Jump to content

User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/FAC peer reviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a list of all active peer reviews for articles being prepare for featured article nomination.


Persuasion (1995 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 I would like some feedback before I nominate it for FA status. It passed at the GA level back in 2011, so no other editors have looked at this in quite a while. I mainly would like to hear opinions on its prose – is it of FA quality? Is more copyediting necessary? If it helps, I modeled its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Any comments are appreciated. Thank you! Ruby 2010/2013 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review- I've just written Turn of the Screw (2009 film) which is on a very similar topic (and even stars Redgrave). If you're amenable, I'll drop you a line if/when it goes to FAC/PR. Anyway, back to your article...

  • Image policy is a little out of my comfort zone, but I have tagged it with the orphaned non-free revisions note. Maybe when the next administrator sees it (due to the tag), they will reduce it? Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have added the reduce tag. Ruby 2010/2013 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Persuasion follows the two becoming reacquainted with each other, as supporting characters and events threaten to interfere." The gerund throws slightly- perhaps this could be rephrased?
  • I've written this slightly -- "Persuasion follows the two as they become reacquainted with each other, while supporting characters threaten to interfere." How does it look now? Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Filming of Persuasion occurred during an upswing in popularity for Austen's works – it was one of six such adaptations during the mid-1990s." Of Austin books, or of Persuasion in particular?
  • I've replaced "such" with "Austen" for clarity. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "when the BBC partnered" You are yet to mention that it was a BBC production. Also, is the French company worth linking? Don't be scared of red links! (I assume it's a TV film? Also worth mentioning.)
  • Good point! (originally the lead sentence mentioned the BBC). I've now introduced the BBC's role in the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Quotes should be cited, even in the lead!
  • Looking again, this is actually a paraphrase, so the quotation isn't needed (let me know if you feel differently). I've thus left the citation out of the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Before I forget- there's no mention anywhere of a DVD release.
  • I hate writing these sections. :/ But I will see what I can find. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wentworth becomes the focus of matrimony to Louisa and Henrietta" I can guess what is meant, but I don't think this reads so well.
  • How does it look now? "Louisa and Henrietta begin to pursue marriage with Wentworth, as the family..." Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Louisa having recovered and become engaged to Captain Benwick, Wentworth arrives in Bath and encounters Anne on several occasions, though their conversations are brief." It's not clear what the first part of this sentence has to do with the second; it reads a little oddly
  • Narratively, to Anne they are related (since she assumes Wentworth was engaged to marry Louisa and is then surprised to see him in Bath). But I've tweaked the sentence slightly and split it out. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "keep the baronet from possibly marrying Mrs. Clay" By "the baronet", do you mean Elliot's father? (Or whoever he is due to inherit from?)
  • Anne's father is the baronet. I've realized that this isn't made clear in this sentence, so I've made a few tweaks to it. Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps at first mention you should clarify who Higson is.
  • I've identified him as a film scholar. I quote and cite a lot of film scholars throughout the article, so I avoided identifying them due to redundancy (and to keep things less boring!). This was a suggestion for one of the other Austen film articles, and I agreed with it then. What do you think? Is it worth saying each person's professional background each time I cite them? Ruby 2010/2013 01:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think some of your dashes are spaced when they shouldn't be. From WP:DASH: "The birds—at least the ones Darwin collected—had red and blue feathers."
  • I've gone through and addressed those. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dear later wrote that Persuasion was superficially "a love story in the Cinderella mould," but it was also one of "realism and truthfulness," particularly in telling the story of two people separated and then reunited." MOS:LQ?
  • "classmates. "I was the only boy in my class who took Austen as a special paper," he said." Again
  • On the other hand- shouldn't the quote from Root in the box have the punctuation inside the speech marks?
  • Sure (I'm not too sure on LQ conventions). Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Root as "haggard," which attracted the actress. "I relish a job like this, starting off downtrodden and gradually blossoming," she said" Again
  • "They shot Persuasion in" Who is "they"?
  • "see "what a difference [her character's] sense of unhappiness can create," as" LQ
  • "his profession," he was" Again?
  • The screenshot's too big, and the rationale is too light
  • I've decreased the screenshot's size in the article. What do you feel I need to add to its rationale? I thought it provided a good summary of why the screenshot is needed. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant the file is too big. The "NA"s in the rationale could do with being replaced (even if it's just with some fairly standard comments) and you could tie the purpose to the text a little better. I do think the image is justified, but, going into FAC, you'll want the rationales tip-top. Also, you should probably add a citation for the quote in the caption- quotes are always going to need to be referenced. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added the reduce tag and bolstered the rationale. The citation is also now directly sourced. Ruby 2010/2013 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "She continued in a separate interview," I think this implies a relationship between the two comments which isn't truly there
  • "they often had to compete" Again, who's "they"?
  • The whole crew responsible for the production. I've changed this to "the crew". Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "For her work in the film, Byrne won a BAFTA for Best Costume Design.[27]" I'm not certain about this, but shouldn't this be in an awards section, rather than the production section?
  • I thought it wouldn't hurt to include this in the costume design section as additional background (it's more relevant to the reader when it;s there, rather than tagged on in the end). And this is what I did with Sense and Sensibility as well. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." These two facts don't seem to be related?
  • The source seems to imply they are related but I can't figure out why (unless the ability to film on 35 mm film is expensive?). Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Michell agreed to compromise, opting to shoot one British version and one American version.[30][34]" You should clarify which is which
  • "something like a kiss," she said.[13]" LQ?
  • "Morrison cites Anne's adamant defence of her visit to Mrs. Smith in the film as an example" Could you expand a bit on what this scene is?
  • I've added in a bit of text to hopefully clarify this. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "haste to stop Wentworth from leaving the concert" Again
  • "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual, this time slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved"." This prose could do with a massage
  • Split the sentence with a semicolon for clarity. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph of the class/gender section, it's not completely clear when you're talking about the book and when the film
  • Tweaked to hopefully clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "it a "critic's pick," praising" LQ
  • "The Boston Globe highlighted Root's performance, calling it "a heart-stoppingly reticent yet glorious debut".[62]" Avoid personifying publications
  • Added the name of the Globe critic. Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally very strong- I really like the way that the article leans on the scholarly sources. I do think a copyedit may help- I doubt that I've caught everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing! Truly. I will get to addressing these shortly. Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I believe I have gone through all of your comments, Josh. Thanks again for leaving these suggestions! Concerning the incorporation of home media, I've looked and cannot find anything reliable about the release of a VHS and/or DVD (I of course know the latter, at least, exists since I own it!). How important do you feel this section is to the article? Ruby 2010/2013 01:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Not very, but I do think at least at acknowledgement that a DVD/video release exists may be useful. The BBFC has the video release date (see this page) and the BBC shop notes that the DVD was released 23 January 2012 (the Blu-ray seems to be a different adaptation). That information alone, slotted into the "release" section, would be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links! -- I've incorporated the BBC one into the article. The BBFC link wasn't right so I found a few others for the VHS release (I'm unsure on their reliability since they are commercial sources though -- unless you have any thoughts on the matter, I may just see if anyone comments on them during the FA review). Let me know if you think of anything else! I plan to give another thorough review to the article and its prose over the next week, and hopefully nominate it sometime next week (so I'll keep this PR open until then). Ruby 2010/2013 03:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Date added: 7 April 2015, 19:23 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2024, 12:54 UTC ----


1877 Wimbledon Championship

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then I have significantly expanded it, restructured content, added citations and tried to improve prose. While an article is never really finished it is comprehensive in its current state regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. With the help of this peer review I would like to make it a FAC soon. The WikiProject Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games) so it would be great if this could become the first one. If all goes well hopefully it will result in a WP:TFA sometime during this year's tournament. Your comments and suggestions are very much welcome on any aspect of the article, certainly as it is my first PR request.

Thanks, Wolbo (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have found some volunteers who are willing to help with the peer review but they need a bit more time to do so. The article will probably see some review activity in the course of next week. --Wolbo (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Part review (first half of the article)

[edit]

My reviewing time is limited, and rather than letting you wait longer, I am posting my comments on the first half of the article. You will also see that I have copyedited the lead and made a few prose adjustments in the main text.

Many of my points are fairly trivial, but please consider them carefully:

Origins
  • "struck with the palm of the hand and was called jeu de paume" → "struck with the palm of the hand in a game called jeu de paume".
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rackets started to be used..." → "Rackets were introduced..."
Done. Changed it to "Rackets were introduced to the game..."
  • "17th and 18th century" → "17th and 18th centuries" with comma following
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "although sporadic mention was made of a long tennis or field tennis version during the second half of the 18th century". You should replace italics with inverted commas, and also reword: "although there are sporadic mentions of a "long tennis" or "field tennis" version in the second half of the 18th century".
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Paragraph break required at this point, so that a new pararaph begins "Between 1858 and 1873..."
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "made the creation possible of tennis balls..." → "made it possible to create tennis balls..."
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sphairistike" does not have a diacritic on its last letter in its Wiktionary entry or in other online dictionaries. It might be worth seeking a reliable source that covers the meaning of the word, beyond its ancient Greek origin.
The word can be found with and without the diacritic in various sources. However, in the sources that I regard as most reliable and authoritative (Gillmeister (1998), Todd (1979), Barrett (2003)) it is written as 'Sphairistikè'. Note also that two of the citations shown at Wiktionary, including one from 1875, spell it with the diacritic. Finally, see the Greek spelling of the word with the diacritic on the cover of the first edition of Wingfield's booklet on the game.--Wolbo (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The term "boxed set" has a rather specific contemporary meaning, so I'd advise a different choice of wording here
Done. Changed to "sold as a set in a wooden box".--Wolbo (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In November 1874 Wingfield published a second edition of The Book of the Game..." – but you have not said when he published the first edition. If in February 1874, this should be made clear.
Done. Was indeed included in February 1874. Added "..and included an eight-page rules booklet." to make that clear and added "expanded" to the second edition of November 1874.--Wolbo (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club
  • Clarify what the £5 was set aside for (or omit this detail as trivial)
Done, removed. The £5 was for the search, not the ground. Has been removed it as it is a minor detail and indeed a bit trivial within the context of the article.--Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not hyphenate "outer suburb"
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You should cut out some of the peripheral detail in this section. Matters such as the club's annual rental and other domestic arrangements are inessential background to an article about th efirst Wimbledon tournament. It would however be of interest for you to mention at this stage what set of rules for lawn tennis had been adopted by the club.
Partially done. Removed the sentence on the pavilion that was built and the Croquet Championships that was held as indeed being too tangential to the article topic. For the same reason the cost of the ground search was removed from the section. The annual rental has relevance to the subsequent financial difficulties of the club which in turn led directly to the introduction of lawn tennis and should in my view be kept to preserve that narrative line.--Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why mention badminton?
That was added recently to accurately and completely reflect the decision taken by the All England Club in 1875. I have no sources to indicate that it was actively played at the club in any meaningful way. As an alternative I could delete it from the main text and instead add a mention of it in a footnote.--Wolbo (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't italicize "Cavendish
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1876 four more courts..." – I think you mean "lawns", which would then become courts.
Well spotted. Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Rules of lawn tennis

Again I am concerned with the level of detail here. Bearing in mind that the subject of this article is a tennis tournament, not the history of tennis, and that the rules under which the tournament was played are set out, I think a shorter summary of MCC's involvement – perhaps a couple of sentences incorporated into the previous section – would be sufficient.

Removed a sentence on John Moyer Heathcote as the initiator of the MCC meeting. Made some changes to tighten the prose and make it flow a bit better. Replaced "his tennis game" with "Sphairistikè" for a better link to the preceding section and explained who John H. Hale is. I do believe the content on the MCC tennis rules is important enough to warrant a separate (sub)section. It is a significant event in and of itself and provides chronological and causative context for the rules which were created by the All England Club for the tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed the explanation of who John H. Hale is, this was already explained in the preceding section on the All England Club.--Wolbo (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Tournament
  • "This championship was to become the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, as well as the first edition of what was later to be called a Grand Slam tournament or Major". Reword (following amended wording in lead): "This championship became the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and the first of what would later be called a Grand Slam tournament or "Major"."
Done. Added the word 'edition'.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

More comments to follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Brian for taking the time to review the article. Certainly useful feedback. Will respond to your points one by one.--Wolbo (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't been able to return to the review, but it has proved impossible. I really won't have time to look at the rest of the article in detail, but I am glad to see that you are getting plenty of help from other reviewers. Just a handful of extra points from me:
  • I think the information about what happened to the original silver trophy (note L) should be in the main text, not buried in a footnote.
  • In note p you state: "The original tennis balls were uncovered". What do you mean by "the original tennis balls" – how far back are you going? Clarify if you mean the balls initially used in the modern game.
Done. Changed to "The original lawn tennis balls were uncovered.".--Wolbo (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note t refers to "journalist Tony Mottram". In fact, until around 1955 Mottram was Britain's No. 1, a Davis Cup player of many years' standing and a Wimbledon quarterfinalist. Before my time, but my dad would have known all about him. You may want to make him "journalist and former player"
Done. Changed to "tennis author and former player Tony Mottram" and added a wikilink.--Wolbo (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "first and only" is a pet peeve of mine. If it was his "only", you don't need to say it was his first.
Unpeeved.--Wolbo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it there, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

[edit]

First, I have to thank you for the excellent work you have already done. However, there are some comments that should be considered.

  • Tournament: The Part about Rounds only showed the score of the 1st and 2nd Wimbledon Winners. It does not show the full list of participants and the detailed results. This should be considered because the table you mentioned is extremely too small to be seen clearly by audience. You should do that because many people like to see for the players after the game. You can also add something about each round and what are the extremely important facts that happened in them. However, for the other facts, the work describes well the tournament and its important circumstances.
  • Records: You can mention a table in which you cite the important records of the tournaments like the biggest scores and tbe biggest audience. This would be useful to see if there was a competition between players. You can also involve some other records not related to the round like Weather Conditions and Time spent in competitions.
  • Wear: The Wear of the Wimbledon Players should be involved in the work. There are some facts about this... You should include this because it is important to see how Tennis developed.
  • Organization: The work lacks of important information about the tickets of the tournaments, the sponsors, how the players were chosen to play in the tournament, how the place was prepared so that the tournament could be played there, the Tennis Ball, the referees, the cup, the medals...

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Csisc, thank you for taking the time to review this article. It does seem to me that your comments are more applicable to general article on the Wimbledon Championships and less so to this specific article on the inaugural edition of the tournament in 1877.--Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Review by Resolute

[edit]

Ok, my own review, trying not to step on Brianboulton's toes in the process.

First thought: I agree with Brian's concerns about the level of detail unrelated to Wimbeldon. For instance, I don't see three paragraphs on the origins of lawn tennis as being necessary unless it can be tied into Wimbledon. So to that end, I think there is value in a couple sentences on the 12th century origin, and growth in popularity, but the focus should be on the changes that Wimbledon caused. In this case, the use of a rectangular court instead of the hourglass style, etc. So, as a suggestion, perhaps look for ways to merge and trim the origins and rules sections, then place them in context of the rule changes that this tournament made? I realize this would effectively cause a significant overhaul of three sections of the article.

Converted the sentence "The invention of the lawn mower in 1827 allowed the creation of smooth, flat croquet lawns that could easily be adapted for lawn tennis, and the introduction of vulcanised rubber around 1840 made it possible to create tennis balls that bounced properly on outdoor grass courts." into a footnote and merged two paragraphs, making the introductory section on the origins of lawn tennis more concise. --Wolbo (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The section on the origin of lawn tennis has been further trimmed by removing the sentences 1) "The first article on Wingfield's game was published on 7 March 1874 in the Army and Navy Gazette and the Court Journal.", 2) "Sphairistikè, soon to be colloquially abbreviated to Sticky, was sold as a set in a wooden box which cost either five guineas (small) or £10 (large) and consisted of balls, four rackets, poles, pegs and netting and included an eight-page rules booklet." and 3) "In the year following the issuing of the patent more than 1,000 tennis sets were sold, mainly to the aristocracy and upper class.". Upon reflection this content is probably more suited for a separate article on Sphairistikè versus one on the first Wimbledon tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Technical/Procedural
  • If you wish to reach FA, the images will require alt text per WP:ACCESS.
All images in the article body have alt texts. The only exception in the article is the the infobox image and it doesn't seem that it will accept an alt text. --Wolbo (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: alt text is not a FA requirement. There is a division of view about the usefulness of such text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When using multiple citations consecutively, ensure they display in numerical order. i.e.: under the announcement section, three cites are as follows: [46][47][10] - move cite 10 to the front of that trio.
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Consistent reference formatting. Cite 10 lists The Telegraph by name, and the website address. Cite 12, in contrast, notes St. Petersburg Times by name, but no website address. Personally, I would just remove the telegraph.co.uk address as redundant. (same with www.wimbledon.com for cite 54)
Partially done. The website field has been removed from the Telegraph reference as it is almost the same as the publisher. Have kept www.wimbledon.com, now cite 53, as it is different from the publisher.--Wolbo (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Prose

I have found in the past that what I expect in Canadian English and what I read in British English rarely mesh well. Consequently, I probably won't focus on prose quality too much (I'll leave that to Brianboulton), but rather on organization and structure.

  • Link "rackets" in the lead since I think most readers would be unaware of what that sport actually was.
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


(Going to skip the origins and rules of lawn tennis sections for the moment, pending a decision on how (or if) you wish to change those sections)

All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club
  • This does not need to be changed, but I personally dislike starting paragraphs with "on date x, y happened." So perhaps lead with "The All England Croquet Club was founded 23 May 1868 by six gentleman at the offices of The Field magazine"?
Could not find any guidance on the preferred location of dates in a sentence. In the absence of guidance this may be a matter of personal preference and taste. I have changed the sentence you mentioned to avoid too much repetition of paragraphs / sentences starting with "on date x, y happened.". --Wolbo (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "After a yearlong search for a suitable ground S.H. Clarke Maddock discovered four acres of" - Probably a difference in British vs. Canadian, but I would have expected a comma: "After a year long search for a suitable ground, S.H. Clarke Maddock...". Please disregard if this is proper for EN-UK.
Decided to rephrase the sentence and make it more concise, removed the name. It now states "After a yearlong search a suitable ground of four acres of meadowland was located...". --Wolbo (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Tournament
  • Is there a wikilink for what a pony roller is? (would apply to lead as well)
Done. Added wikilinks to Roller (agricultural tool).--Wolbo (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It occurs to me that it is not until the third time The Field is mentioned that you note it was a "weekly country and sports magazine". Perhaps move that to the first mention?
Done. Moved it up to the first mention in the section on the All England Club.--Wolbo (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Two prices will be given" - is that a typo? Did the original text say "two prizes will be given"?
Done. Typo indeed, well spotted.--Wolbo (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the Play section, you note that the draw resulted in three semifinalists, then you go on to list the result of the three matches, then you discuss how to "resolve the situation". I was left confused because the results broke the connection between the problem and the resolution. I would reverse those two sentences: start with match results, then note that this left three semi-finalists, then note now the club resolved this.
Done. Agree that the order you mention is more logical and I have changed it accordingly. Also moved footnote explaining the draw system in use to the first sentence.--Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it known how many spectators watched some of the earlier days? I am curious to know if 200 fans was good (relatively) or bad (due to rain).
No, that information was not recorded. The Wimbledon Compendium in fact only shows daily attendance figures from 1949 onward. There is only a mention of "increasing number of spectators" for the quarterfinals on Wednesday, 11 July and this is mentioned in the text.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Aftermath
  • Is it known whether the £10 profit was sufficient to purchase a new pony roller?
The lede was incorrect, the money was not for the purchase of a new pony roller but for the repair of the existing one. The lede has been corrected.--Wolbo (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Notes
  • Endnote b requires a citation (which is probably already one of the three in the main prose)
Done.--Wolbo (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall, it looks very good. Generally well organized and easy to follow. Cheers! Resolute 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Resolute, appreciate your effort in making this review. You have clearly had a thoughtful look at the article and made good suggestions for improvements. Will address them point by point.--Wolbo (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Date added: 18 March 2015, 06:58 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2024, 12:54 UTC ----


Palestine

[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 would like to submit it for Featured Article review. It recently reached GA status, and is currently on the main page as a DYK. Hoping to take it to the next level. Thanks, Oncenawhile (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

groupuscule comments

[edit]
  • Wow, you have done a really fantastic job with this. Congratulations.
  • Superbly precise and clear wording.
  • Regarding the overall content of the History section; in a sense it is mostly a Political History, focusing mostly on shifts in sovereignty. (For example, no events are mentioned between Ottoman control in 1516 and Egyptian invasion in 1830–1832.) Indeed, the "Demographics" section is really a Demographic History; "Boundaries" is a history of the boundaries. So the whole article is mostly about history. This makes sense to me, since quantitatively the integral of PalestineHistorical far exceeds the integral of PalestinePresent, even for generously expansive interpretations of Present. ;-) But what I'm getting at here is, are there other aspects of history which belong in the article as well? Is enough known about the evolution of the Culture of Palestine to include some of that information? Institutions such as the Khalidi Library (which I only happen to know about because it came across my 'desk' through DYK, but maybe it serves the purpose as an example) might be worth mentioning as Culture or Cultural History.
  • Cities: I notice much discussion of Jerusalem, not much discussion of Ramallah (a relative latecomer incorporated in 1517) or Ghazzah (a lot older). Maybe there's a way to organize information about the biggest cities in the region, when they were founded or became big—and maybe even what it was like to live in them.
  • It might be worth mentioning the religious significance of Bethlehem, and other sites, and maybe even devoting a little more article space to the world significance of the Holy Land angle. (And let us not forget the Bahá'í World Centre and related Bahá'í historical events.)
  • Probably the Palestine Liberation Organization is worth mentioning. (I see that Palestinian National Covenant and Palestinian Declaration of Independence, both manifestations of the PLO, are already in there, but I think it would help to briefly describe the formation of the PLO itself.) In fact, this information is placed a bit awkardly under the header of "Boundaries" — not that it's wrong but — it might make sense to clearly articulate the formation of a political structure around "Palestine" arising in response to the formation of the structure "Israel".

Just a few line-by-line comments. Suggestions/ideas not demands/commands.

  • Etymology
    • "Neither the Egyptian nor the Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term" could i.m.o. be slightly improved as a sentence because (1) the sources do or don't provide in present tense (as used earlier in the paragraph with "is found"); we dont really know what they provided in the past; and (2) because to my ear/eye, "the term" does not mean precisely the same thing as "the name".
    • "c. 1234" or "c.1234"? Doesn't much matter but consistency could improve.
  • Ancient period
    • Yahweh might be important enough to raise up from the endnotes to the main text, somewhere. Great notes, by the way.
  • Classical antiquity
    • "In 614 CE, Palestine was annexed by another Persian dynasty; the Sassanids, until returning to Byzantine control in 628 CE"
      • → "In 614 CE, Palestine was annexed by another Persian dynasty, the Sassanids, until returning to Byzantine control in 628 CE" (or use parentheses, or dashes, or whatev)
  • British mandate and partition
    • "The British were formally awarded" → "The League of Nations awarded the British". Right? Or one could be even more explicit about who participated in that decision.
    • It would be appropriate to include another sentence or two about Mandatory Palestine, 1922–1947.
  • Demographics
    • "two methods – censuses" → "two methods: censuses"

Oncenawhile comments

[edit]
  • groupuscule, many thanks for your details and constructive comments. I will consider in detail in due course. Regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Csisc, thanks for your comments below - these are very helpful, and lots of good ideas. I will consider these in due course. Regards, Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

[edit]

First, I have to thank you for the work you have done about Palestine. The topic is important particularly for MENA Countries... The work is very structured and detailed. However, they are some facts that had been misconsidered:

  • History of Palestine: I personally think that the article talked a bit longer about Current Situations of Palestine. I think that this is not very good, because the History of Palestine explains partially the current situation of Palestine and there are limited reasons to misconsider this part... Even if many references are biased by the situation of Palestine, there are still hundreds of references that are unbiased. I think that this part would be a significant amelioration to the work.
  • Palestine in God's religions: Palestine had been cited in Koran and Bible... There are many religious debates in close relationship with Palestine. You should include this because it is one of the main reasons for visiting the page by users. You can also involve some quotes from Holy Books.
  • Overview of Palestine in other countries: In other countries and particularly MENA ones, there are many events and quotes related to Palestine. You should also involve this fact.
  • Filmography: Many films have been made about Palestine including The Kingdom of Heaven. I think that you should probably include this point.
  • Bibliography: There are many books that was written about Palestine, its History and customs. You have included some of them. But,You should include other ones because many of them are used as reference in important political discussions.
  • External Link: You should link the article to all articles closely related to Palestine
  • Customs and Traditions: You should talk also the traditional wears of Palestine, the traditional songs of Palestine... Palestine is a civilization... You can also expand this in a separate work.
  • Trade: You can also talk about Palestine and how it exchange regularly with other countries. You may include whether Palestinian People had exchanged regularly with Roman Empire for example...
  • Events: You can also include important events in Palestine although you can expand this in the works about the countries existing nowadays in Palestine. You can involve main religious events and you can also describe how they work.
  • Archeological Sites: You had not cited anything about Archeological Sites in Palestine. You should talk about Roman cities in Palestine, Arabic Buildings, Christian Buildings...
  • History of Official Papers: You can also expand the part about official papers in Palestine by including the evolution of Palestine Identity and Flags...

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Date added: 13 March 2015, 01:29 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2024, 12:54 UTC ----


I Could Fall in Love

[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 would like to bring this article to WP:FAC in the coming month.

Thanks, jona(talk) 01:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Per our Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, the bot closes this due to inactivity after 14 days and a second time after a month. This has clearly passed a month, so I'm compelled to close it. Have you tried the PR instructions "Waiting for a review"? volunteer's list, or quid pro quo? If still there's no response, I say you better take it for FAR. There is no sense in waiting any longer. I'm willing to give it five more days. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So because a review has not been made you want to archive it? So what's the PR project about then, just archiving articles and not giving comments? (at that rate, only 2-5 out of 100 articles at PR would actually have its goal of at least a comment) I don't want to WP:SPAM editors who may or may not be actively involved in the PR process. I don't mind patiently waiting for someone who can provide helpful comments to improve this article. I don't want to take the article to FAC, especially if I am positive that it may result in a speedy oppose because it has happened before. Best, jona(talk) 21:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I want this to get reviewed as much as every other ones I see get closed without any comments. So, rather than keeping this open hoping that someone will eventually come seems seems harmless (though less likely) but there's also the removal policy. What you're doing here has got me thinking about it and I'll raise this issue with the others at Talk:Peer review.
But I still prefer actively trying to get someone to participate rather than wait it out. You've not answered my question QPQ above, so I'm going to assume you don't want to? Okay, so let's try the other options then, tell me the current condition of the article. You've said it failed FAR, so I assume those issues brought up there are resolved? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If you do want it to be reviewed then you wouldn't say "it has five days until I close it". I'll take your advice and ask someone. This article has yet been nominated at FAC yet, I was talking about a previous incident where I felt an article was ready (with no PR comments) and it was speedy closed from a reviewer; I don't want that to happen again. jona(talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I shall review this. Give me a day or 2. Fremantle99 (talk tome) 23:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fremantle99: Are you still going to review this article? Best, jona(talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@AJona1992: Yes, Just have less time than I thought. Aneditor (talk tome) 23:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, just wanted to know. Thanks, jona(talk) 23:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review by Rationalobserver

[edit]

First off, I like the quality of the prose. It's generally well-written and engaging, but I'll list a few minor nitpicks below.

Lead
  • According to OC Weekly, BuzzFeed, and Latina magazine, "I Could Fall in Love" was one of the best songs recorded by Selena in her musical career.
Maybe it's just me, but "one of the best songs" seems kinda ambiguous. Why is it so good?
The general consensus is that they favored its musical composition and the singer's vocals in the song as their determination of the song being one of her best. I've added this information onto the article. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The track was not released as a commercial single in the United States, where it was feared that it might sell more copies than the album itself.
It's not clear why this would be a bad thing.
No information is given about the decision to not commercially release it in the US; just the fear of it selling more than the album was enough to have one of the head of EMI Records uneven about the possibility. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It became the most played song in Kansas City, Miami, and Boston and the second most played in Los Angeles.
You employ a serial of Oxford comma before and Boston, but it looks like it's been omitted elsewhere; e.g., soul, pop and soft rock influences. They are neither required nor forbidden, but usage should be made consistent throughout the article.
I also think that most played needs a hyphen, but I admit that I might be wrong about that.
 Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Background and release
  • Selena was murdered in Corpus Christi, Texas, by her friend and former employee
Was she really a current friend but a former employee?
At the time of her death, Selena still considered her a friend and only believed that Saldivar was stealing from her about two weeks prior to the murder. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • An editor from the Arizona Daily Star wrote that "‍ '​I Could Fall in Love' ... seemed aimed more towards adult contemporary airplay than the R&B or Top-40 markets where Gloria Estefan scored well".[16]
I recommend paraphrasing this quote, as it does not seem creative enough to require a direct quote.
 Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Composition and lyrics
  • which makes use of an electronic piano, a violin, and a flute in the background.
Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in a period.
 Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The first couple of sentences are a little choppy. Try to rework them with an improved flow.
  • Mario Tarradell, an editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, called the song a "mundane ballad".[24], An editor from the Contra Costa Times called the song a "jazzy ballad".[27], and Brian Galindo of BuzzFeed called the track a "melancholy ballad"
Consider condensing theses points and losing the quotes.
I can't come up of a good direction for these, care to help out? jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would simply state that the song has been described as a ballad, with no quotes, then use one or two cites after. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • emotional vulnerability and emotionally vulnerable narrator
This is kinda repetitive, so consider condensing as above.
I removed the first instance of the word. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • When asked what the "secret" was about, Saldivar responded that she won't discuss the matter at the time.[36]
This last part is a bit confusing, and I wonder if it's really all that necessary.
Removed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Critical reception
  • Is there any particular reason why you have "reviews" and "accolades" under the same header?
Fixed. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • thought the song had "a whiff of" Celine Dion.[38]
I would paraphrase "a whiff of".
It is the reviewers opinion and not mine. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph under reviews does not flow, but rather reads as a list of assorted comments. Try to rework so that the sentences naturally follow and flow.
I believed I fixed that problem. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • More recently, Elizabeth Rodriguez Kessler and Anne Perrin wrote in their 2007 book
Drop the "more recently" bit as unneeded and redundant with mentioning the year.
 Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is About.com reliable?
Depending on the editor and their expertise, yes. The editor has a masters degree in folklore/mythology with a specialization in ethnic music and dance. This is according to her About.com profile. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
But is About.com a reliable website? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the About.com source. jona(talk) 19:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • number 4 on the Hot Latin Tracks chart on 1 July 1995[62][63] and peaked at number 2
I think "4" and "2" ought to be written out in prose, as with any number under 10.
 Done. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Chart performance material reads like a list, and I wonder if this would be better represented in chart form.
It is a standard practice for song articles. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Music video
  • the music video accompanying the song
This is a little rough; maybe "the song's accompanying music video"
 Done jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Cultural impact
  • "I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations,[22][87][88] a fact that was well received by critics.[87][89]
For one, this seems like citation overkill, and for another, I'm confused why it's radio play was well received?
John Lannert (who is a regular on Billboard for Latin music charts) noticed how music shops were "eager for a followup" after the song scored in the top five in several radio formats; which is a nice exposure for Latin artists who rarely competes with pop music artists. Mario Tarradell's comment is forgotten and I can't access it on google since they removed all archived newspapers dating back to the past five years. Tarradell has written articles about Latin music for The Dallas Morning News and I believe he shared the same excitement that Lannert expressed about the success of the song by a Latin artist in the American mainstream. jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Covers

I would be inclined to say that this section could use a thorough trimming and maybe even a complete removal in favor of a one-sentence summary, as it's one of the more developed ones in the article, but lends little in the way of understand about the actual song. Having said that, I've never written or significantly contributed to a music article, so maybe this is standard practice. If so, please disregard.

Conclusion

With the exception of some jarring list-like paragraphs, this is an excellent article that needs a little more polishing. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rationalobserver: I believe I have  Fixed all issues you have raised. Thank you for reviewing this article! Best, jona(talk) 19:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Date added: 11 March 2015, 19:13 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2024, 12:54 UTC ----


Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going to be nominating this article for FA in the near future and would like to get some more eyes on it before then. Binky Brown has the distinctions of being a work about someone suffering from OCD before the condition had a name, and for being the first work of confessional autobiography in comics, possibly the most significant subgenre of arts comics in the English language.

Thanks, Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look though.

  • "of rules with which to cope with these" How about "in an attempt to cope with" to avoid repetition?
  • "Binky's anguish becomes all-consuming as he imagines the destruction he cannot avoid, and spends hours praying to God for forgiveness." "Binky's anguish" is the subject of the sentence, but, of course, it is Binky himself who prays. This should be rephrased.
  • "Last Gasp reprinted the story in 1995 in The Binky Brown Sampler, a softcover anthology of Binky Brown comics with an introduction by Art Spiegelman." You're yet to mention that there are other Binky Brown comics- the fact that Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary suggested (to me, at least) that there weren't any others?
    • There wesn't a series, and there were no other standalone comics—the others appeared in various anthologies over the years. None of them have gained the reputation of Meets the Holy Virgin Mary. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Green sold the artwork to the strip in the 1970s" You mean the original, here?
  • "Though Green built Binky Brown on an autobiographical base he fabricated many scenes—such as one in which he is bullied by two third-graders—"to suggest or convey a whole generalized idea about some subjective feeling, such as order or fear or guilt".[10]" In which Binky is bullied, surely?
  • "The work is conscious of its own creation—Green's drawing of it frames the narrative proper and there are constant reminders of it throughout." I'm afraid I'm not clear on what this means
    • Hmmm ... what happens is that the whole story is framed by Binky creating it himself. It opens with him drawing the story, and there are reminders throughout of the story's being in mid-creation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "the figure as the narrator" The figure being the Crypt Keeper? (Also, our article on the comic calls him "The Crypt-Keeper")
  • "Binky Brown was the first work of autobiographical comics to depict explicit sexuality" I thought it was the first work of autobiographical comics full stop?
    • No, it's "the first major work of autobiography in English-language comics". Earlier autobiographical works are rare and have had no lasting influence. Binky Brown is consider the work that began autobiographical comics as a genre—basically, autobio has become something of a cliché in underground and alternative comics, because it seems nearly every such cartoonist at least tries their hand at it, and the blame for that is placed at Green's door. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Though awkward, Green put" Green was awkward?
  • ""Perspective" and "Fun With a Pencil"" If these are manuals, the titles should probably be italicised (though quote marks may be useful to suggest that these aren't necessarily real manuals)
    • Fixed. They may have been real (several of these background artificats were), but my sources don't say. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "a snowball hurling into Hell" Do you mean "hurtling", here?
  • "a fish chased by a police office adorned with a crucifix" Officer? Also, is it the fish or the officer who has the crucifix?
  • What is an "overdetermined subjectivity"?
  • Some inconsistency with "the church" versus "the Church". The latter is surely correct if you're meaning to abbreviate the phrase "the Roman Catholic Church"
  • "a "serious of purpose".[5]" Does she/you mean seriousness, here?
  • "has gained little appreciation from" This sounds slightly non-neutral- to say that one group didn't appreciate something seems to point at a weakness of the group. How about "little acclaim"?
  • "Green had read Philip Roth (pictured) and other literary writers who bared their personal lives in their work." As opposed to non-literary writers?
  • "The same year as Binky Brown publication" Missing word?
  • Is Funny Aminals notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
    • It may be, but I've only read about it in passing in sources that talk about the "Maus" strip. Underground comix titles tended to be extremely short-lived, even when they sold well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "in Madison Clell's Cuckoo" Does Cuckoo (comics) point at what you want it to? I know nothing about the subject, but it doesn't look right.
    • No, I've turned that redirect into a dab page and removed the link for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you not cite the actual author of "Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary", rather than the editor? Or have I misunderstood what you are citing, here?
  • Why do you not cite the further reading suggestions?
    • The Levin one I don't have access to (it's a career retrospective), and the Burbey one's an interview that doesn't really give anything encyclopaedic to add that's not already in the article, but is probably Green's most in-depth interview. I'll ask around for the Levin one. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I managed to get access to the Levin article, and have aded a couple little things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that there are a good number of hits on Google Scholar in a wide variety of journals- have you sifted through them? (I admit that I haven't...)
    • I have. The vast majority are about Maus and mention Binky Brown in passing. The vast majority of what's left mention it in passing as an influence on Robert Crumb or whoever. It's a book that gets name-dropped left and right, but which rarely gets written up in depth. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any chance of a category tying the work to its author?
    • I've added one, but it won't likely get populated very soon. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Category:Obsessive–compulsive disorder in fiction?

Really interesting read. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Date added: 8 March 2015, 04:43 UTC
Last edit: 3 November 2024, 12:54 UTC ----
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tom_(LT)/sandbox/FAC_peer_reviews&oldid=780164849"