a picture of the person in question could help (if not, then picture will do).
  • Is there a birthdate for the person?
  • Any mention of his previous life before his time in prison and with politics?
  • Add the date you put the references in the article.
  • Who wrote the articles you have links for?

What I've found so far is good and is somewhere close to start-class quality if the changes are made. Keep up the work. DepressedPer (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Hold You[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been putting a lot of work on it for about five days now and I see potential in it to be a GA. The Background and Composition sections seem to trip me up as far as getting this to GA-status. I've been a part of expanding hip-hop articles to GA-status for quite some time now and I like to see this be another addition to it. I await your opinions on what should be done to this article.

Thanks, ~~DepressedPer (talk) 07:46, 28 August 28, 2014 (UTC)~~

Death of Osama bin Laden[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to push this piece of important information in recent history to FAC.

Thanks, Forbidden User (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At FAC, the first question you'll probably get is "Have you notified the major contributors?" ... so it might be best to go ahead and notify them now that this is at peer review. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments. "the founder": Our al-Qaeda article says there were several founders, so either that article should be changed, or this article should say "one of the founders". I don't personally know what reliable sources say about this.
  • "The operation ... was carried out in a ... operation": repetition
  • "The United States had direct evidence that Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad, Pakistan.": I was looking at this because it didn't seem to fit in the first paragraph, but I found that the source (a NYT article) doesn't support this sentence at all: "a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad. The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call ...": So, a NYT reporter says that an unnamed Pakistani official says that an unnamed US official had nonspecific information, which might or might not have come from a phone call. If you want to use this source, that's the statement this source supports. It's not solid enough to go in the first paragraph, or to stand alone. - Dank (push to talk) 09:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Tweaked 13:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Looking at it.Forbidden User (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comments from Nikkimaria
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be longer
  • Dead links should be fixed
  • Try to avoid having a one-sentence subsection
  • A number of repeated links throughout, some in very close proximity
  • Mix of US and UK spelling - for example, you have both "criticized" and "criticised"
  • Before going to FAC, make sure the references are consistently formatted, so similar sources look similar. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'll focus on the section on the military operation:

  • There's WAY too many quotes from news stories, especially of people speculating about the operation anonymously. The books on this topic, some of which are pretty good, are largely free of this kind of rambling speculation and are greatly under-used as sources here: media reports from the days after the raid aren't terribly useful as sources given that the events of the operation have subsequently been set out much more clearly in books and magazine articles.
  • The background section of the article is rather short in comparison to the coverage the hunt for bin Laden usually receives in works on this topic, and I don't understand the logic behind having a separate 'Previous attempts to capture or kill bin Laden' section, especially located at the end of the article
  • The 'Objective' section is badly structured: it's a she says-he says type grab bag of news stories rather than a concise attempt to explain the situation. From what I've read in the books on the subject, the consensus is that the SEALs were ordered to capture bin Laden if feasible, but no-one at all expected that he'd surrender. Also bear in mind that it would have been illegal to have ordered the SEALs to have not accepted bin Laden's surrender had he offered it, so it's very unlikely that such a direction was given.
  • There's a fair bit of repeated and over-linking in the 'Approach and entry' section
  • The coverage of the raid itself is pretty sketchy and not very coherent. I'd suggest structuring this as a clear narrative.
  • "An unnamed U.S. senior defense official stated that only one of the five people killed was armed" - not sure if this is true and the implication is questionable: other accounts say that several of the people killed were armed, or could reasonably have been assumed to have been armed based on their behaviour
  • How and why did Chuck Pfarrer reach a different version of the events of the raid? What were his sources? (the level of coverage here seems to be WP:UNDUE given that his version of events differs so much from that in other sources)
  • The author also asserted that one SEAL sat on bin Laden's chest in a cramped helicopter as his body was flown back to Afghanistan.[51][218][219][220][221][222][223] - why does this simple statement need seven references? From memory, it's in the book so just cite that
  • Also, in No Easy Day Bissonnette makes the interesting observation that his unit had conducted large numbers of more difficult attacks on housing compounds in Afghanistan, and that the only particularly challenging or unusual part of the raid was penetrating into Pakistan.
  • Do we really need two paras on the operation's Code name? The first para could easily be integrated into the body of the article and the second is storm in a teacup stuff.
  • I'd suggest developing this article through good article and A-class assessments before going to FAC. It needs a lot of work to reach such a standard. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miagao Church[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to expand the article and to take it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Thanks, Carlojoseph14 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Wurtenburg[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some advice on improvements I could make before I bring this to FAC. My writing in particular has been a weak point in the past, so copyediting advice would be extremely helpful. Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the list is now modified and edited based on the mentioned criteria for featured lists. Please check for possible problems before nomination for Featured list.

Thanks, Mhhossein (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dogs (video game)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because me and Tezero will nominate the article for FA in 2 weeks, so feedback would be much appreciated! Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D.P. Thomson[edit]

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

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

This is my first article, moved live after comment from a Teahouse host, who suggested that ...

a) ... the text might not sound wholly objective in places So I've tried to reword but comments would be welcome.

b) ... that citing essentially self-published works by the subject of the article might be questionable. I've tried to substantiate most statements from third-party published works, though it seems to me that, when saying that so-and-so wrote on x-y-and-z topics, to reference those book/pamphlets (and which copyright library has them) offers not opinion but verifiable fact - but then I'm new to this ...

c) I don’t think I've formatted the 'Categories' section correctly. I see that unlike the others, which tend to work by surnames, this article comes under ‘D’ - D.P. Thomson - and not ‘T’.

d) There may be other formatting issues I've missed.

e) I'm not wholly sure about the content I've gone for: especially the 'theology' and 'significance' paragraphs which are intended to address 'notability' and why DPT was thought 'a leader ...' as his denomination's General Assembly said. However if a more factual approach would be better, a chronological list of (major) campaigns and/or a list of his 100-ish publications in the National Library of Scotland could be provided.

Reviews welcome...

Thanks, Ian Badenoch (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Athletics[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it just passed a GA review. I would like to take to FAC and any suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks in advance, NickGibson3900 Talk 10:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by EricEnfermero[edit]

I'm happy to leave some comments. Keep in mind that I have not completed many peer reviews.

  • I notice that the article is titled Little Athletics, but the organization's website seems to refer to itself as Little Athletics Australia.
@EricEnfermero: Little Athletics Australia is the governing body, not the name of the competitions.
  • In the lead, the language could be a little tighter. Ex.: "compete in the competitions" is redundant.
 Done
  • Under Structure and Governance, "They are sections of centres..." - unclear on exactly what this means.
 Done
  • The History section covers a relatively brief period and creates a gap of ~40 years where we're left to wonder what happened.
  • I don't find it useful to have both a timeline and a detailed history. The lead can help to summarize the most significant events.
 Removed
  • The direct quotes in this section aare distracting to me. I think you can paraphrase how many people attended an event, for example.
 Paraphrased
  • "There would be 14 meets..." - Do you mean that 14 meets were scheduled? Did they happen before support for the organization ran out?
 Done
  • Re: the Current section. WP:WTW discourages the use of relative time references. Is there a better section title?
 Unfortunately there isn't a better title I can think of

EricEnfermero HOWDY! 11:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe in Me (Bonnie Tyler song)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to drive this article towards the quality of a Featured Article one day in the near future. The article is already listed as a Good Article, and I have demonstrated my dedication to improving the article through my quick edit responses to suggested improvements. I would appreciate copy edit work being done if needed, but more importantly, advice on what information may need to be added in order to improve the article's quality even more, and how far away the article is from being eligible for another quality scale promotion.

Thanks, Bonnietylersave (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anime[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been over five years since the last peer review and a year since the last Good Article nomination, which it failed to be listed. Despite the fact that this article as been listed as a level-4 vital article, there has been no progress on improving the article to GA or FA status.

Thanks, —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just glanced over the article for the moment and immediately feel as though you could improve the article by restructuring it a bit and combining some sections together..

  • I'd think about rewriting the lead to be more broad and perhaps reserving facts about commercialization and production studios for subsequent subsections lead-ins.
  • Definition and usage could be renamed Etymology followed by History.
  • The content of the Format sections seems to be appropriate to History.
  • I don't understand Attributes as a top level section. Not exactly sure what I'm confused about.. it just doesn't read well for me, maybe it's just me.

Batman: Arkham Origins[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA alongside Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, but as it wasn't received as well as those two games the coverage is less and I feel like it is missing something. A fresh set of eyes would beneficial in making sure it is as complete as possible so it can be nominated.

Thanks, Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

I'll take a look at the article. By the way, Darkwarriorblake, is there any way you could give some feedback to the Sleeping Dogs (video game) peer review too? That would be much appreciated. Thanks!

  • Lead feels too short for FA. Specially the 2nd paragraph.
  • A paragraph for gameplay would be nice.
  • The opening of the 2nd paragraph kinda bugs me for some reason. I think it needs rephrasing.

More comments inbound. URDNEXT (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree about the lead. Dunno if it was this way when I was reviewing for GA, but if so, that was an unfortunate oversight on my part. Considering the size of the page, four full paragraphs would not at all be unreasonable. Tezero (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadsund[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because. I want to get the parts of the article translated from the Danish Wikipedia da:Hadsund

My wish is (section name from the Danish Wikipedia)

Introduction

  • Navn
  • Indtil 1700
  • 1700-1854
  • 1854-1910
  • 1910-1970
  • 1970-1985 Industribyen
  • Historiske indbyggertal
  • Geografi
    • Hadsund Centrum
  • Uddannelse
  • Erhverv
    • Største arbejdspladser
    • Største private virksomheder


Hope someone will assist. Thanks, Søren1997 (talk // contributions) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Widower (film)[edit]

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

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

It needs a clean up.

Thanks, GiraffeBoy (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?
  • Is this article notable for Wikipedia? The content of the article seems to read as though it is no more, or little more, than a synopsis of the film followed by a credit roll followed by a list of referenced press-releases about the airing and casting of the project.
  • To the above: please sign your posts. To the nominator: the issue is not one of notability – of course this series is notable within WP's definition of the word. The issue is the undeveloped nature of the article, which requires rather more than a "clean-up". I suggest that you examine some of the hundreds of TV/film-based articles that have been listed as Good Articles – the link is here. These should give you some ideas about how to develop the article. Until you've done a lot more work, the article is not really reviewable. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Bondfield[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Miss Margaret Bondfield was a formidable woman who rose from impoverished beginnings to become one of the leading figures in the British Labour and womens' rights movements in the first half of the 20th century. First woman to chair the TUC (1923); first woman appointed to ministerial office (1924); first woman cabinet minister (1929); first woman privy counsellor (1929). Unfortunately, her performance in cabinet office as Minister of Labour (1929–31) alienated many of her natural supporters and she has been somwhat denigrated, if not ignored, by modern Labour historians (e.g. no biography since 1924 when her career was barely under way). Robert Skidelsky ungallantly drew attention to her "long black skirts and a voice that emitted a harsh cascade of sound". Well, here she is, make of her what you will. All comments most welcome; I shall be away for a week from Saturday (14th), so I won't be able to deal with them all immediately, but it would be good to have some idea of the reaction before I go. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a very thorough, well-researched and detailed article about someone who appears more deserving of record than she has been given. I will say that I am not an expert on this period (though I am fairly familiar with it), and I am new to reviewing, but I do have a few comments (which are by no means exhaustive):

  • I notice that you refer to her as Margaret in some cases; the Manual of Style prefers the use of surnames only (see WP:SURNAME).
  • I think first names are OK when dealing with the young childhood of the subject, but you and Tim are right – by the time her career begins she should be "Bondfield", and now is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was not her vocation in life..." - this seems to imply that she was destined for other things - you might want to consider re-wording it.
  • In the third paragraph of the "Union official" subsection, you state that two thirds of the 750,000 shop-keepers were living-in; it doesn't seem clear to me whether this is taken from the Cox and Hobley work referenced later in the paragraph.
  • Everything in the sentence beginning "In 1907 the first steps..." is cited to Cox and Hobley, pp. 108–09. To make this clearer, I have divided the citation between p. 108 and p. 109. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near-apostasy" has religious undertones... possibly a tad dramatic.
  • No, the word can be used equally to describe changes of political as well as religious principles: OED and OD of E confirm this. There is no more appropriate word, in my view. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Noswall59 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this review and for your helpful suggestions, on which I have acted as above. I hope we shall hear more from you in future. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New to reviewing? Aha! Welcome, Noswall, and I hope this will be the first of many reviews you do. Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

As you'd like a few comments before you leg it to Sweden here is my first batch. I preface them by remarking that for all your concern about lack of good book sources you have built up a thorough and balanced article from the sources you found. It is a good read, and I rather took to Miss B. Be that as it may, for the moment:

  • Childhood and family
    • "school's Boys' department" – capital wanted?
    • Just following the source – but no, not necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not her vocation in life" – I think "vocation" is fine, but I'd lose "in life" for crispness
  • Shopgirl
    • Agree with Noswall, above, that it's not clear why she's still being called by her Christian name in the first para. No family members competing here for use of the surname.
    • "As a shopworker…" – I found myself wanting to cheer as I read this para. Terrific stuff!
  • Union official
    • "In 1898 Bondfield accepted the job of assistant secretary" – Was she sounded out under the Old Pals Act, or did she apply more formally?
    • The job was created for her; the union raised a fund to pay her salary. I will add a footnote to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Women's Labour League
    • "through their mutual work" – you'll get some pedantic twerp at FA insisting that mutual requires a reciprocity not applicable here.
  • Women's Labour League
    • "of either gender" – I think I'd prefer sex
  • National prominence
    • "chair of the Standing Joint Committee" – this, and other uses, earlier and later, of the modern gender-neutral term "chair" worry me in the historical context of this article. I mean, she didn't go round calling herself "Chair of the Standing Joint Committee", did she? If her title was Chairwoman or Chairman I think you should use it, or alternatively dodge the question by turning the word into a verb and having her "chairing the SJC". I see, for instance, that The Times (27 Sept 1923, p. 12) called her "chairman of the General Council".
    • Yes, you're right; all contemporary sources, including MB herself, refer to her as "chairman" of this and that, not as "chair" or "chairwoman". I've adopted "chairman" a couple of times, and otherwise fudged the issue in various ways. I think it's OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the first women to assume the chair" – sounds like divine intervention: perhaps "to be elected to" or some such?
    • Got to be careful. She "assumed" the chair in accordance with that well-established trade union procedure known as "Buggins' turn". She was simply the longest-serving memmber of the council not to have served as chairman – no question of election. Hence my cautious choice of words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's my lot for now. More anon. Bon voyage, if you go before I send my second batch. – Tim riley talk 15:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second and last lot from me
  • Late career
    • "suspecting her near-apostasy" – I'm not clear what this refers to. Does it mean her conduct in office or that they believed she had considered joining Macdonald in the National Government? If the latter, should it read "suspecting her of near-apostasy"?
    • Yes, it should, but... "apostasy" is a word that should be rationed to one use per article, and as I am using it in the Appraisal to describe MacDonald's actions, I have reworded this earlier use. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last years, retirement and death
    • "Aside from her autobiography" – I've always thought of "aside from" as an American idiom, with "apart from" the British equivalent

That's all I can find. I think you've done an admirable figure full justice, and I look forward to supporting at FAC. Tim riley talk 13:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Tim, for these comments, as always to the point. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Rod This is an interesting read. I only became aware of the article because of the Somerset connection and have learned a lot from reading it. It may be useful to get further contemporary sources. A quick search (which may not be available without subscription) of the British Newspaper Archive finds hundreds of relevant articles which may be different to the Proquest ones identified. If you don't have access apply at Wikipedia:BNA.

Thanks. I have added my name to the BNA list, although I expect there will be a lengthy wait – however, this may well be a useful source for future articles. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few specifics:

  • Childhood and family
    • I think the quote "We could not think religion and not think of the needs of the poor" needs to be explained - it isn't clear how it fits with the sentence before or after.
    • I've got rid of the quote, which I think was part of an earlier draft and should have been edited out. The other material relating to her religious beliefs and Congregationalism has been transferred to the Appraisal section, where it more fittingly belongs. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very helpful. I have added the suggested links and corrected the spelling of Cicely. I have also brought the full name People's Suffrage Federation so that PSF makes sense. Thank you for your review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Most interesting figure about whom I at most ran by the name. First part of two

Lede
  • "Since her death in 1953, despite her years of service" I would have a sentence in which her death is mentioned, then start fresh with the things that have not happened to her since.
  • I'm not sure I understand the point, but I have slightly reworded.
Shopgirl
  • "She found some relief from these stresses " I'm not sure I like the way this is placed, as the immediately prior phrase deals with natural and unnatural vices, as they were then termed.
  • Again, I've made a slight rewording – am open to further suggestions if I am not meeting your objection.
Union official
  • "At the time the union's membership, at under 3,000, represented only a small fraction of shopworkers, and Bondfield gave priority to expanding this total." While it is not entirely ambiguous, there's a mathematical heedlessness about this. I imagine "this total" refers to the 3,000 (clearly she would have been gratified at increases in either figure) but clarification might be helpful in avoiding pedants like me
  • "with mixed outcomes in the face of apathy from shop staff, and outright opposition from shopowners." That doesn't sound like a mixed outcome, it sounds entirely negative. The help did not care and the owners did, very much so. Sounds fairly grim to me. Her thoughts on Gloucester don't really help much either.
  • The apathy and the opposition she faced from staff and employers were not the outcomes; that was the background to her activities. The outcomes were lack of success in Reading and Bristol, a good reception in Gloucester – I think that qualifies as a "mixed" outcome. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which made partial provision" Perhaps "some provision" or "some attempt"
  • With all these descriptions of legislation and so forth, it might be worth mentioning the various PMs and general elections that had an effect on the era. For those unfamiliar with the rise and fall of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and his merry men.
  • I fear such detail might complicate the issue unnecessarily, without adding anything essential. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "talked-out" this may confuse American readers.
  • It may well be worth expanding on the reasons she opposed a "same terms as men" bill. Was it provisions that excluded those who did not own or pay rent for land?
  • I have extended a wording a little, to clarify that the vote was available to men subject to a property qualification; the WSPU were fighting for votes for women on that basis, not for universal adult suffrage, which would include the propertyless working classes and which was Bondfield's objective. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hesitantly suggest a break in the final paragraph, perhaps preceding "In 1906" with minor textual adjustments.
  • I've looked at this, but I see the paragraph as a single entity; splitting it would not I think be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WLL
  • " lecturing on the suffrage" perhaps this could be spelled out more clearly.
  • "Her investigation on behalf of the Women's Industrial Council (WIC) into the working conditions of married women" you introduced this organisation in 1896.
  • "of work practices for married women" perhaps also greater clarity here.
Looking forward to the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Campaigns
  • "Labour Organizations," I'm struck by the use of US and Commonwealth spelling)
  • Yes, I think that the current BritEng preference for "organisation" is relatively recent – although the "z" version is still acceptable. I have used the spelling which the "organization" itself used to describe itself. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bondfield revealed that in one factory women were being paid two-and-a-half pence an hour to make hand grenades (roughly 1p per hour in post-decimal coinage)." Granted, but what were the soldiers being paid? The "King's Shilling"? Or for that matter, male workers? I don't think currencies travel very well over a century.
  • Well, the "King's Shilling" was in addition to food, clothing, accommodation etc, so the comparison with other wage rates is problematic. The main port I was trying to make here, not very well, was the low rates of pay (compared with men) that women received, even for the same work. I have revised the text, and added a footnote with some specific pay rate comparisons. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the composition of the next government" wordy, perhaps "who would form the next government"
  • Doesn't actually save on words, but I tried it – didn't think it read well. I've changed "composition" to "make-up". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the resignation of" I'm vaguely unhappy with this, as he would not have technically resigned but gone through the usual dodge.
  • Yes, but details of the parliamentary mechanism whereby MPs resign is of no importance here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minister
  • Did she do anything to reverse the policies of the previous Minister for Labour? He's an easy target.
  • As explained, she piloted a bill which modified the previous government's restrictions on entitlement to unemployment benefit (though she didn't do this in a manner that greatly pleased the TUC). Beyond that, she was basically swamped by the financial crisis that overtook her government, and rather ended up pleasing nobody. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Late career
  • "re-embrace her and she was not re-elected" too much re-re.
Appraisal
  • "2011 a plaquein" obvious typo but I'm doing this offline.--~~``

Thank you for the review. I have done the minor fixes, supplied commentary where necessary on the other points. Most grateful for your suggestions, even when not fully adopted – it's always good to have food for further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Hi Brian, I'm enjoying reading this. A few comments:

  • Minor issue: Brighton is linked in the lead, but London isn't. I would link both or neither. Brighton is linked again in the "Childhood and family" section. In the "Last years, retirement and death" section, Lancashire is linked, but not Surrey.
  • World cities like London, New York, Paris etc are not normally linked in WP articles, but smaller towns like Brighton are. I tend to link the first mentions of such places in the main text, notwithstanding the lead link; this I think is accepted practice. I have added a link for Surrey. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox: is Sanderstead in Surrey?
  • It certainly was in 1953, when MB died there. In 1964, in a vandalistic piece of municipal rejigging, it was absorbed into the entirely bogus "London Borough of Croydon" – but that post-dates our story. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This quote switches from she to I: She "had no vocation for wifehood or motherhood ... I had the dear love of friends". Also, according to Google Books it's "the dear love of comrades," in quotation marks (from Walt Whitman – interpreted as an allusion to same-sex relationships; see Stanley 1995, p. 223).
  • The word "she" does not form part of the quote. You are of course right about "comrades" – my carelessness, I'm afraid. I have added a footnote that gives the Whitman source of the quotation. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the article expresses her dispute with the suffragists – she was an "adultist" – might suggest that we're on her side: the "agenda pursued by the militant suffragists" and "divided her from the militant leadership."
  • I have read my wording carefully, and I can't honestly see that it is biased. I have made a small adjustment in the main text, replacing "their feminist agenda" with "their more limited aims". Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: perhaps consider increasing the size? The cartoon in the "union official" section, for example, looks better at 300px.
  • Well, yes, images tend to be clearer when they are larger, but I understand thyat the practice of upsizing without specific cause (e.g.to enable a map or diagram to be read) is somewhat frowned on, so I am reluctant to act on this sugestion. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation: Through these activities Bondfield experienced the lives of the poorest of families, writing: "Oh! the lonely lives of these women, hidden away at the back of a network of small, mean streets!". No need for the full stop.
  • We should say who is being quoted: In an outburst of local celebration her supporters, "nearly crazy with joy", paraded her around the town in a charabanc.
  • I wonder about this: "Cox and Hobley draw attention to Thatcher's early life as a shopkeeper's daughter, and contrast her account with Bondfield's experiences half a century earlier. Thatcher believed that the concept of service to the customer was absolute; she would have had no sympathy for Bondfield's campaigns to better shopworkers' conditions." Thatcher's father owned a shop, so she was in a very different position, and it's a stretch to imply that Thatcher would have supported the working conditions that Bondfield saw.
  • I have amended the text to clarify that it is Cox & Hobley's assertion that Thatcher would not have sympathised with Bondfield's activities on behalf of shop employees. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll continue reading and will try to post more. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we use "shopgirl" in Wikipedia's voice? Most of the shopworkers were women, not girls; Bondfield worked as one until her mid-20s. I see the BBC places it in scare quotes (here) in an article about her based on the book. I have a similar concern about "a dreary, comfortless girls' dormitory": was it for girls, or was it a women's dorm?
  • I've replaced "girls' dormitory" with "women's dormitory". As to "shopgirls", the BBC named their 2014 documentary "Shopgirls", Cox and Hobley's book followed suit, and Lise Sanders's 2006 book is called Consuming Fantasies: Labor, Leisure and the London Shopgirl; so the word is evidently acceptable in some academic circles at least. However, it is not a usage that I particularly want to defend, so I have altered the three instances of it in this article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section "Shopgirl": "Margaret's later recollections of this period": change to Bondfield's.
SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for these comments. Any more you have wll be equally welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi on the Roof in July[edit]

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

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

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Payday 2[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've basically reconstructed this article from an outdated mess. Looking for advice on improvements such as explaining gameplay (since I have about 400 hours into the game and am very poor at explaining it) and writing reception.

Cheers, Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I recommend you base the lead on Super Smash Bros. Brawl. And reception on Skyrim. NEXT (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skyrim could also be a decent starting point for Gameplay. Any of our FAs on individual games, really. Tezero (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that, for Gameplay, you should also try looking at the two GA Shin Megami Tensei: Persona games, 3 and 4. They deal with multiple gameplay concepts in a comprehensive way. As to the reception, I think one of the GA Silent Hill games or Tales of Symphonia. I would probably also condense and reference the different game versions and DLC content. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want to condense the versions and DLC content, but until the Crimewave Edition comes out, I cannot, since there is little information on it. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8/28/2014 15:30 Update[edit]

I did some padding to the intro and reception. Any specific thoughts? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks promising, since it's missing gameplay, DLC, and reception. I'd like to also mention how the Sleeping Dogs review is almost over, the only issues bow are date formats because me and Tezero are on our phones and can't open the refs. I'll start working on Payday as soon as Dogs passes, which could be today, for all I know. Is there anyway you can help us, Zero Serenity URDNEXT (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a lot of good RS for the gameplay - not even a roll call for the special units. Prima didn't put out a guide - I guess they got word of how much would be changed and they held off. Maybe they'll have one for the Crimewave edition. Anyone preorder and get "The Guide of Bain"? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Web Series[edit]

Produced as an ad, the series might be worth having it's own section. You can watch it here and decide if it's worth mentioning. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hawk's Underground[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think I'd like to take this to FA. Thibbs helpfully added a Famitsu review just tonight, which has encouraged me to take the page further. Might also be interested in more Tony Hawk-related GAs or FAs but hey, one bridge at a time.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Tales[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself and and several other editors have spent the past week working together as part of the Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement improving this article from what had previously been this: |hardly a stub to this. Even though TAFI has moved on, I've continued to fine tune this article and need some constructive criticism to improve it further. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Condrey, thanks for your and others edits to this. Folklore and tradition, particularly of Indigenous peoples, is such a neglected sphere on WP, so it's great to see it receiving some attention. I'd encourage you to nominate straight for WP:GA, as I think it has a good chance of meeting the criteria. In addition, you might receive some more in-depth feedback there. Other thoughts:

  • The more I read this, the more I realize how it is such a large undertaking
  • Perhaps if it was considered a list, you could try for a featured list?
  • In order to prepare for it, you'll have to conclude the merge requests.
  • You will need to provide sources for unsourced areas of the article, of which there are several
  • I also feel some sections could be expanded, particularly where there's a subsection title and just a list.
  • You may consider linking to the articles on the different tribes or dialects
  • A standard format for each subsection would make editing a lot easier. Something like "The tales of people x describe the raven (local pronunciation here) as ..."
  • Including a little background information on the creation myths or geographical local of the tribes would also add some depth
  • Is there a reason that both parts of the title are in capitals? I think in general we try and keep article names in sentence case

That said, this is a very interesting article and a large undertaking! Feel free to ask any questions, these are just my thoughts so take them with a grain of salt! Kindly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001:Thank you for taking the time to review the article and left such excellent feedback. I'm sure glad I didn't close this review as I nearly did yesterday when I was checking messages and saw that this looked to be growing spiderwebs. Motivated by your attention, I have left a banner on the article to avoid any editors making any conflicting edits, and am hoping to rally the team over at [[[Wikipedia:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement]] to assist in further editing the article with your comments and any further potential comments left during it's review in mind. Once satisfied that all recommendations have been addressed I will certainly nominate for WP:GA as you suggested. I'd prefer to wait until it's nice and shiny before placing the nomination prematurely. I may not be able to get to this until late in the week, perhaps even this weekend but it will be done soon.
I had previously left a comment on the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America talk page but was unsuccessful in getting any feedback but have gone ahead and left a message again to notify of my intention and hopefully get some more feedback.
During the course of it's original editing, it was mentioned on the articles talk page about potentially adjusting this to become more of a list article. I'm not familiar with list articles but will look into this recommendation further, especially since it's not the first time it's been suggested. Can you offer any further guidance on this? As well, would you mind pointing out the areas which you see could use citation?
David Condrey (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changchun[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article.

Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to bring this article to Featured Status, and need input from other editors on it. There are probably multiple things that need addressing before I take it to FAR. If you can think of any constructive edits at once, do them, but if you think discussion is needed, place it here or on the article's talk page if it's rather weighty. I'm grateful for your suggestions.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose has some awkward stretches, such as in the third paragraph of the intro. I'm gonna copyedit a bit if you don't mind. Tezero (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Do all you think is needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, forgot to reply here. I think I'm done with the glaring stuff, but you can look for more copyeditors if you want. At the least, I don't think anyone's going to oppose the FAC on poor prose (aside from one of JimmyBlackwing's temporary opposes, maybe) as happened with Dota 2; this isn't full of a bunch of redundancies like that was. Tezero (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becausee I've been working on this article constantly, and I need some suggestion to improve this article to a good article. Thanks, Lzy881114 (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Seward[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC in due course and would be grateful for comments.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I've done the first one. You might want to take a look at the licensing, I'm not certain on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. I think we should put the uncropped Brady in as well - a major photographer is always worth including. I'd also consider the salt-paper print, particularly as "Each item includes subject's original signature in ink." - meaning that gives us Seward's signature as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the uncropped Brady? We have the signature in the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:William_Seward,_Secretary_of_State,_bw_photo_portrait_circa_1860-1865.jpg is almost the uncropped Brady. I suspect we'd be best off recropping from http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.04948/ (By the way, just a suspicion, but I think this may have originally been intended to be oval-mounted given the composition; don't think we should try and fake that, though.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So uncropped or recropped?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd crop the junk around the edge, you know, the frame and the big white thing that has no detail under it, but keep as much of the photo proper as exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How's File:Seward by Brady.tif?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Inman painting of Seward; companion to the Frances Seward image. Presumably also 1844
I've lost one of them. The one you mention is from 1859, in his second term. I've included it. He really aged in those few years ...--Wehwalt (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WSeward.png - this is a copyvio: PD-Art only applies to two-dimensional works, so the frame must be cropped. (I think we're safe enough on the Inman images as the frame there is flat with no detail.)
I know. I've been meaning to crop it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Emancipation Proclamation painting, it might be worth considering this engraving based on the painting: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.02502/ instead of a rather bad reproduction of the original. But one could argue either way.
That's actually rather interesting. It's a point I omitted in the article, but it's not the engraving being based on the painting, it is the painting being based on the engraving. And they are not the same. Look at them both carefully. Lincoln is much more the center of attention in the painting, and the pen has been transported from an inkwell by Seward's hand, to Lincoln's own hand. The engraving was published first, and Lincoln's friends objected to he and Seward being portrayed as co-equals, basically, so when it went up on the wall of the Capitol, Lincoln became very much first among unequals. I may hijack them both for the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you upload the tif? My browser keeps giving me an error when I try to do anything with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll sort it out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While that shows Seward, and Lincoln for that matter, it would take too much explaining for a caption.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What about "In an allegory for the Fugitive Slave Act, John A. Logan, c. 1859, stops Seward, Lincoln and Charles Sumner from interfering with escaped slaves being returned to their masters. Puck, 1864." - I'd imagine it'd take a little research to get the wording precisely correct, but I don't think it's impossible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play with it. Good idea. I'll work on the images later in the day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also upload that? I'm getting the sam error from Safari.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing restorations before uploading. Might take a little bit. About a third through the first. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Opening batch. I will do as much as I can before my disappearance (temporary) after Saturday 13th

  • The lead is seems a model of its kind: short, succinct and informative
Early life
  • "Seward did well, becoming a star student, elected to Phi Beta Kappa." Two points here. First, the syntax is wrong without "and was" before elected. Secondly, "did well, becoming a star student" could easily be condensed, e.g. "Seward was a star student"
I gather Dank took a swing at it and I've tweaked it as well.
  • "short on cash" → "short of cash" – though perhaps the former is normal AmEng usage
It is.here.
  • offered a job in developing Putnam County" – it's not clear whether "developing" is being used as a verb (i.e. the job was to help develop Putnam County) or an an adjective describing the natute of the County. I suspect the latter, but maybe a rephrase would make this clear.
  • "treated with hospitality" doesn't sound quite right, maybe "received hospitably" or some such formulation
Both done.
Early career... etc
  • "they shared a belief that government policies should favor development". Can this be more precise – economic developmnt? territorial development, etc?
Done.
  • Some tense confusion in the second para. A couple of "would becomes" follwed by a "were", all describing future events. In my view the final sentence is a rather premature summary of the Seward-Weed relationship and could be left out here.
I gave the latter point a lot of thought, and Seward's entire life revolved around his defeat by Lincoln. When something happens which foreshadows that moment, I want to point it out. That moment is a crucial one in American history.
  • "once he was elected president" → "after he was elected president"
State senator... etc
  • "including meeting former vice president Aaron Burr, reduced to making a living as a somewhat shady attorney" – again, something missing from thr syntax, e.g. "whom he found", or "who was", before "reduced..." (it may be worth hearing a little more of Mr Burr, some day)
I'll put it on the list, behind Mr. Agnew. My, these vice presidents!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that American English is more liberal when it comes to omitting such words. Still, I'll make the furriners feel at home, eh?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In preparation for the 1834 election, the Whigs met in Utica to determine a gubernatorial candidate". You should specify "the New York Whigs".
  • "Weed procured Seward's victory at the Utica convention" – "nomination", rather than victory
  • "That year, William and Frances Seward undertook a lengthy trip..." That wording makes them sound like totally different people, particularly as Seward is mentioned in the previous sentence. Why not "he and his wife"?
  • Governor of New York
  • "At the time, New York City's public schools were run by a Protestant group, and used Protestant texts, including the King James Bible. Seward believed the current system was a barrier to literacy..." It is not clear to this reader why "Protestant texts", whatever they may be, or the King James Bible, were "barriers to literacy"
I suppose if Catholic parents declined to allow their children to read them, they would be.
  • "Although the Assembly..." clarify "state Assembly"
I'm not sure there's an ambiguity here.
  • "Seward did not campaign in person, following the custom of the time" – latter clause unnecesary, as this point was made concerning the 1838 election
  • "his name would never again pass before the voters" – a rather orotund way of saying that he never again ran for elective office.
It's phrased to avoid the Senate, where he was elected twice, but his name did not per se pass before the voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the events of the final paragraph in this section are really worthy of inclusion? In the general sweep of history, this seems a minor matter, and Seward's part in it seems marginal. And this is a long article...
It foreshadows Seward's firmness in dealing with the British as secretary of state, and tells the reader that he had some experience of foreign affairs beyond traveling in Europe.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More anon Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done up to here. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second batch
Out of office
  • "As governor, Seward incurred considerable debt": suggest "As governor, Seward incurred considerable personal debt"
  • The way this first sentence is presently written, you need to delete the words "not only". Otherwise, the "and" must become "but also"
  • "was charged in the stabbing death of a fellow inmate" – rather imprecise. "...was charged with stabbing to death a fellow inmate" would be unequivocal
  • "In the Freeman case, involving mental illness..." – "which involved"?
  • "Seward supported the winner" – at this point, the "eventual nominee"
  • Mainly to clarify for the benefit of non-US readers, I suggesta slide prose amemdment thus: "...the split in the New York Democratic Party allowed the Whigs to capture the legislature, which until 1913 elected the state's two United States Senators. One of these senatorial seats was due to be be filled by the new legislature".
US Senator: first term
  • "and many Seward adherents appointed to federal office in New York were replaced by Fillmore". There is a hint of ambiguity in this wording which would be solved by a minor rearranged: "and Fillmore replaced many Seward adherents appointed to federal office in New York."
  • I am confused the final sentence: "The bill passed into law, but northerners felt they had found a standard around which they could rally, while those in the South believed they should have an equal stake through slavery in the territories their blood and money had helped secure". The two halves, connected by "while", do not seem concomitant.
Second term
  • "In September 1855, the New York Whig and Republican parties held simultaneous conventions that quickly merged into one." If this describes the birth of the Republican Party, could this point be made a little more directly?
No, that happened the year before, supposedly in Ripon, Wisconsin.--20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "In his speech on March 3..." Perhaps say where this speech was made?
  • "...damaged his chances of gaining the nomination" – maybe "the presidential nomination".
Candidate for the nomination
  • Suggest we combine the first two paras thus: "Seward returned to Washington in January 1860 to find controversy:" The word "that" which follows is unnecessary
  • "which most praised" – most senators, or most generally?
Either.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convention
  • "prohibititive favourite" will puzzle UK readers; the word is not used in the sense intended here. Why not just "strong", or even "overwhelming"?
Campaigning for Lincoln
  • Are "embarrassed" and "constrained" contemporary descriptions – if so, from whom?
Contemporary reportage, I gather. I doubt it's worth primary sourcing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "Even then", in the final paragraph, seem unnecessary.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done or responded to to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another batch

(as far as the assassination)

Secession crisis
  • For clarification: "[Seward] had hoped to remain at home until the New Year, but with the deepening crisis left for Washington in time for the new session of Congress in early December." This implies that, but for the secession crisis, he would have skipped the new session of Congress. Is that the case?
Yes, senators often absented themselves for periods of time, especially early in the session. Most votes that I've read have a fair number of non-attendees.
  • "At the time, the leader of the political party that had won the White House was often offered the position of Secretary of State..." – this may well confuse UK readers, who assume that the leader of the party that wins an election takes the top job. Thus it might be better to refer to him as "the senior figure" (or some such) rather than the "leader".
  • "This was down at Lincoln's private request" – do you mean "done"?
  • "There were many such proposals" – from where/whom? Not all from Lincoln, presumably?
  • "...to expand from the states that permitted it". Perhaps "that currently permitted it".
  • "Lincoln travelled" → "traveled" per US spelling?
  • "It is unclear if Seward met him at the station; he may have overslept and met Lincoln at the Willard Hotel" – inessential detail, surely removable?
Secretary of State: Lincoln administration
  • "Although Lincoln did send a notification..." → "Although Lincoln sent a notification..."
  • "...but the British prevented it" – not clear what the British prevented, or how.
  • Link Lord Russell, and add that he was Britain's foreign minister
  • I don't understand the "nevertheless" in the third para of the "Diplomacy" subsection
  • Link Lord Lyons, and say who he was
  • The final paragraph of "Diplomacy" seems to have little to do with diplomacy!
I don't see that. The British were prepared to accept the convenient excuse that the boats were for use in the French' more wild Eastern Colonies.
  • "planned to gather to pass" → "planned to pass" – but how do these plans relate to this section?
  • The quote attributed to Frederick Seward needs closing quote marks. I confess I am unable to understand the relevance of the quote.
The point is the actions Lincoln was prepared to take in violation of normal civil liberties.
  • "One story is that when he was told that to deny Carl Schurz an office would disappoint him..." – there is slight confusion as to whom "he" and "him" refer to.
  • Re "the Lincoln boys", perhaps say "the two younger Lincoln boys" (and didn't William die quite early in Lincoln's first term?)
Yes, in 1862, which allowed Seward plenty of time to know him
  • Presumably, Francis Preston Blair didn't go to Richmond on his own initiative. Was this Lincoln's idea, or Seward's?
Assassination attempt
  • "delivering medicine to the injured secretary" – Seward was injured before the assassination attempt?

That's as far as I can take it before my Swedish trip. If you want to nominate at FAC before I can return to the review, that's fine – I will pick up any aoustanding points there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All clarified or responded to. Enjoy your Swedish extravangaza.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back!

And here are my comments on the final sections:

Johnson administration
  • "repudiation of the Confederate war debt" – what, precisely, did this condition require the southern states to do? ("repudiate" = refusal to accept)
  • How is a presidential veto overridden? Is it a question of time, numbers or both?
  • "Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, granting citizenship to the freedmen." The comma alters the meaning; it reads as though granting citizen ship was a consequence of Johnson's veto. I suspect the meaning is "Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill which proposed granting citizenship to the freedmen" – am I correct?
  • "Johnson hoped to elect congressmen who agreed with him in the 1866 midterm elections" – what powers did Johnson possess to "elect congressmen"? Surely that was down to the voters? Is it "Johnson campaigned for the election of congressmen who agreed with him..." etc
  • "When Stanton refused..." – It is not clear what Stanton refused, nor why he was suspended and then fired.
  • "When this became an issue in the United States, Seward would use strident language publicly, but be conciliatory privately toward the French." Awkward mixture of tenses - perhaps: "When this became an issue in the United States, Seward used strident language publicly, but was privately conciliatory toward the French."
  • "Although in speeches Seward had predicted all of North America joining the Union, Seward had, as a senator, opposed the Gadsden Purchase, obtaining land from Mexico, and Buchanan's attempts to purchase Cuba from Spain." Second "Seward" should be "he"; comma after "Gadsden Purchase" should be deleted as it alters the meaning.
  • In the last paragraph of the Alaska section there is some unnecessarily muddlesome detail. I see no value in "The Senate was to adjourn that day; Seward hoped the treaty might be ratified, but this was not possible, and he had Johnson summon the Senate into special session to approve it".
1868 election, retirement, and death
  • "Despite Seward's attempts to persuade him, Johnson and his Cabinet spent the morning of March 4, 1869 at the White House..." Something missing after "to persuade him", otherwise the sentence can't be understood.
  • Concerning Brigham Young, it would help if you added "as a carpenter" (or some such) after "who had worked"
  • I don't think the term "May–December romance" is encyclopedic – OK in a romantic novel, but strikes a slightly prurient note here. You may also wish to clarify whether the adoption went through, which is unclear from the present wording.
Legacy and historical view
  • It would be interesting to know when Paolino made his judgment
  • "Seward has been given high marks..." etc. By whom – historians?
  • "Despite being an ardent supporter of American expansionism, only Alaska was added to United States territory during Seward's service as Secretary of State." Does not parse as given; needs "his" after "Despite"
  • "Despite being an ardent supporter of American expansionism..." – well, on and off it seems (see first para of "Territorial expansion and Alaska" section. And, although it makes neat reading, is it really established that Fish, Everts and Hay were acting under the influence of Seward when they accomplished the territorial gains mentioned?
Stahr seemed to think so. I have personal doubts, but so state the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stahr believed that Seward's influence is still felt today" - "believed" and "today" don't go together. Since Stahr's book was published in 2012, I think it's safe to say "believes"--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my comments on this highly instructive article which covers a lot of interesting US history. Could do with a little careful pruning – but I always say that, don't I? I hope my comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I did do some pruning. I just find it hard to boil down a man of such significance into a procrustean space.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "He was successful in preventing Britain and France from intervening in the conflict, that might have led to the independence of the Confederate States.": Did you mean a semicolon instead of a comma? If not, I can't parse this. Also, I don't think it was in his power to single-handedly "prevent" Britain and France from doing anything; perhaps he successfully lobbied them?
Rephrased.
  • "born in Florida, New York": I'd go with "born in the city of Florida, New York"
  • I don't see any reason you can't take this to FAC, judging from the first few sections. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty in North Korea[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in this organization and I have recently made a significant number of changes to the article to update it and clean up several grammatical and reference issues. In particular, I want to make sure that the article's content is solid and that it is organized well, that it is cited correctly, and that it is presented in a neutral manner.

Thanks, Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid an auto-close from a bot to get feedback. Currently, there are only two articles ahead of me in the peer review backlog, so if anyone could peer review my article I'd greatly appreciate it! Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that you've waited long enough for some comments, and I will weigh in with something in the next 24 hours or so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It looks like you've made a lot of great contributions to Wikipedia, so I can't wait to hear your feedback. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here goes

I have read through the article. It's an interesting subject, and your wish to improve the article is admirable, but it needs considerably more work if it is to become a high quality encyclopedia article. At the moment the prose reads more like a promotional handout than a neutral assessment of this organization – subjective wording ("including over 50 distinguished speakers, experts, and important figures") and informal language ("Hannah soon began talks with...") are just a couple of examples of the non-encyclopedic approach. The general aim, if I can put it this way, should be to create an article about the organization, not on behalf of the organization – which is the impression I have at present.

One problem is that too much of the content is referenced to LINK's own website, or to its facebook page. You would do well to find sources that view the organization's activities more objectively. Another question is the reliability of some of the non-LINK sources, e.g. "DailyNK", "Vimeo.com", Students for Liberty, "TED" video. You would need to demonstrate that these meet Wikipedia's high standards of quality and reliability. Also, ref 11 lacks publisher details. I notice, too, that citation is pretty uneven throughout the article, with some facts referenced and others not, for no apparent reason. Some whole sections, e.g. "Theory of change", are almost bereft of any citation.

The present structure of the article – many short subsections, often with only a single sentence of content, is a further problem. It breaks the whole thing up into small pieces; the article appears very "listy" and lacks prose flow. Lists (e.g. of facilities, videos etc) might be better summarised in table form at the end of the article.

These are some indicators of how you might approach the redevelopment of the article; I have not carried out a line-by-line copycheck, but there don't seem to be any basic problems with the prose standard. You need, however, to concentrate on the main issues of objectivity, structure, reliability of sources and consistent citation that I have pointed out. I note that you have only recently begun working on this article, and that your contributions thus far have been limited; it might be worth contacting some of the page's earlier editors to see if a collaborative effort might be possible.

I hope these comments are helpful. Don't hesitate to use my talkpage if you want general advice, although I am not competent to advise on the subjct itself. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the help! I'll probably end up re-writing the article with these suggestions in mind. I'll refer back to the current version, but will be more neutral and ensure the citations are there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid (brig)[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article has been assembled over the course of the last year. I believe that it is now the most complete summary of the history of the ship that is currently available. I would like to nominate the article for FA status soon, but before I do so I would like to ask for input about a) whether the article makes sense as it is currently written, b) whether anyone can track down any additional information that isn't currently included in the article; and c) whether anyone has any other comments/feedback on the article.

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Euryalus[edit]

My first ever peer review, so apologies for any technical errors. The article is certainly a detailed summary of the vessel, and flows in a logical order. Some minor points:

Lead

  • The meaning of W.U.T.A is spelt out in the article body but might be better explained in the lead.
    •  Done
  • Per MOS, is it possible to slightly declutter the lead by transferring citations for uncontroversial points into the body of the article instead?
    •  Done (Actually, as the references and info were all used in the article already, I've simply removed the extra cites from the lead.)

Structure

  • "Astrid was the smallest tall ship in the Dutch Fleet" - this isn't mentioned in the attached reference (ref 15)
    •  Done It is in the reference, but the URL for the reference had changed - I've updated it.

History

  • The second paragraph on W.U.T.A tonnage, dimensions and engine might fit better in "Structure", especialy as neither the W.U.T.A nor the Astid specs are current (the vessel having been destroyed)
    •  Done I've moved part of the second paragraph into the structure section, and the rest into the first paragraph in the history section.
  • Is there any record of who the new owners were in 1975?
    •  Doing...
  • "Alleged to have fallen into the hands of drugs smuggler" - alleged by who? Are there any statements by Customs or similar, upon which the SkyNews story might be based?
    •  Doing...
  • Is there any more information on the 1984 recovery and repair work? Some details of what was required to restore her would be great, though possibly hard to find.
    •  Doing... For these three points, I'll try to do some more digging for additional refs, although I suspect that if they exist then they'll be tricky to find.

Sinking and salvage

  • "The salvage company ... have been appointed..." - is the syntax incorrect here? Perhaps better as "were appointed"
    •  Done That text is a bit dated; it was written as the events unfurled, but past tense is definitely better now.
  • "initial plans" for salvage suggests the actual plans were changed, but the article implies they occurred as proposed. Is there another way to word this, or can the word "initial" simply be removed?
    •  Done the word "initial" isn't needed, so I've removed it.

I might have a few more shortly. Hope the above is helpful, and overall an interesting article. Euryalus (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your useful comments, and for reading through the article. :-) I've done most of them; I'll do some digging for extra refs to address the others soon. Any additional comments you have would be most appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the peer review as nothing added for the alst couple of weeks, and most of the sisues above have been addressed. I've added a couple of additional comments at Talk:Astrid (brig). Again, an entertaining read. Euryalus (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/September_2014&oldid=633114005"