Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2008

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.

Club Penguin

[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, at this point in time, the article is progressing well, but could really do with some comments by neutral editors who have a tad more "distance" from the work than we do, and thus can better evaluate any strengths or weaknesses. I'm hoping that it is getting close to featured quality now, and any advice to help get it closer would be greatly appreciated. :)

Thanks, Bilby (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JamieS93

I know this might not be all that thorough, and I'm not experienced with peer reviews, but here's what I noticed when looking through the article:

  • It seems that there's some inconsistency with the dashes in the article – this should be fixed, per WP:DASH.
    • In the lead and in the "Game features, Items" sub-section, all plain-text dashes "-" need to become one of these: "–" (en dash).
    • Also in the Reception and criticism section is there any specific reason why the quote is double-dashed? There ought to be only one of those em-dashes, without spacing around it.
  • Per WP:LEAD, it would be best to expand your lead somewhat. I don't fully see it summarizing the main points of the article.
  • The article seems to be decently referenced in the first few sections, especially with the statistics and historic info. Working down the article, however, make sure that there's no unsourced original research when it comes to observations about the game – I was about to comment on the Puffles section until I read again that it's all as described they stated in their catalog, which should be okay. Still, the article shouldn't sound like it's coming from much of an in-universe perspective. The overall number of references seems kind of lacking, however, in comparison to its size.
  • Also, to me, the article doesn't flow nicely with the two tables in the middle of the article. Maybe rearrange things a bit?
  • The Memberships section – Info about Beta testers should be expanded (preferably), or merged into the general memberships section if needed. The sub-header should be at least a small paragraph, not just two lines.
  • Wikilinking seems to be kind of lacking, as I saw a couple of sections where most of the text is black, which makes things look a little more dull. Add some more well-placed wikilinks (being sure not to overlink to unrelated topics) and things should be looking more spruced up.
  • "Thus a major focus of the developers has been on child safety,[5] with a number of features introduced to the game to facilitate this - including offering a "Safe Chat" mode, whereby users select their comments from a menu; filtering that prevents swearing and the revelation of personal information;[5] and paid moderators (along with unpaid veteran players) who police the game.[6]" This sentence in the lead is awkward to read. "Release" of personal info might be a better term, too.

So that's what I noticed when taking a look at the article. The prose seems to be decent, I don't know about FA-quality, however, didn't take a close enough look at it (the article would probably need a good copyedit reviewing anyway, to reach that higher standard). This type of article does seem like it would be hard to bring together as a well-organized piece, not a messy random pot of information; you and your project seem to have done a nice job with that, though. I hope this helps! Jamie☆S93 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks heaps for all of that! It is much appreciated, and helps a lot. :) I'll work on prose and the flow of the article, and I certainly agree that the lead could do with expanding. I can't find much about the beta testers, so I'll probably go with your merge suggestion. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Ruhrfisch I agree with Jamie93's comments above. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:

  • The two tables (Notable places within Club Penguin, and The Stage) are completely unsourced, and need refs too.
  • According to WP:HEAD the headers should not repeat the name of the article.
  • There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • The article uses bullet point lists a lot - if this goes to FAC, at least some should be converted to text.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree completely with the two tables. I'd left them there as they seemed useful, but maybe they shouldn't stay? Sourcing is going to be tricky, as the information is all in-game, so while it is a primary source it is a bit iffy. And I'm not sure you can source "List of play next to the stage" or something. :) Otherwise I'll work through your points. The comments are really cool: the difficulty is that I've read the article so many times that I can't see the flaws any more, so having someone else help point them out is immensely useful. Thanks again! - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu-German Conspiracy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was nominated for peer review, and subsequently FAC, where it failed for what I thought was mostly to do with prose and langlit. It was subsequently promoted to GA, but some work has been done subsequently and I would appreciate and welcome some more eyes and opinions before renominate it to FAC again. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hindu–German Conspiracy.

Kenneth Dewar

[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 see it up to FA standard, however I just cannot make it any simpler, therefore a good copyedit is perhaps in order. I've been waiting for months for a copyedit and have yet to find a willing volunteer.

Thanks, Harlsbottom (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think it looks very good overall, although a few things struck me as I read it. The lead should be at least three paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • If his birth date is not known, these might be hard to find too, but I think the place of his birth should be mentioned, his mother's name would help, and some idea of his place in his family too (was he older than his brothers or younger, how many siblings did he have).
  • Sentence fragment From July 21, 1903, Lieutenant and Commander of the Chatham-based destroyer Mermaid.
  • Awkward sentence and I think there should be explicit mention previously in the article of his contacts with the Japanese navy: In the same year, he was asked to lecture on the Imperial Japanese Navy, which he had previously had experience of, at the Royal Naval War College at Portsmouth.
  • Per WP:QUOTE, this should not be a pull quote and is probably too short to be a block quote (four lines minimum): In light of later events, the opposition aroused by my proposals may seem extraordinary, but they marked [in his opinion] a complete break with tradition and were far from obvious at the time.[21]
  • Provide context for the reader - not everyone will know in the First World War section that war broke out in August 1914 and I do not know when the Dardanelles Campaign was exactly - see WP:PCR
  • Ditto with the end of the war and whatever it was he did at the Peace Conference, refered to only obliquely here On October 17, 1919 he was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) "for valuable services at the Peace Conference, Paris."[30] I'll stop here for now.
  • You might want to ask at WP:PRV for a copy edit. User:Jackyd101 has written a number of FAs on naval history (although of an earlier time) and would probably be better suited to evaluate the naval aspects of this article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Unfortunately with Dewar there is so little information actually available without delving into what would be called original research. I've checked all my local libraries and the internet and can't find a copy of his memoirs. For example that was the result of oblique references in a couple of texts, which didn't actually refer to when he was there. Nothing mentions his mother at all. His family is a mystery as Dewar himself was the only one of his naval brothers to get a proper obituary.
Re:Context, I will deal with that straight away. I'll deal with the other points you've raised and then reach out to Jackyd101. Will see if I can help with the backlog any. Cheers! --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 07:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US we have Interlibrary loan (ILL) - would it be possible to borrow his memoirs through your local library via ILL? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As always, thanks for the comments! Ruhrfisch, I take your point about ILL, however I'm quite simply too busy to borrow books, and I'm in enough do-do with the British Library lending service as it is. At the moment I'm in the States for six weeks so borrowing is somewhat impractical. At any rate, it just so happens I've found a raft of articles and correspondence written by the subject which I was perusing just as I saw this pop up on my watchlist. More work to be done! Regards, --Harlsbottom (talk | library) 14:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Judy Garland biographies

[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 although it needs better sourcing for such things as the various Emmy nominations for the TV appearances, I think it has many if not most of the requirements for Featured List status. Be brutal, tell me what needs to happen to make this an FL.

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Biggest problem with this making FL is the almost complete lack of references. The lead needs refs and each bio needs a ref.
  • Any reason why the lists are not sortable? I also note the books are sorted by author's last name and the other two lists are in chronological order. Why the difference? Making the lists sortable would also solve this.
  • I would try to find something to say about each bio in the notes. Also some of the notes are odd and do not focus on the Garland bio - for example, "The Ultra Secret" was a segment about World War II code-breaking." threw me for a loop, or "Musical based on the life of Peter Allen" should mention she is a character (lead does this)
  • A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - I would look at WP:FL and see if there are any models

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your comments are always useful and I appreciate the attention that you've given several of my articles. The reason the books are listed by author is that I was treating it like a bibliography, which is alphabetized by author. I don't know how to make sortable tables.
  • What constitutes a reference for a book? I would have thought that the existence of the book, like the existence of a film, is self-referential.
  • The Ultra Secret note was specifically to explain the title of the 60 Minutes episode and make it clear that "The Ultra Secret" didn't refer to some ultra-secret thing about Judy. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the books table sortable and made the notes so they would not sort (as an example of how to do each). I now understand the rationale for listing the books by author, thanks for explaining it.
  • I guess I assumed that each book would have an inline citation with the same information, maybe using {{cite book}} - ISBN, pages for those books which only have a chapter or section on Garland. You might also want to ask at the talk page for FLC and see what the suggestions / ideas are there. I looked at some other FLs to see if I could find a model article, but the ones I found were all of works by one person (Einstein, Joseph Priestley, etc.) and not about one person. They all cited sources on that person's works - is there a published source that lists all of these? If the refs included the publisher, would that have to be in the table too? That would leave more room for the notes.
  • I understood the reason for the Ultra note, my point was more to also include material on Garland in the note, if possible.

Glad this is helpful - not sure what else to say, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The King's School, Ely

[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 and others have spent a tremendous amount of time creating a neutral article (often difficult with schools) that is well referenced and is thorough, leaving nothing wanting. I believe it is time to face a broader range of editors to see what they thing. I hope that you can give honest feedback, and feel free to improve the article yourself! This is my first time taking an article anywhere, so I hope I haven't messed this up!:-D Many thanks guys, rocketman89 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. There is a lot of information in the article, but there are some gaps and issues of organization. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article is not organized as clearly as it could be. As an example, look at the History section. It starts off in 1541, then goes back to 673, then 720, then 1970 and 1973. Next it goes back to 970, then 1882, then WWI (1914-1918), then memoirs from 1955 (not clear when they refer to though) and 2004. Chrononlogical order is almost always helpful, unless there is some other guiding principle used here. It is also not clear from this when the school was founded - is it 1541 (refounded?) or 673 or 970? The following subsections seem to be more like a facilities section than history. Even the Monastic buildings section gives the dates of the buildings, but does not say when they began to be rented / used by the school.
  • For a school which has been in existence for so long, most of the article seems to deal with developments of the past 10 years. See WP:RECENTISM Or look at the notable alumni section - there is one ancient alum (Edward the Confessor) and all the rest are modern or recently dead.
  • The article has several very short paragraphs (one or tweo sentences) and sections (one paragraph) - these should be looked at carefully and in many cases either combined with other paragraphs or sections, or perhaps expanded.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the hoop trundle is in both the History and School traditions sections.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Trial of a Time Lord

[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 suggestions on how to improve the prose; I feel this is the best place for it, as the LOCE backlog is huge.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC
  • His [Holmes's] death was one of many problems encountered during the writing of the final segment; ... You only mention one other; does that really qualify as "many"?
  • Christopher H. Bidmead and PJ Hammond were asked to write, but both Saward and Nathan-Turner disliked their scripts. Who asked them to write it then?
  • I found the section on the writing of the serial a little confusing, mostly because it jumped back and forth a bit from segment to segment. Were these all being written at the same time? Were consecutive segments based on previous ones (thus needing to wait until the previous ones were completed)? Did the authors work together at all? Who chose the writers, and why were some chosen that didn't have the approval of so many important people? Things like that could be made clearer.
  • For the opening sequence, Nathan-Turner commissioned a 45-second model sequence that cost £8,000. Was that an unusual amount for that time? (Doesn't sound like much today!) What was the opening sequence; why did it cost so much?
  • Terror of the Vervoids and Time Inc. were produced together with the production code 7C. Is the production code significant? If not, I'd remove it. If so, is there a reason why the production codes for the other segments aren't included?

If you'd like additional comments, please respond here! MeegsC | Talk 20:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "several"
    They're known writers, but JNT and Saward didn't like the submission
    I think they were written around the same time.
    Inflation. I think that would've been half the show's budget.
    Removed. Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really should answer those questions in the article, not here! If I had those questions, so will many other readers... MeegsC | Talk 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsugaru clan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to find out how it looks after a major overhaul, and how it can be further improved toward B class status.


Thanks, Tadakuni (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is impressive, and the overhaul even more so. I don't know much about B-class, so I'll just suggest removing from the information box the explanation of the name ("port-lightness"). However accurate it is, a translation of individual kanji from a name is irrelevant. This one is likely to be the place name; many families adopted the name of their base of power as a surname. The place name may in turn be ateji, selected despite having no connection with whatever "tsugaru" means. All of this is of course speculation. In any case, I don't see any use for the information. There's also an external link to a site (Behind the Name) with no data on the name Tsugaru; it seems expendable.
In contrast, the main text of the article has a lot of valuable information. If I were involved in B-class articles, I'd look further for suggestions for improvement, but from my point of view, it looks quite good. Fg2 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; I've removed the translation but I can't seem to remove "Behind the Name." B class involves a checklist of attributes; I think that given your review and the associated corrections, the article reaches that status. -Tadakuni (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto Blue Jays managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because The Rambling Man suggested it.

Thanks, -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 20:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KV5 comments

[edit]

OK, so Maclean says that he has a source for Harry Warner's managing 12 games. That we can use, and if I can see the source, I will make a stub for him as well so that the list is not incomplete. The last thing I think we need to do in terms of the actual list is find out why Cookie Rojas managed three games in 2001.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank the author for being patient with us as reviewers. I know from experience what a grueling process FLC can be; it's one of the reasons I don't even begin to touch FAs. I think that if Maclean, K. Annoyomous24, myself, and other reviewers work together, we can finish this up and get this list to FL. I would suggest that since it's been through two failed noms in two weeks, we should wait about a month and make sure it's perfectly clean and shipshape before putting forth another nomination. If all goes as planned, I'll gladly come on as a co-nom, if it meets our standards. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source will corroborate the Blue Jays' official website for Cookie Rojas. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you enable your WP email (see user preferences) I can email you some news articles on Warner. I still haven't found anything about Rojas' stint yet. --maclean 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources for Cookie Rojas, Killervogel15. You can e-mial me those articles now, maclean. I would greatly appreciate it. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 00:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing Rojas coached May 25-27, 2001 games against the Red Sox. Why? Because on May 25, 2001, "manager Buck Martinez has taken a leave from the team for 3 games to attend his mother-in-law's funeral." per JAYS UPDATES.--Crzycheetah 07:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is confirmed by the Globe and Mail: May 25, May 28. maclean 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maclean25 comments

[edit]

I merged a more detailed introduction from my sandbox into the article. [1] Is this ok? --maclean 01:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure...looks long but sure... -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 01:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, should I erase 10 games from Hartsfield, make Warners, and put it on Warners or what? -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Which is a more reliable source: Baseball-Reference.com or toronto.bluejays.mlb.com? B-R.com has been accepted in previous FLs as reliable, but of the 14 managers the two sources differ on 8 of them. --maclean 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still don't accept all of these sports-reference.com sites. I always find too many errors when I research football or basketball-related lists. Now, I see they have errors on baseball, as well, but I am not surprised anymore. I strongly recommend not to use this site as a source and go with some alternative sources. The lead looks awesome, by the way.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: Baseball Reference was thought of as the "alternative" source to official team histories. Over-reliance on official websites is a big no-no over at WP:FA, so where are we to go? Baseball-Cube, Baseball-Reference, Baseball America, Baseball Almanac... there are a lot of sites out there but to be honest, it's hard to know which ones agree. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a thread on the talk page to decide whether or not to use baseball-reference.com. Please eeply if you want to withdraw or not withdraw the reference. Thanks! -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 03:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the current lead can be in the new section titled history of managers or something similar and the old lead be brought back. It's really quite long for a lead, it's even longer than the table. The information is useful and nicely written, but I don't think it should be in the lead.--Crzycheetah 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what should I do? I prefer my intro better but I don't know about KV5. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 07:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait for maclean, since he's the one who wrote the current lead.--Crzycheetah 07:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Do what you think is best. It is meant to provide meaning (or the story) to the list. Though I'd shy away from some of the more off-topic points in the original, like explaining the Expos, to keep it focused on Blue Jay Managers. --maclean 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
K.Annoy, could you create the new section and bring back the revious version of the lead? Then we can probably figure out what is needed and what's not.--Crzycheetah 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What section should I make? -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Overview or History section where most of the info from the current lead can go.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which article should I put it on? If you want me to put it on the Toronto Blue Jays article, I can't because I would mess up their format. Also, I revived the original lead with the first paragraph. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I'm back. K.Annoy, I think what he is saying is to make a section after the lead but before the list which is a history or an overview in addition to the lead (a la List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
Crzycheetah already did. -- K. Annoyomous24 GO LAKERS! 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nord Stream

[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 an ongoing and at the same quite controversial topic. This make the process to improve this article to the WP:GA level quite challenging. I would like to get guidelines what additionally has to do be done before the WP:GAN.

Thanks, Beagel (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - the lead here should be more than one paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width (not a given pixel width) to allow reader preferences to take over.
  • Article could use a copy edit - just one example the external link "Map of the disputed between Poland and Danmark zone" should probably read "Map of the disputed zone between Poland and Denmark"
  • Article has many short sections - could these be combined or pehaops expanded? Also organization is a little odd - there is a Political aspects subsection under Controversy, then four subsections later there is a German political controversy subsection. Could this be combined as a political subsection? If not, could they at least be put back to back?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (2003)

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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 this article to GA, and hopefully FA. Any concerns, I will address.

Thanks, SRX 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/SummerSlam (2003)/archive1.

Cleveland Street scandal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks for all and any comments. DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain comments

This is already very good, and I don't think it will be a huge push to get it to FA status. I made some punctuation tweaks as I was reading and noted some other items below. I know red links are allowed, but they are always ugly to me, especially in the lead. Any chance of writing stubs for Euston and maybe Willie Mathews?

  • Opening sentence—isn't "on" a street more proper than "in"?
  • Odd use of "vice" in the lead. My understanding of the term is a destructive but socially-accepted habit like drinking or gambling. You seem to indicate homosexual acts were not quite so.
  • In the lead, you mix "clients" and "alleged clients" and I think some clear delineation is needed. Was there concrete proof of anyone being a client, and can you cite it?
  • "During the investigation, a fifteen-year old telegraph boy named Charles Thomas Swinscow was discovered to be in possession of 14 shillings, representing several weeks' wages." Unclear whether you are referring to several weeks of the boy's wages.
  • "... seventeen-year old George Alma Wright and Charles Ernest Thickbroom." How old was Thickbroom?
  • "On August 19, a further arrest warrant was issued ..." Suggest "another arrest warrant"
  • "By this time, Somerset had moved onto Hanover ..." Suggest "moved to" or "moved on to". There are more of these ("Hammond moved onto Belgium and Somerset ...") Is this a British English thing?
  • "Hammond moved onto Belgium and Somerset, through Newton, paid for Hammond to emigrate to the United States." This sentence doesn't make sense to me.
  • The phrase "on the Continent" is certain to be unfamiliar to non-British readers.
  • I understand that anyone who's anyone is now unlinking date/months, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Dates. The idea is that the value of removing link-clutter outweighs the small percentage of readers who have a date preference set or who actually care if it's day/month or month/day. Most readers will easily tolerate regional differences. --Laser brain (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

List of awards won by Degrassi

[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… six months ago it failed a WP:FLC. At that time, only one Awards list was Featured. A few more have been promoted since then, and I'd like to know whether the comments at the FLC still stand, or if my fellow Wikipedians' thoughts are now different.

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards won by Degrassi/archive1 is the location of the FLC.

Also, might it be better to split the article up for the different series in the franchise, or as suggested at the FLC, group them by year, or in one big table?

Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
    • Bold link in lead. Tut tut...
    • Change your fair use link for the logo to avoid the redirect. The image doesn't appear in the redirect and I've seen bots tagging this as deletable. Which I suppose it is.
    • Lose the full stop in the caption of the logo.
    • Have you fiddled with the tables to try and force col widths to be the same throughout? Might look better, might look worse... have a look?
    • Blank cells always trouble me, like in a large number of your "nominee" fields. Perhaps a general note would help me?
    • Put (ACT) after the expanded version.
    • "D:TNG" is used only once and without explanation.
    • " Columbus, OH "- Ohio please.
    • "First awarded in 1986, Every incarnation" - rogue cap E
    • twenty-seven -> 27.
    • Is there a logic to the ordering of the awards?
    • "http://www.degrassi.tv" is linked quite a few times - could get this list a reputation for being a one-stop degrassi linkshop?
  • Hope that lot helps? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup. I'll make some edits later. The ordering of awards is done alphabetically, and then by year in each table. Did you look at the FLC comments? Would you agree with them (as in re-ordering by year). And would it be better to separate into each series, instead of the entire franchise? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Route 373

[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 its a good article that the two of us are trying to get to FAC. We are looking for more sufficient information before then, and it'll be a big bonus if we can get all problems solved before FAC, so that goes smoothly. Thanks!


Thanks, Mitch32(UP) 19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC) & Juliancolton (via IRC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

  • In the lead: "...before coming to an end at a ferry landing." -> "...before ending at a ferry landing."
  • "...both of which were created in 1827." -> "both created in 1827."
  • If linking a day/month, link the year as well.
  • "Located entirely within Adirondack State Park..."
  • "The Burlington-Port Kent Ferry is the ferry that connects NY 373 and the hamlet of Port Kent to the city of Burlington, Vermont."
  • Many other prose problems. Needs a copyedit. Contact some people from WP:PRV.
  • Ref 4 needs a "p." in front of the page number, for consistency with ref 8.
  • Ref 9 date needs linking, since the date in ref 8 is linked.
  • Otherwise looks good, though short.
  • Hope my comments are useful. Let me know if you need any help!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

William McGregor

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done quite a bit of work on improving this article on one of the most influential men in the history of association football. Surprisingly little actually seems to be recorded about him, but I'm hoping there's just enough here to get the article to GA status. Please let me know what more I might need to do...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
More comments
  • To be honest there isn't much more I can add. It looks a good piece, though will obviously need expansion if it's going to go beyond GA status. I'd say it was near GA status already though. However, that said here are a couple of thoughts.
    • Do you have any info about his role with the Football League and/or Football Association? I think I do somewhere but I won't be able to get my hands on it for a couple of weeks.
    • "who predeceased him by three years." This sounds a bit verbose, I'd simply change it to "who died three years earlier."
    • Do you have any more information about his personal life or details of his business? Did he still run the business after 1888? Peanut4 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest no, there really doesn't appear to be any more info on him in the public domain than what is already in the article. I'm hoping that our resident Villa expert, Woody, might have some sort of club history book with some more in-depth info on McGregor, but he's on holiday at the moment. If you did have anything about his role with the FL/FA that could be added when you can get your hands on it obviously that would be great! Oh, and I'll get rid of the poncey word :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a bit more content, based on a book I found in a bookshop which I quite brazenly flipped through and made notes from but didn't buy :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. And what a great idea!! Peanut4 (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acid dissociation constant

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

Hello again. We're peer-reviewing again, but this time we'd like approval to promote the article to Class A in preparation for going to WP:FAC. The standards for Class A can be found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment along with a detailed rubric. We believe we have satisfactorially met the requirements of the previous peer review (see below) and are pretty sure we're ready. EagleFalconn (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Peer Review Comments

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Howdy,

I'm looking to get this article up to snuff. Its been pretty idle ever since my original edits on it in 2005(!!!). Its currently listed Class-B in Wikiproject:Chemistry (which seems to be pretty idle to me...) so I'm coming here for peer review.

 Not done I can tell you right now that one thing none of you are going to like is the sourcing on the article.

 Not doneWhile the article needs to be sourced more thoroughly, before I do that I feel like the article has organizational issues. I just redid the beginning, and I feel like its decently strong, but the article delves into other issues later in the article and I'm not sure about relevance.

I'd primarily like comments regarding requests for additional material, pedagogical issues, flow of English, material that could be reorganized, moved to another part of the article, moved to another article, or removed.

Thanks, EagleFalconn (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fanno Creek

[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 about a small urban creek for peer review because I've done most of the work on it with relatively little feedback. I'd like someone interested in geography to take a look to make sure that I haven't omitted anything essential and that the article reads well and makes sense throughout. I've worked extensively on two other small creeks, Johnson Creek (Willamette River) and Balch Creek in the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area, and my plan is to take these as far as I can and to create comprehensive articles about the Columbia Slough and Tryon Creek as well. These four creeks and a slough plus the Willamette River and the Columbia River are the main water bodies in the city of Portland. My intent is to improve or to encourage improvement on these five small ones, to take each through PR, GA, and on to FAC if possible. Johnson Creek (Willamette River) is already FA, and Balch Creek is a current GA nominee. Fanno has come about as far as I can take it without the help of additional sharp-eyed editors.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth. I appreciate your input on each of these articles. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs)

  • I am just reading through this, and so far the prose is excellent.
  • I'm unsure about how reliable http://www.washingtoncountymuseum.org/education/pre-post.php (ref 18) is. Its a museum site, but presumably the information is from a book. Can you find a more reliable source?
  • Something is wrong with this sentence: "In the year 2000, population in the Portland part of the watershed reached 28,000[19] at about the same time (1998) the population for the entire watershed grew to 123,000.[20]" - 1998 is two years before 2000. You say the population went up, but it says (1998)... I'm also wondering why 1998 is in brackets but 2000 is not. And why not "In 2000," instead of "In the year 2000"? *puzzled*
  • Overall, looks good. I've run out of time. Ping me if you need more feedback on this one. Hope my comments are useful.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wackymacs, for these helpful suggestions. The museum site is OK, I think, but the text is meant for children and lacks depth. You are quite right in thinking that something better must be available. I will do some more research to see what I can find. As for the population figures, yes, I've made something of a muddle here, and I will fix it. I had trouble finding population figures when I started the article because the watershed overlaps several jurisdictions, and some of them keep score only for their parts of the watershed. It may take me a couple of days to sort out these two problems. Finetooth (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The population stats are now more clear, and I replaced the citation to the museum with one to a published book. They don't contradict one another on any important point, but the book version includes details about politics, disease, death rates, and other matters not included in the version meant for children. I added a bit of that and did some minor re-writing. Thanks again for the helpful suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makemake (dwarf planet)

[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 has recently become a Good Article and I would like to see what changes are needed for it to reach FA status. For comparison, please see Eris (dwarf planet), a featured article on a similar body.


Thanks, Serendipodous 22:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Depends on the outcome of this peer review. It might not be possible to get this article up to FA yet. But hey anything you think you can do. :) Serendipodous 07:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting it for FAC would give more feedback about what's missing to be a FA. Nergaal (talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And also a lot of complaints about why issue X wasn't sorted out during peer review. :-) I've gone through too many of these things not to go in prepared. Serendipodous 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I did some quick copyediting, and two suggestions: move "Orbit" before "Physical characteristics"... that's the way it is at Eris. I recommend keeping this consistent between articles. Also, I'd recommend moving "Classification" to right after "Discovery"; that's where it is at Eris, and it seems pretty logical to keep this information near the beginning. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cm:

Well, when I switch over to IE I can see it. Not sure if I have a different version of IE. I suppose I could put the note in "note" format, but it seemed kinda silly to do it when there was just one note. Serendipodous 21:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you refer to ref6: I meant something like: x,y,z... said this and others said that
*x: full ref of the paper by x. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't ref refs, so I'd have to switch to note format. Serendipodous 22:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant something like what is now. Nergaal (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added Notes section. Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive PR and start a FAC? Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's ready.Serendipodous 22:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about no significant comments in a week? Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK; so assuming no new comments we close it on Friday. Serendipodous 07:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't really be around to help, but ok. Nergaal (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I standardized all the refs. The only missing thing is that {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}} seem to have different ways to display date inputs when it is xxxx-xx-xx type. Also,   seem to miss in some points and Sandy will surely b.../have something to say about it. Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're willing to listen to what Sandy has to say, we can close this now. Serendipodous 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! I'd rather work on some suggestions. Let's go with the FAC :D Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson

[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 its Samuel Johnson, and, well, he needed a lot of work, and I just came on to add citations. I'm sure there are others with important skills that can contribute or recommend the much needed work to actually make this a decent page.

Thanks, Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

History of Bradford City A.F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to push it towards FAC. It's recently had one peer review, and I've made some slight changes, but hoped to get some more input, particularly any suggestions about whether the lead is long enough or what changes may be appropriate to add.

Thanks, Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Would a picture such as the FA Cup winning team not make for a better lead image than one of the main stand, which seems a bit, I dunno, bland for a lead image.......?
  • The first para uses "Bradford City" three times, which seems a bit forced - maybe replace one with "the club"?
  • "winning the Division Two league title" - just "winning the Division Two title" surely?
  • "The club played two seasons in the Premiership" - should use the correct official name for the competition, which is Premier League
  • "Several football clubs, including Bradford Park Avenue also....." - needs a comma after Avenue. Also, isn't the club's official name simply Bradford AFC, with "Park Avenue" simply something that is usually unofficially appended to differentiate them from your own club......?
  • "By 1901, a team of the same name as Bradford City had played in the leagues within the city, playing for two seasons" - wording is very confusing, it makes it seem like the current BCFC already existed as well
  • Frank O'Rourke's name is spelt wrong
  • "assured with solitary strikes...." - "strikes", meaning "goals", seems a bit colloquial
  • "The first game in the final" - suggest rewording, this could be interpreted to mean the final was always slated to involve multiple matches
  • "New manager Colin Veitch missed out on an immediate promotion when he finished sixth" - Colin Veitch did not finish sixth, nor was he eligible for promotion, it was the team he managed that finished sixth
  • "Had it not being" - should be "had it not been"
  • "when the 1928–29 season starting" - needs rewording

I'll come back and look at the post-war years later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • "But only three months into the new campaign" - don't start a sentence with "but"
  • Terry Dolan doesn't seem to be wikilinked anywhere
  • The second paragraph of the "Bantam progressivism (1981–1990)" section seems to have a little bit too much detail on a season (83-84) in which nothing of note really seems to have happened
  • I'm not sure. The club nearly went bust before the season, impacting on the players and results. The return of Bobby Campbell was a key moment in the history of the club, ensuring relegation was avoided and promotion could be earned the next season. I'm not sure what I can leave out, and not omit anything significant in the club's history. Is there anything specific you can suggest to leave out. Peanut4 (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rodney Marsh said they would be relegated and promised to shave off his hair at a home game if they avoided relegation" - did he go through with this?
  • "as well as signed" - should be "signing"
  • "but he won only seven games from 28" - he didn't win any of them, the team did

Hope all of the above helps!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laie Hawaii Temple

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I would like to know if the article requires additional work before nominating it as a GAC. If not, I'm looking for constructive criticism of any kind. The biggest problem has been finding actual sources, and as it turns out, most of them can probably only be found in BYU libraries and I don't have access. I've asked for help in at least three instances from the LDS project and their members but I haven't had much of a response. Thanks, Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • It looks pretty good to me overall, although I do worry it is a bit short - comprehensiveness is a criterion to worry about (although length in and of itself is not). I note for example, that the 2004 New York Times story has some information that is not mentioned in the article. The visitor center, expansion of the avenue to the ocean, etc.
  • Units should be given in both English and metric for all figures - for example "11 acres of land" {{convert}} may be helpful here.
  • Make sure to provide context for the reader - LDS is used but never technically explained (abbreivation following first use), perhaps a map of Oahu showing the location of Honolulu and Laie would help too. See WP:PCR
  • I would put the wood ship story before the WWII story in the myths section (chronological order). Also, I think of lots of trees in Hawaii, so why would wood be scarce there? Explain perhaps.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reread it and think it would help to explain the difference between a LDS temple (which there are few of) and a LDS "church" (which there are many of). I also would make sure the references all give as much info as consistently as possible - place of publication for books for example. Otherwise nothing comes to mind, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That information appears in the lead section for Temple (Latter Day Saints), and I don't see any references. How do you suggest adding it to this article? I'll get to work on formatting the publication location right now. It just occurred to me that future expansion could be based on incorporating the "see also" section into the body of the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Place of publication for books added. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difference between Temple and Church in progress... Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know there is a difference but am not sure of it myself - just know that many casual readers will have seen their local LDS church and might confuse this with that. I would put the information itself into the background - it does not have to be a lot, but even a few sentences would help. For example, they have a visitor center because non-Mormons can not enter the actual; temple, right? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That information is available to anyone who clicks on the very first wikilink in the lead section:

A temple is a building dedicated to be a house of God and is reserved for special forms of worship. A temple differs from a church meetinghouse, which is used for weekly worship services.

The only reason I haven't copied it over to this article in toto, is due to its lack of inline references. With that said, your suggestion is entirely reasonable and I will continue looking for supporting material. As for the visitors' center, from what I can tell, these centers are found in many non-temple areas around the U.S., such as important LDS-related historical sites visited by tourists; The temple is considered an important landmark in the town of Laie. I don't think it has anything to do with non-Mormons being able to enter the temple; that's just a coincidence. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Difference between temple and church added per Ruhrfisch's excellent suggestion. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's Comments:

  • Info about interior architecture of the temple like altar??? sculptures??? prayer Halls?? murals?? sealing halls?? Pictures of the interior seen here[2]
  • Closing of the temple for 2 yrs from 1976 is not mentioned. Found this info [3]Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of that information is in the architecture section. I don't think it is appropriate to cite a personal website on a geocities server, however I will see what I can expand with reliable sources. I'm pretty much hovering at the limit right now. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing of the temple is mentioned in the history section, but only notes it in passing and doesn't mention the initial closing date of 1976: "After extensive remodeling, church president Spencer W. Kimball rededicated the temple on June 13, 1978." I'll try to fix that. Viriditas (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in mind, there is a very limited set of RS on the internet, but there is a great deal of personal, but unauthorized websites. I've avoided using all of them except one (Rick Satterfield), which has apparently earned the respect of the LDS Church. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree the links i provided may not be RS, be still for an article to be complete other sources except the internet like newspaper articles, books can be refered. Rick Satterfield one does mention murals. All the best imporving the article.Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incompleteness is preferred over unreliable information. To date, all of the information in the article can be verified. Once you start dipping into the unauthorized, personal websites, it's downhill. Also, much of this information is considered sacred to the LDS Church, so they make an effort to keep it low-key. Remember, non-Mormons cannot even go inside the Temple. In that respect, the article could be considered complete, however I will continue to strive to add reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I just took another look at the Geocities website you offered, and a lot of the information is wrong. This is why we need to be very careful about which sources we use. I'm starting to have doubts bout Rick Satterfield's site now, and I'm considering pulling it out of the article along with its information, so that we only have verifiable, reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our World (American TV series)

[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 that other than the gaps in the episode guide it's close to GA class. General comments are welcome as always but specifically, is not having an entry for each episode under the "topics" column going to be a deal-killer for ever reaching GA?

Thanks, Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think this is fairly close to GA, although the lead also needs work. I asume it is just difficult to find the missing episode information? WP:WIAGA criteria 3 says "It is broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic" so it would be up to the reviewer to decide if the missing summaries should be there. I think I would be inclined to want it consistent - if some suimmaries are there, then for GA I would think all would be. You might want to ask on the GAN talk page about this too.
  • The lead needs more information - it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article and a brief overview too. I would make the first sentence longer and add the dates it aired (range) and number of episodes. Please see WP:LEAD
  • In the references, "pp." means more than one page follows, but it is often used for just one page (so pp. 3-7, but p. 62). There are also some newspaper refs without pages (current 31 and 33, may be others) that should have them
  • The Apollo 11 mission was July 16 to 24, so that seems not to fit this: Try to Remember covered roughly the same timeframe as the pilot episode of Our World, August 11-17
  • A model article is often useful for ideas on structure and examples to follow. There are many televison program FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media although I am not sure if any are news shows.
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that could be combined with others or possibly expanded, in order to flow better.
  • The Cancellation and PBS section begins oddly - I would start with the reason why the letter campaign was waged (presumably low ratings and rumors of cancellation).
  • Would it help to compare the ratings the show got on ABC to PBS program ratings - my guess is that PBS shows were rated lower than most ABC shows at the time.
  • For April 12, 1961, I would mention this was the day Yuri Gagarin was the first person in space

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a main operating system, and quality info should be given as to it (besides, Mac OS X is GA, and this isn't?!) :-)

Thanks, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs) - Put simply, this needs tons of work before its even GA standard.

  • "Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001, and over 400 million copies were in use in January 2006, according to an estimate in that month by an IDC analyst" - Can we have a more recent figure? (2008?)
  • "and worldwide to the general public on January 30, 2007. - weed out redundant words.
  • "Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows." - Really? I know XP is quite stable, but it isn't that much of an improvement over previous versions. I am confident in saying 2000 is more stable (overall, a better OS). You need to find some reliable sources to back up claims like this.
  • "During development, the project was codenamed "Whistler", after Whistler, British Columbia, as many Microsoft employees skied at the Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort.[9]" - This is too trivial for the lead. Put it somewhere else.
  • "Windows XP Starter Edition is a lower-cost edition of Windows XP available..." - lower-cost than what? If you are not mentioning other editions, then just say "low-cost", or maybe "inexpensive"?
  • "Each country's edition is also customized for that country, including desktop backgrounds of popular locations" - Sounds terrible. Try instead: "Each edition is specific to the country where it is sold, including desktop backgrounds of popular locations"
  • "can only run 3 programs at a time," - Smaller numbers are better spelled out: "can only run three programs at a time,"
  • "Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 that do not contain Windows Media Player or Windows Messenger" - Do you mean "or", or do you mean "and"? I think it should say "and".
  • The paragraph starting with "In December 2005, the Korean Fair Trade Commission" is awful... "Like the European Commission decision, this decision " - decision, decision, decision, decision! - can we have some variety in the words used to make this prose flow nicely?
  • "That same year, Microsoft also released two additional editions of Windows XP Home Edition directed towards subscription-based and pay-as-you-go pricing models" - State the year again, and "directed towards" is bad word usage. Try instead: "Microsoft released two additional editions of Windows XP Home Edition in 2006, which used subscription-based and pay-as-you-go pricing models."
  • "Languages" sub-section is too short to warrant its own header. Put it somewhere else.
  • "New and updated features" is a list. Convert it to prose.
  • "Common criticisms" section is a mess. Rename it "Criticism". The biggest problem here is POV and unreferenced content. You might be better off re-writing this section.
  • "License and media types" - First few paragraphs are unwikified, add some links.
  • No History/Development section??? Add one that describes the development history, the product launch (the XP launch was big). How long did it take MS to develop? How much money was invested in R&D? When was the first beta released? And so on...
  • Is "Literature/Books" meant to be "Further reading"?
  • Most of the citations are unformatted. Add access date, publisher info, author info and publication date to online refs per WP:CITE.
  • Don't use forums for footnotes. They are not the best sources available. Windows XP is still the most-used OS in the world. There will be thousands, millions of reliable sources for everything you need.
  • What makes the following reliable sources:
  • Most of the footnotes cite Microsoft's web pages. You need to use more third party sources such as magazines, newspapers, trade journals. Good examples are New York Times, TIME and other national papers. There are also many computer magazines which can be used, and don't forget books.
  • Huge amount of work to do. Some parts need rewriting. Some need reliable sources. And there's quite a bit of missing information that readers would like to know (such as development history and launch info).
  • I hope my feedback is useful, please let me know if you need further comments or any help.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Monson

[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 the main contributor to the article and would like a critical, rigorous PR to help prep for FAC.

Thanks, Eustress (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appartement du roi

[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 for editing pursuant to Wiki MOS and appropriate criteria for listed project inclusions.

Thanks, E. Lighthart (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I will say some of the same things here I said at Wikipedia:Peer review/L'Opéra of the Palace of Versailles/archive1 Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article needs to be divided into sections - the first section will be the Lead section, which is required as a overview and summary of the whole article. See WP:LEAD. I think other sections could be on the history and perhaps subsections on each room.
  • Why are the French phrases not all translated in the infobox (some are and some are not)? This is the English Wikipedia
  • The article has too many images and galleries / tables of images are frowned on in FAC - Template:Commonscat is one way to deal with this. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see some of the 65 articles in Category:FA-Class Architecture articles
  • The map shows six rooms, plus the two courtyards. The article discusses eight rooms (at least), which is confusing.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs Bunny

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd really like to work on bringing this article up to Good Article status. A little work has been done already, but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks, Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bibliography does not use a consistent format. Fixed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks! Nice work. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you could link to the article for Bugs Bunny's actual biography instead of the one for the term "biography", or at least give the name of the biography. It would make the second paragraph in the lead section a lot clearer--seeing that link for biography confused me, as I don't know what Bugs Bunny's biography is. SunDragon34 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; the "biography" in question is Joe Adamson's Bugs Bunny: 50 Years and Only One Grey Hare. I'll give the title of the book and then add the appropriate cite. Thanks for the suggestion. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

Who doesn't love Bugs? This is a great article to want to bring to GA, so I definitely applaud your effort. Some ideas/suggestions:

  • More citations are definitely needed. The works listed under "Bibliography" are not used as actual sources, so it should be renamed "Further reading". However, it would be fantastic if these works could be used as sources. Is that possible?
  • All citations should be formatted correctly as per WP:CITE. Some of the cites are currently missing pertinent information such as author, publisher and access date. See WP:CITET for examples of templates; they aren't mandatory but are very helpful.
  • The category "Fictional characters from Brooklyn" does not exist.
    • — Done Fixed.
  • Remember to keep in mind WP:LEAD, which states that the lead section is supposed to be an overview of the entire article. There are currently several things (Bugs Bunny's accent is a Flatbush accent, for example) that only appear in the lead. This should be fixed.
  • "Voice actors" should be converted to prose. I also want to know more about these actors, how they took on a role made famous by Blanc, what critics have to say about their performances, etc.
  • "Current popularity" seems trivial in places and should also be converted to prose. How about strengthening the section on Bugs' legacy, but in popular culture as well as in animation and comedy?

I hope this helped! If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the suggestions — it's a huge help! Referencing is definitely topping my list of priorities right now. The books listed under "Bibliography" should come in handy. Thanks again! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

[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, the comments from others will helpfully help for the improvement of the article. Thanks, Philscirel (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, it's too early for this. WP:Peer review is for stable articles, and this is not the case here. The right venue is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are new to WP and I suggest you stick around and get some edits under your belt first. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This article needs a copyedit to improve the writing. For example, is his name "Gülen" or "Gulen" (both spellings are used)? Before that is done, I would resolve some of the other issues mentioned next.
  • References do not meet Wikipedia standards in several ways: Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase without a space. The also need to be in order (so [1][2][3], not [2][1][3]. The refs do not give enough information, for example internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article needs more references, for example the 60 books are unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I also note that many of the refs seem to be from Gulen or his organization, it is better to use as many independent, third party sources as possible.
  • The lead should have an image at upper right (perhaps the seal or logo or flag of the Gelenist movement or a picture of Gulen himself). Any chance for some more (free) images?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the useful comments. i made some modification in the line of your suggestions, and working on it for a better quality, although maybe slowly. i will consult you when all the above is met. best. Philscirel (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that one third of the references belong to Zaman which is an offical newspaper of the Gulen Movement. Last time I counted 31 of 91 references in this article quotes from Zaman and around 20 references quotes from Gulen's offical web site, in total this makes more fifty percent of citiations from non-neutral sources. This casts serious doubt to the article's neutrality. Also nowhere in the article Zaman's connection with Gulen movement mentioned. In english speaking world, it's a common ethical standard to have disclaimers if the media publishinganything about their alleged shareholders. For example, whenever MSNBC.com published an article about Bill Gates, they always provide a disclaimer reminding readers that Bill Gates is a shareholder in MSNBC.
I suggest, at the end of the "Gulen Movement" section, it would be proper to add a new paragraph describing the movements media outlets including Zaman, Today's Zaman, Sunday's Zaman, Aksiyon, Bugun, Samanyolu, Star etc.

(AA 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

the sources from zaman, the most-selling newspaper, is the correct information. most of the other newspapers are under the influence of Ergenekon gangs and is claimed behind the accusations about gulen. their position to the article is no way better than zaman. besides, there are not many Turkish newspapers cover the related information in English. Philscirel (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem is to maintain NPOV and Zaman is the worst source to use as reference, since it's Gulen unoffical newspaper. In the entire history of Zaman, there is not even a single sentence published slighly critizising Gulen. Besides this article is about Gulen, not Ergenekon. There is no connection with Ergenkon and Gulen. You can not label all other newspapers under the influence. If there is a newspaper under influence, it's Zaman itself. By the way Zaman is not the only one publishing english, there is Turkish Daily News and Hurriyet is among many others. (Just a correction, Zaman is the most distributed newspaper in Turkey, not the most-selling, since it's widely distributed freely, even I receive free copies left to my apartment.) (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

This article has not a shred of neutrality and this is the third time in one month that Philscirel (talk · contribs) has asked for PR, when the article is nowhere near stability. Maybe he should find something else to do. --Adoniscik(t, c) 18:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of changes specific changes following my peer review - it should help the discussion re: NPOV and general readibility Jk54 (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted your edits. the article is worked for weeks and word by word. you deleted 40 links from the article. NPOV is not deletion of the well-documented information. please discuss first. Philscirel (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has serious problems with NPOV. I think -besides deleting 40 links-, the any references to Gulen organizations should also be removed. Clerance should start from the one third of the references pointing Zaman, other one third is pointing to Gulen's own home page, so in entire wikipedia history, NPOV never been damaged so much (AA 22:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC))

List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently created the article and have greatly expanded it since it's original draft. I was wondering what more I should do to possibly make a push for Featured List. :) Thanks, Ɔrassic (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: My initial impression is that the list itself looks pretty good, but at present is let down by rather poor lead and History sections. If you look at other football manager lists on WP:FL you will see that some don’t have a History section, merely a short lead followed by the list. Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Oxford United F.C. managers are examples of this. On the other hand, the managerial lists for both Manchester clubs have History sections. It is for you to decide what strategy to follow. There are many problems with the History section as it stands, and if you decide to keep it the question you should ask yourself is: what information are you giving in the section that is not in the table already?

  • Lead: WP:Lead requires a lead section to summarise the contents of the article/list. Yours does not do this. It gives unreferenced opinion on two of the managers, and very little else. I would expect the lead to say something like: "Oldham AFC has had 30 managers since the first was appointed in 1904. The longest serving was ABC, who held the job for xy years xy months, while the shortest tenure was that of XYZ whose term last only yz months. The most successful in terms of results was…..etc", you get the idea
    • Please note that these manages "led" the club (you use "lead" throughout the article).
  • History
    • Another example of a prose error which you repeat continually occurs in the first sentence: "In 1904 Oldham Athletic would gain their first manager…" Apart from the fact that "gain" is the wrong word here, the tense is wrong, too. There is no would about it: "In 1904 Oldham Athletic appointed their first manager…" Also:-
"Two years later Ashworth once again would lead the club to victory…"
"as the club would win the Lancashire cup…"
"Oldham would finish in second place…"
"Charlie (n.b. spelling) Roberts would take over the club for the 1921-22 season, but would only serve as manager…"
- there are many more of these
    • "led" not "lead", throughout
    • "3rd" should be written as "third", "1st" as "first", "2nd" as "second", etc
    • "top-half finishes" is football-speak. Explain what you mean.
    • What does this mean? "Though a four year absence due to the Second World War, Bamlett returned…." Wrong grammar, wrong war as well.
    • "Many of Oldham’s original players were killed…" Apart from your use of the weasel word "many", this sentence relates to the history of the club, not to the list of managers.
    • Grammar: "…led the club to promotion in 1952-53 by winning the league, but were relegated once more…"
    • No apostrophe in 1950s
    • "..went through two managers…including Ted Goodier and Norman Dodgin" Apart from the inelegance of "went through", what’s the "including" for?
    • "…entered Oldham Athletic"? Is this the best phrase?
    • Sudden unexplained use of nickname Latics
    • Grammar: "…the Latics would remain in Division Two and little FA Cup and Football League Cup success"
    • Too much club history in the para beginning "During the mid-1980s…
    • "businessman" spelling
    • Five years, not 5
    • Grammar in last sentence.

Please note that above are by no means the only prose faults in the History section which, if it is to be retained, ought to have a complete rewrite.

  • List
    • There should not be empty cells. I think you’ll find that Gordon Hurst is English (see List of Charlton Athletic F.C. players) As for Billy Ursom, a phone call to the PR officer at Oldham AFC should suffice.
    • It would be good to add a column showing the percentage wins of each manager, as a means of comparing performances (other manager lists show this)
    • The Honours column should show the years in which these honours were won. Also, if promotions were won by finishing second or third, these could fairly be counted as honours.
    • Soccerbase is your main source – all but 6 citations are to here. It should not be listed as an External source.

In view of the multiple prose problems, I personally think you would be wise to take the lead only option. Take a look at some of the manager lists where this has been done, to give you some ideas. I hope you have found this review helpful; if you would like me to look at it again after you have responded, leave a message. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New media

[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 its topic is extremely important, yet the article's treatment is like a school essay and random gathering of quotations by scholars, not a proper encyclopedia article. It would benefit from review by multiple, experienced editors. Thanks, ZimZalaBim talk 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Sillyfolkboy

  • The lead should be a summary of the article and not contain any information not in the body of the article. Maybe this section should be moved to a new section in the article and a whole new lead written. (see WP:LEAD) I've attempted to create a lead section. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article book references are made in an inappropriate manner e.g. (Croteau and Hoynes 2003: 311). These should be converted to footnotes with all the book's info/ISBN etc. (See WP:CITE)
  • A thorough check of the references should be made to see if they are reliable sources and correspond to the statements which they back up. Ref number 25 (broken link) is a particularly bad example of citation.
  • References (i.e. the numbers in the article body) should be placed immediately after the full stop of the sentence they back up and no spaces should be between each reference number.
  • All books in the references should be in italics.
  • "Articles and books" should be "Further reading" Done. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All sentences which appear to be original research (statements which need a reference to verify them but are without one) should be removed from the article as not to mislead the reader.
  • The notability of the term "new media" should be proved in the lead section (i.e when was the term first used? Is or was it a term used regularly by scholars/journalists?)
  • This statement should be sourced as proof of the origin of the term - "The term 'new media' gained popular currency in the mid 1990s as part of a marketing pitch for the proliferation of interactive educational and entertainment CD-ROMs."
  • Some terms are inaccurately wikilinked (e.g. Rheingold). Though entertaining, I'm sure Wagner's operas won't provide more insight into "New Media"!
  • The article contains some redlinks that appear not to warrant an article themselves (e.g. Andrew L. Shapiro). Those links should be removed.
  • The section header "New Media as a Tool for Social Change" should not use capital letters beyond the first word unless it refers to the title of a book/work etc.
  • The section "The new media industry" appears to be mislabelled as the section only refers to advertising and marketing: it should be renamed and fully referenced
  • This statement concerns me - "While the term New Media is disputed " - Why is it disputed? Who disputes the term? Above all - most importantly - who reaffirms the term?
  • A merge banner with Digital Media was removed and the merge discussed on the talk page. However I do think it would be appropriate to have a subsection summarising "New Media" in the "Digital Media" article.

If these problems are significantly dealt with I will post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
  • A scriptuyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyiooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what can be done to improve it further, in terms of style, and other such other factors. This is all the information I was able to get about the subject, and probably all there is at this moment. The article is comprehensive anough for an FA, but even so, I don't feel like it is suitable for such a label. So besides possible improvements, i would also like to know if this article is A-Class.
Thanks, diego_pmc (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Happysunshine

[edit]

Hello, I liked reading about the 5 different stories that were inside the book below the preface. The only things I found wrong with the article was reference #10, that wasn't really a reference, and ref. #11, youtube videos aren't really that reliable for references, you should try to find a different reference. Over all, if you fix those problems, the article could be an A class one.thinkjjgyuitgbn bmv m,nklnmdeded Thanks! (i hope i pass) ~ California Girl 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Although I've read some of the Harry Potter books or seen the movies, I did not know about these stories until reading this article. I am a quasi-outsider with a few suggestions for improvement.

  • The article seems written mainly for people who are familiar with the Harry Potter books. To reach a wider encyclopedia audience, it would be helpful to include a bit of background information about the series and its main characters. For example, the opening sentence of the "Fictional version" section says, " The Tales of Beedle the Bard also is a plot device in the seventh novel of the Harry Potter series, Deathly Hallows, in which it is bequeathed to Hermione Granger by Albus Dumbledore." You might briefly describe these characters as you go with constructions such as "Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry". Even though readers can find out who he is by clicking the Dumbledore link, it makes it a bit easier on them if you don't force them to hunt for the most basic information. A few of these asides and tidbits coupled with a brief general overview of the Harry Potter series would make the article more rich and interesting.
  • I'd recommend some copyediting and prose tightening. The sentence quoted above begins, " The Tales of Beedle the Bard also is a plot device in the seventh novel...." It might be more clear to say, "The Tales of Beedle the Bard first appears as a fictitious book that functions as a plot device in the seventh novel...."
  • I'd suggesting sticking with present tense in the plot summaries unless the context requires a tense change for clarity. For example, the plot summary of "The Tale of the Three Brothers" starts in the present tense but switches to the past tense for several sentences before switching again to the present tense toward the end.
  • It would be interesting to know the significance of "moonstone" and why Rowling called one book the "moonstone edition".
  • It would be interesting to know why Amazon paid so much for the manuscript. Perhaps Amazon published an explanation, or perhaps journalists, critics, or business analysts expressed informed opinions about this question.
  • The titles of short stories such as "The Warlock's Hairy Heart" should be set off in quotation marks rather than italicized.
  • Numbers from one to nine generally are spelled out in Wikipedia, but larger numbers generally appear as digits. For example, "twenty growth rings" should be "20 growth rings".

If you have questions or want more comments, please say so here. I have added the page to my watchlist. If you find these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toshio Masuda

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
So, the main weak point of the article might be that it primarily comes from one book—as mentioned in the article, Masuda's been glossed over in English language Japanese film scholarship and criticism—but I think it manages okay. Also, haven't found a reference for the Kinema Junpo readers choice award yet. Anyway, I'm looking for any glaring errors or omissions and maybe some opinions on whether this has GA or FA potential. Thanks very much, Doctor Sunshine talk 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yannismarou

[edit]
  • "Naruse had the biggest impact on him for whom he was 2nd AD on Ginza Cosmetics (1951) and Mother (1952)." I do not like this phrase's wording.
  • "Masuda continues to direct and write for television." What exactly? Can't you be more specific?
  • "Filmmaking" isn't a bit overlapping with "Career"? There you have also analysis of his filmmaking. What differentiates the two sections? Personnally, in "filmmaking" I would like to see more overall critical assessments of Masuda as director and filmmaking if there are any.
  • The same with Legacy. Analyzing Tora, Tora, Tora there also leads to overlaps with "Career". After all the receival of the film shouldn't IMO be analyzed in "Legacy" but in "Career" or "Filmaking", depending your structure. "Legacy" has to do with the influence of his art to the future generations.
  • Is commercial use allowed for Image:Toshio Masuda 2005.jpg? Clarify that in the image's page.
  • The prose seems fine, but I believe a copy-editing would help the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've begun copy editing and the like and will probably finish in the next day or two. I'm going to give the lead another go as well. It helps a lot to come back to it with fresh eyes. Point one is fixed. The specifics of his television career will be difficult. At some point I'll look into Japanese sources (not my strong suit) to at least provide a vague outline but currently I've only got a decade old Boshin War series from the IMDb to go on, which doesn't help much. The main idea between Career and Filmmaking is what he did versus how he did it—if there were more written on him I might have been able to add Themes and Style subsections to the latter. I've cleaned up Career a bit but there'll likely remain a little overlap just in terms of providing context, as people don't always read entire articles. In general, there's just not very much information available. A couple of his Nikkatsu films are due out on DVD next year and Chris D. has to finish his Yakuza Encyclopedia eventually, so hopefully things will change. I did forget about two reviews in Schilling's Yakuza Movie Book so I might be able to scrounge another sentence or two of analysis. I agree about Tora, I'll get that. For the image, commercial use is allowed, I think that's implicit in the permissions tag with "any purposes". It's also stated on the source's website (in Italian). I'll update here when everything's up to par. Doctor Sunshine talk 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vithoba

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The article just passed the GA process. Need suggestions for improvements to reach FA status.

  • Since the article is about a Hindu deity, some terms may be considered "jargon". I have tried to explain Sanskrit terms in English, wherever possible if more terms need explanation, please list them.
  • What more topics should be discussed for comprehensiveness, if the reviewer does not feel the article to be complete.
  • Is any re-organization of sections neccessary? Do you feel that the sections are introduced in a proper sequence.

Thanks, Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • The James Hastings work, current ref 2, is a published work and should be formatted as such, not as a website. Note also that this is a reprint of a work originally published in 1925-1935, and might be a bit out of date.
    • The Richard Maxwell source is also a book, and should be formatted as such. (current ref 9). In fact, you've done this with a number of works from googlebooks, it looks like. All of them should be formatted as books, not as webpages. Note that I'm not a big fan of using Google books snippets to source articles, as you often times miss the full context when you only use snippets.
    • What makes http://www.tukaram.com/pages/introduction.asp#top a reliable source?
    • What makes http://www.hampi.in/ a reliable source?
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Will contact you when i am done with referencing issues. Reply to Comments:

  • Hastings, and Richard refs are now written using {{citebook}} template.
  • About the work being "a bit out of date", I would like to point that authors like Sand[5] summarize theories of other scholars before proposing their own. So the book can never be "out of date" to express the view of it's author.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google books links are given so that editors can verify the refs, if they want and original book is not available.

Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think this is overall pretty well done and fairly close to FAC. Before going to FAC the article needs a copyedit - on of the FA requirements is professional prose and there are several places that need polished, mostly missing articles but also some awkward constructions.
Have approached Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the Etymology and Origins sections similar enough that I wonder if they could be combined. Just a thought and I might be wrong, but they both tend to look at modern theories of origins
Etymology is about the names and Origins about the origins. Etymology also includes theories about the evolution of the names, some of which overlap with those of the origins of the deity. The layout of the article is inspired by FA Ganesha, the only Hindu deity FA article. Thus my only reference.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize Vithoba is known by several different names, but I wonder if it would be possible to pick one name and stick with that for most references to him. SO sentences like Thus, he proposes that the worship of Panduranga may predate the temple itself.[26] can be confusing to the reader who has not heard of Vithoba before and does not realize this is another name for him. Perhaps something like Thus, he proposes that the worship of Vithoba as Panduranga may predate the temple itself.[26] would be clearer?
I will stick to Vithoba for consistency.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly I agree on the jargon - I like the parenthetical explanations where possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War in Darfur

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have requested this article to be peer reviewed because I believe this article can be improved to an almost featured status. The article's few FAC responses cited instability for opposing it's candidacy, something that could be contested if this article is improved. I am looking for general feedback, but mostly feedback on where this article need more/less detail, and how the sections could be restructured so this can become a more balanced article.

Cheers. -- Reaper X 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs serious ref work Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on the references - more are needed in many places in the article too, such as the first paragraph of the Timeline section). If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead needs work - see WP:LEAD. It should only be four paragraphs (not five) and the idea of the lead is that it is a summary of the whole article, so things like (see List of declarations of genocide in Darfur) should not be in there either.
  • Article needs a serious copyedit - two examples The Sudanese government has suppressed information by jailing and killing witnesses since 2004 and tampered with evidence such as mass graves to eliminate their forensic values[.][10][11][12] ("value" not "values" and missing period) or the awkwardness of In the lack of foreign political will to address the political and economic structures that underlie the conflict, the international community has defined the Darfur conflict in humanitarian assistance terms and debated the "genocide" label.[51]
  • There are numerous places where things are just done incorrectly. For example, the "See also" section is for articles within Wikipedia, not external links to things on the web (that is what an "External links" section is for). Or the "International response" section starts with Main article: International response to the Darfur conflict, so it makes nol sense to have this same header in the "Criticism of international response" subsection too. Or it is fine to have a list of abbreviations at the top of the article, but the article should still gived the full name and abbreviation after in parentheses on first use (as is done nicely in some cases, such as On October 16, 2006, Minority Rights Group (MRG) )
  • Article could be better organized - for example the Background section does not start with history or the location of Darfur, but with the UN Secretary General. When history is mentioned in the third paragraph, there are few dates given to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

[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 the article has been around 2 years since promotion to FA. I was thinking of putting it through a FA review but then I thought a peer review might be a better first step. I was wondering whether any areas need expansion due to changes in technology,treatment and knowledge in this time. I know some areas are lacking citation and I'll work on that ASAP. Just any suggestiongs in general would be appreciated.


Thanks, Ziphon (ALLears) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

BirgitteSB

[edit]
  • Lead: Not a proper summary of the article; needs expansion.
  • Signs and symptoms: Avoid the repetition of of the symptoms in the first two paragraphs. Too many parenthetical.
    • What the distinction between "hallmarks of an asthma attack" and "signs of an asthmatic episode" that they should be separate paragraphs? Organization of section is questionable.
    • Despite the severity of symptoms during an asthmatic episode, between attacks an asthmatic may show few or even no signs of the disease This should be last sentence of first paragraph (overview of section) rather than last sentence in the paragraph on sign of severe attacks.
  • Cause:
    • Asthma is caused by a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors that researchers do not fully understand yet. While it continually reads "genetic and environmental" the environmental subsection is presented before the genetic ones. Change to match.
 Done Ziphon (ALLears) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with other complex diseases, many genetic and environmental factors have been suggested as causes of asthma, but not all of them have been replicated. Replicated? Replicated in controlled studies, or in isolation of other factors?
    • The hygiene hypothesis is a theory about the cause of asthma and other allergic disease, and is supported by epidemiologic data for asthma . . . This should be moved out "overview section" and put under the "environmental section"
 DoneZiphon (ALLears) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Environmental sub-section: Bullets points should be converted to prose. This section reads like it is about "juvenile asthma" can it be made more general or if not specify "in children". Find more info on adults to balance what cannot be generalized.
 Doing... I'll try find some info on adult asthma Ziphon (ALLears) 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, as with all association studies, replication is important before genetic variation (such as a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP) in a certain gene is thought to influence asthma This is too technical. Try to explain it better.
    • The CD14 SNP C-159T and endotoxin exposure are a well-replicated example of a gene-environment interaction that is associated with asthma. How about "exposure to endotoxin from bacterial infections"? Try to not require the reading of linked articles to comprehend a sentence.

 Done I've tried to explain it better. Ziphon (ALLears) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pathophysiology: Needs an overview paragraph.
    • During an asthma episode, inflamed airways react to environmental triggers such as smoke, dust, or pollen Do we really need to go over examples of "environmental triggers" so shortly after reading that section?
    • inflamed airways . . . The airways narrow and produce excess mucus . . . I don't airways is consistently defined in the same way here. The tissue becomes inflamed and produce mucus, but it is the passages that narrow.
    • The airways of asthmatics are "hypersensitive" to certain triggers, also known as stimuli (see below). In response to exposure to these triggers, the bronchi (large airways) contract into spasm (an "asthma attack"). Yuck on the parenthetical. Also isn't this a little to introductory for this portion of the article.
    • The normal calibre of the bronchus is maintained by a balanced functioning of these systems, This is the opening of a new paragraph; what systems.
    • Stimuli subsection Rewrite as prose.
    • Pathogenesis subsection Should be either the first or last subsection; or else part of the overview without a titled subsection. Looks like a bulleted section with the bullet points removed. Make into proper prose.
    • Asmatha and . . . subsections Rewrite as a single subsection called "Coincedencee with other disorders". Add info on eczema and allergies per the following section.
  • Diagnosis: This section is completely lacking in organization and at times internaly repetitive. Needs to be re-worked into something cohesive.
    • The basic measurement is peak flow rates That really doesn't make sense. How is peak flow rate (links to the meter) a "measurement"?
    • Bulleted diagnostic criteria Even more incromprehensible to me. Is this dianosising that a person has obstruction or that the known obstruction is reversable? What do the the criteria actually mean in lay terms?
  • Prevention: Seems to be about prevention of attacks rather than prevention of asmatha. I would clarify this in overview paragraph mention that attacks can prevented or reduced in severity by medication and aviodence of triggers. Then make a new subsection called "Preventive medication". Or on second thought cut the section and merge as discussed below. Also rewrite bullet points in prose. Severely trim the information on air filters and merge into the "Avoidance of triggers" sub-section.
  • Treatment Needs serious re-oranization. The subsection titles are not mutually exclusive and earlier info is repeated. Bullets --> Prose.
    • The most effective treatment for asthma is identifying triggers, such as pets or aspirin, and limiting or eliminating exposure to them This is either a treatment or a preventaive. Don't repeat this in
    • Medical subsection This is repetative of preventive medications above. Maybe you should cut the preventative section altogether and merge everything into treatment. Is there anything that is really prevents of the disorder? Unless you mean to get into the Hygiene hypothesis, which is not currently covered, it is all really a treatment.
    • Long-acting β2-agonists subsection Quotations are ecessive. Why is this info in it's own subsection?
    • Treatment controversies' Why is this info in it's own subsection?
  • Prognosis: What is the prognosis for adults?
    • most studies show that early treatment with glucocorticoids prevents or ameliorates decline in lung function as measured by several parameters. This does not make sense.
  • Epidemiology: Why are we re-hashing the reisk factors again?
    • Asmatha and athlectics subsection Is this really "Epidemiology" or rather a risk factor and/or trigger?
  • History: This needs to be cut or a lot of work put into writing a comphensive section. Certainly the large quotation is unneeded.

As this was a FA, I jumped right into a detailed review. A quater of the way through I nearly abandoned this as I would not normally put so much time into an article put up for review with such obvious flaws not yet fixed. This needs a lot of work and I hope you really mean to address the issues. Some general issues: Sometimes things are written as if the article is "AsthmaCoincidenceinternallyincomprehensiblediagnosingreversibleasthmaavoidanceorganizationpreventativerepetitive attack"excessive rather than "AriskAsthmaathleticscomprehensivequarterAsthmaAsthmasmatha"; make an effort to clarify that you mean "during an attack" or similar. Often the article focuses rather narrowly on children, more generalized or specifically adult info is much needed. {{Fact}} tags need to be taken care of.--BirgitteSB 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Man Go

[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 take this article to FAC shortly, and am looking for help in making sure the prose flow is good, that it is not wordy and verbose, and that it makes sense to a non-horseperson. Also, suggestions on exactly where to LIST the article would be nice.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The main problem I have with the article is lack of information and context. Some things are explained well, but many others are missing details or could be explained better. For example, the lead image of the horse does not give the year or the race or the jockey. The lead is decent, but it omits any mention of years until the second paragraph, so the reader unfamiliar with the horse has no idea of when this is occurring. Although the years of his racing career are in the infobox, they should still be in the lead too. I would also give modern equivalents for monetary figures - adjusted for inflation, how much were his earnings worth, for example. See WP:PCR
  • Other information is just missing. Some of this is background, like the difference between a thoroughbred and a quarter horse (I do not know it and do not know how an animal with mostly thoroughbred ancestors can be a quarterhorse). Abbreviations also need to be indentified the first time so just "... registration with the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA)", but "TB" is never explained, so I thought his sire had tuberculosis at first. The most frustrating omission is what happened to the horse's parents and brother - how did they die?
    • How his brother died, is not mentioned. That's not unusual in horses, honestly. If the horse isn't famous, it's death is often unrecorded. The AQHA gets so few reports of deaths of horses, that they assume any horse older than 25 is dead. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems a bit short for FA. The Racing career section is only two paragraphs. Length is not a criterion, but comprehensiveness is. Are there other items / stories about him that could be added?
  • Article still needs a copyedit - for example His next five races were won by him with a total of nine horse-lengths lead.[10] His last race on September 6, 1959 at Ruidoso Downs was the last of the twelve times he faced Vandy's Flash, and the only time that Vandy's Flash won over Go Man Go.[14] could be rewritten as something like He won his next five races with a total of nine horse-lengths lead.[10] He faced Vandy's Flash twelve times, the last was also his last race on September 6, 1959 at Ruidoso Downs, and was the only one of their races that Vandy's Flash won.[14] The organization of Racing career also seems a bit odd - first there is a summary of his career, then the second paragraph is three sentences on his first race, a win streak, and his last race.

Hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work checking refs, Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

  • Lead looks better - I think just giving the abbreviation is OK and would add sire for parallel construction with the dam sentence that follows, so His father, or sire, was the unraced Thoroughbred (TB) stallion Top Deck, who was bred by the King Ranch.
  • Too precise "over $86,000 ($634,554.91 in 2007).[4]" probably just to nearest thousand "over $86,000 ($634,000 in 2007).[4]"
  • Is it worth mentioning in the lead that he was the grandson of a Kentucky Derby winner?
  • Still needs details in a few places - for example "He was inducted into the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame.[2] " what year? Or give the place (track) for this "A further honor was the naming of a stakes race after him.[35]"
  • I still think it needs a breif explanation of what a quarter horse is vs a TB. Otherwise (assuming a thorough copyedit) looks goood to me. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put one in in a footnote, any suggestions on where in the article to put it? And the classic definition of QH vs TB is that QHs run under a half mile, mainly a quarter or less, and tbs run at a mile or more. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the first paragraph of background would be a good place for a brief explanation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one Latin Albums of 1999 (U.S.)

[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 this list to be as acurate as possible and because I hope this list became a Featured List on Wikipedia.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JamieS93 – Not a full review, just a couple of comments:

  • Per WP:CAPS the article ought to be moved to the title: "Number-one Latin albums of 1999 (U.S.)" (a lowercase album). Unless any other specific reason exists, there's no need to capitalize words in an article's title that aren't the first word, pronouns, regular abbreviations (i.e., "U.S."), the official title of something, nationalities ("Latin"), etc. Answer: When I asked for a peer review for the list of 1993, the reviewer told me to capitalize all the title, but I can change it, no problem. checkY DONE!
  • All references should be after punctuation. In particular, "Amarte Es Un Placer became the fourth..." should have the three citations moved to after the period, without spacing between the full stop and refs. checkY DONE!
  • In your wikitable, albums that have charted at #1 for more than one week ought to be changed to having the one item in the "albums" column covering multiple rows, using 'rowspan="# of rows"|', if that made any sense. For instance, ¿Dónde Están los Ladrones? should cover six rows vertically, being automatically aligned in the center of those. If you need any help with the formatting, feel free to ask and I can lend a hand. :). Answer: I was thinking just the same, but I don't know how to do it, can you help me?. checkY DONE!

Hope that little bit helps! :) Jamie☆S93 13:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I agree with JamieS93's comments, here are a few more. Would it be possible to provide translations of the titles? This is the English WIkipedia and many readers will not know Spanish. The translations could be in a note or perhaps in parnetheses after the first use). Answer: If I put an extra table with the translations if that ok?
  • Any reason why the table is not sortable? Again ask if you do not know how to do this. Answer: Yes, I need some help with that. checkY DONE!
  • Article text needs a copyedit - ask one of the people listed at WP:PRV checkY DONE!
  • Is Rockonthenet.com a relaible source? Why not link directly to the Grammy web page?. Answer: The Grammy page does not show nominees, only winners. Rock on the net is reliable. I wanted only one reference to use for both artists, but I can change it if its necessary.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply - I just made the table sortable and left the refs unsorted. I think the easiest thing would be to either put the translation in the same cell as the title, but in parntheses, or perhaps add another column with the translation, or maybe put the translation in a foot note. I do not think an extra table would help as much. I am not very familiar with music sources, so that is why I asked about the reliability. Glad my comments were useful and nice to review an article where more than one album was number one!~ Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Made Huckabee?

[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, after seeing this article survive AfD, I'd really like to work on bringing it up to Good Article status. A little work has been done already (mostly on the naming), but any suggestions, ideas, comments, and advice would really be appreciated. Thanks. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 16:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of dog breeds

[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 has recently undergone an overhaul and I want to see what could be improved to get it to Featured List status. ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 08:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wouldn't this list be more interesting if the breeds were organized by their most common function? I.e. guard dogs, herding dogs, toy dogs, and so forth. It would also be more functional if there were more information beside each breed, such as geography point of origin, typical size, &c. Perhaps even a table of information? Anyway, just some thoughts for consideration.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Since there are no breeds that start with numbers and none for several letters (Q, X, Z) why not use {{CompactTOC8}} which has no numbers and lets you turn off unused letters?
 Done using a custom TOC as CompactTOC8 has a background that didn't look right.
  • If you are going for FL, this will need many more references - for example what is the source of the list - on what basis are these breeds included here?
 Working will take a bit of time to verify each one
  • The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD and there should be an image in the top right corner (and fewer images in the P section)
 Working will do soon
  • Per WP:MOS#Images do not use pixel widths, just thumb to allow reader preferences to take over.
 Done
  • If the list were a table and sortable, then common function could be an entry in the table for each do and the list could be sorted that way. Other possibilities to include in the table as separate columns come to mind - by size or by country of origin.
 Working on making it a table.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions :) ~ Ameliorate U T C @ 10:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Barrymore

[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 know what needs to be done, so the article can become an FA.

Thanks, --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Everglades

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a LONG article, but necessary to be comprehensive. I am looking for input in the following issues:

  • Flow: the text flows and connects well
  • Originality: I added to this article by creating four other articles. Some of the information in those articles is here, either cut and pasted in chunks, or in similar sentences. I don't want readers to be faced with the same prose from another article to this one
  • Comprehensiveness: the region's boundaries, geology, ecology, and history are thoroughly explained

I would like to take this article to FA. Thank you for reading it. Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Feast of Fools (podcast)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is now looking fairly comprehensive, and a while back I think I trimmed excessive self-promotion. I'm still a bit worried that it sounds self-promotional, but as a listener of the show I'm having a hard time looking at it objectively. I think it's time that some fresh eyes look at it. Does this article have a neutrality problem, and if so, what specific parts of it would need to be modified, and how? Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • There are several things in the lead that need to be fixed. The title should be in bold, and LGBT needs to be explained - spelled out and (LGBT) after. The lead should also be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article as written is very list-y, most (or all) of these bullet point lists should be converted to prose.
  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Show personalities section has no refs, and there are none in the last two paragraphs of History. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. I also note that internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these should be combined with others or possibly expanded. I would also provicde context for the reader (see WP:PCR) and explain who some of these people are, just to pick one "Kinidy Monrow- Guest" That seems to me to be the most self promotional parts - who are these people and why should they be mentioned here?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Golden Gophers men's basketball

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to Good Article, and ultimately perhaps higher, status, but I've been the primary contributor for some time, so I'm not sure of where to seek out improvement.

Thanks, matt91486 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be expanded so that it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should set to "thumb" width to allow reader preferences to take over. Potrait format images can be narrower using "vertical"
  • I would consider adding years to the headers in the History section to provide context to the reader. A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many sports team FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation
  • The Results by season table is too long for the article and should be split off as its own article (and perhaps could become a WP:FL)
  • Article needs more / better references, for example During this time an NCAA investigation was also underway. They agreed with the University that massive fraud took place under Haskins watch, and stripped the Gophers of all awards and titles dating back to the 1993-94 season citing "Lack of institutional control". the direct quotation here is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll work on improving stuff. Out of curiosity, which images don't show up as thumbnails? It looks as though they all have that encoded in; perhaps I didn't do something correctly? matt91486 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I think I figured out what you meant by the thumb width now. I've incorporated that, and some of your other suggestions, at this time. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald fitz Jocelin

[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 take this article to FAC at some point, and would appreciate help with jargon, and prose.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead does not give any indication of his date of death, which is known. The lead also should be at least two paragraphs per WP:LEAD. Also any guesses as to when he was born?
  • Some sources say that he was born while his father was studying law in Italy. needs a ref
  • I think the article needs more background on the whole Becket affair to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR Also provide things like the year of Becket's murder.
    • Aaaah, dad, do I gotta? I hate Becket ... WAY too much time spent listening to a fellow student drone and drone and drone about him... (sniffles and looks pitiful). In a more serious vein, not a problem. Just take a bit of time... which I seem to be running perpetually short of... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might also want to mention the name of the previous archbishop of Canterbury and when he died. Other than these, this looks pretty good.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is the current Shakespeare project collaboration for FA. We need someone to go through it with a fine comb in preparation for FAC.

Thanks, Wrad (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sociology in Poland

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is a B-class article that appears to have potential. While it may have some rough edges, with a bit of work this article could make it to GA status. It is currently a Good Article Nominee, and I am looking for feedback from other editors as to what they think of it. Any suggestions of any sorts would be greatly appreciated.


Thanks, J.T Pearson (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I bring the eyes of an outsider to this article, and I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • What I most long for as I read the article are specific examples to make the generalizations more rich and clear. For example, the second sentence of the lead mentions "currents of thought", but nowhere in the article are these currents explained except in general terms. It's OK to quote someone saying that Polish sociology is a "notable and separate field", but you need to show us how it is notable, how it is different from, say, the sociology of Russia, or the sociology of Italy. I'm not convinced it's sufficient to say that the sociology of Poland is different from the sociology of Russia because they are two different countries, and to let it go at that. I'd suggest working into the main text at least a brief description of the ideas of Znaniecki, Malinowski, and the other most prominent Polish sociologists. Go beyond labels like "Marxist" or "positivist" and tell us more specifically what these guys were thinking about and saying and, if possible, what difference this made on life in Poland.
  • Three sources for the entire article are extremely few, and about half of the article is devoted to lists. I think these two things are related; it may be that the lists are meant to substitute for development of the main text. They can't. Perhaps the specifics that I am longing for in the main text might be found in the journals and papers in the lists and summarized or quoted, with citations. This would make the main text longer and more interesting and the lists shorter and more to the point. I realize that incorporating this material will be time-consuming and difficult, but it should also produce a more compelling article.
  • I notice some smaller things that need fixing. In the journals list, PAN only needs to be wikilinked once. Journal articles should be set off by quotation marks to distinguish them from book-length works, which should appear in italics. I'd suggest making the "further reading" list alphabetical by author's last name; e.g., Znaniecka, Eileen Markley, rather than Eileen Markley Znaniecka. I see other copyediting work to be done here as well. My third suggestion is to find a copyeditor to help with Manual of Style issues.

If you have questions or would like more comments, please ask. I hope these comments are helpful. Please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the peer review backlog. That is where I found this article. Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

José Sarria

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to FA and it needs a good going-over by some fresh eyes. One specific concern is that it is fairly heavily dependent on the Gorman book. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a generally well-written article about an interesting person. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • You mentioned a concern about relying on Gorman. You might achieve better balance by compressing the two sections about family history and early life. They have more detail than necessary, and they rely heavily on Gorman. You could compress the paragraph and a half about Kolish, for example, to perhaps three pithy sentences. Cut to the chase in these sections and throughout. In my opinion, this would improve the article more than any other single thing.
  • It would be good to add other images if you can find ones that are properly licensed. Possibilities might include the Black Cat Bar, the Palace Hotel, the St. Francis Hotel or other buildings or districts mentioned in the article or photos or mug shots of the people mentioned. It might work to add something like the Signal Corps insignia.
  • The lead should include at least a mention of each of the main topics of the article. A good rule of thumb is to include something about each section. Missing from the existing lead are any mention of family history, early life, and later life. I would suggest re-writing the lead, aiming for perhaps four paragraphs that summarize the main points.
  • You might consider improving the encyclopedia by creating articles for one or more of the red links. The League for Civil Education and the GLBT Historical Society might be good candidates.
  • Orphan paragraphs such as the last paragraph of the lead should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. I see several of these orphans in the article.
  • It would be good to enlist the aid of a copyeditor to catch small things such as those listed below:
  • Each ampersand, unless part of a formal company name, should be converted to "and". For example, "Aldrich, Robert & Garry Wotherspoon" in the "References" section should be "Robert and Garry Wotherspoon".
  • Instead of "References", I might suggest "Sources" as a section head since the "Notes" are also references.
  • The Manual of Style generally advises against using the word "the" in section heads. "The Nightingale of Montgomery Street" should be "Nightingale of Montgomery Street".
  • Punctuation marks are placed inside quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation. (See WP:PUNCT). "In 1964 Sarria declared himself "Empress José I, The Widow Norton." The sentence should end "...The Widow Norton".
  • Constructions such as "43 years" need to have a no-break space code between the digits and the units to keep them from being separated on computer monitors by line-breaks. See WP:NBSP.

If you found these comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article from the Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items, which is where I found this one. If you have questions, please ask. Finetooth (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been up for a "featured article" nomination several times and has been denied. I have extensive knowledge of this movie and its production and I would like to help this article achieve its goal of a "featured article".

I have been looking over the Talk page and I noticed many submissions and clean-up has been done since this article was last nominated.

What I really want is more input from other editors as to how we can improve this article. I believe it really stands out, but Im sure it could use some minor work to top it off.

Let us know what you think guys.


Thanks, DrNegative (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion King copyedit

[edit]

No problem on the copyedit—I'm just finishing up a couple other projects. I should be able to get started right away, but you probably won't see any edits until tomorrow. Today will just be analysis and note-taking. I look forward to seeing The Lion King pass its FA review. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review part 1 - Issues largely resolved, Sillyfolkboy
    • Is there a need to bold the actors who voiced the characters in the list section?
    • Ensure all corresponding instances of The Lion King are correctly placed in italics.
    • Lead
      • Do you have a source which confirms that the idea "Disney Renaissance" exists and that this movie is a part of it?
      • Can you explain how Bambi influenced The Lion King?
    • Production
      • "The Lion King was once considered a secondary project to Pocahontas, both of which were in production at the same time" both of is redundant here.
      • "This animated film was created and recorded at a studio in Burbank, California." Source? Also, "This animated film" is a little clumsy.
      • No caps needed for "chief operating officer". Also, any sources for his death and the tribute statement?
      • I seem to remember that the extensive use of 3D animation (especially the wildebeest scene) was significant at the time; was this the first time it was used in a feature length Disney cartoon (or similar)?
    • Reaction
      • I think the Rotten Tomatoes currently 92% info will date quickly. Can this be framed an alternate way? e.g. Scored/scores very highly on the Rotten Tomatoes scale?
      • I think "Mixed reaction" seems to overstate the fact that it was criticised. Should state something like: Lion King was praised and given a "thumbs up" but was said to be not on par with B&B, stating it was "a good film not a great one" Or something to that effect.
      • Perhaps a couple more reviews could help here, or expansion of currently cited ones: e.g. why was Lion King an "almost daunting achievement"? What was the reasoning behind this comment?
    • Box office
      • Is the initial gross needed in the box? After all, this is fully explained in the following passage. Do any other films only rank on initial box office sales or something?
      • Source for "fourth highest grossing animated film"? Also - how can this be the fourth top grossing animated feature film AND the most successful animated feature film? Which is it?
    • Awards
      • Perhaps have an introductory statement in the section - explaining what parts of the film were most critically acclaimed (i.e. best animated film awards and music awards - esp. "Can you Feel the Love Tonight" by EJ and TR). Then follow with the list.
      • Convert bare external links in the list section into references.
      • Change American Film Institute award to a listing type to fit in with style (i.e. remove prose).
    • Music

That's enough to work with for now.

If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Parts 2

[edit]
  • Characters
    • I'd rephrase the sentence about the voicings of Simba while singing. It's not too clear that Joseph Williams was his adult singing voice. Try something like Simba's singing parts demanded further voice actors, Jason Weaver furnishing him with a singing voice as a cub, and Joseph Williams as an adult
    • A bit nit picky but - Do we have any proof that Scar's scar is a battle wound? I can't remember him explaining its origin in the film. Maybe try "named for his disfiguring wound"?
    • For the hyenas - the phrase "second-in-commands" is a bit clunky - can you find a better phrasing for this?
  • Production
  • Reaction
  • Soundtrack
    • The final sentence refers to a bootleg of the score with extra material that didn't make the official release. Maybe this should be made clear, like: "A bootleg release entitled Lion King (Expanded Score - no FX) featured unreleased instrumental material from Hans Zimmer's original score". Their appearance on EBay is not so important as I think this happens with most bootleg releases from time to time. Plus, the phrase "long lost" is a little untrue as Disney probably had it in their archives all this time anyway.
  • Spin offs
    • "Also debuted in 1995 was a spin-off television series called The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa which focused on the titular meerkat and warthog duo in a more modern, human world than the film's" Rephrase to "A spin-off television series called The Lion King's Timon and Pumbaa, which focused on the titular meerkat and warthog duo in a more modern, human world than the film's, also debuted in 1995"
    • Any wikilinks for the characters Kiara and Kovu?
    • "perspective of Timon and Pumbaa as well as some background on these two characters" Rephrase to "perspective of Timon and Pumbaa and providing background on the duo."
    • The final paragraph here seems to be in bits and pieces - can this be rewritten too?
  • Home video
  • Musical
    • Try summarising a little of the info in the main article - e.g. worldwide productions, featuring actors in animal costumes, uses songs from the soundtrack, some changes to scene/plot/character and finding citations for the Tony awards. No need to go overboard here though, just a short paragraph.
  • Controversies
    • "Other parallels include that most characters in Kimba have an analogue in The Lion King and that various individual scenes are nearly identical in composition and camera angle." Any proof of this?
    • "Early production artwork on the film's Platinum Edition DVD even depicts a white lion, but later it was found to be Taka, a lion that was to be in the film but was cut short (Taka was later revealed to have been Scar's birth name)." Split into two sentences and align citation.
  • Video Games
    • "The NES version, however, was only released in Europe, and was not identical to the SNES version." This is a little strange because I imagine all of these games are slightly different from each other anyway - I know the SNES and genesis versions are a bit different from first hand experience. Perhaps reduce this to the fact that the NES version was a Europe only release(?)
    • Is the second game based on this movie or a later sequel?
    • Find citations for the kingdom hearts info - I'm sure there are plenty of game reviews that might mention this kind of thing.
    • This looks like original research and should be removed: "Zazu is absent from the game entirely, though this may be to prevent any confusion between zazu and a disguised Donald Duck (Donald is disguised as a zazu-like bird in the level)"
  • Template
    • Is the template listing The Lion King as an adaptation of Hamlet really necessary? Maybe expand the info on the connection between the two to justify this.
  • References
    • Please be aware - All references to IMDB will be challenged at FA - There are suggestions that it is an insider wiki and it is not always reliable.
    • When listing a publisher only books, journals, periodicals and newspapers (such as International Herald Tribune) should be in italics. Websites such as Rotten Tomatoes and BBC should be left in plain script.
    • Try wikilinking publishers where possible - Though this is more of a matter of style than policy.
    • Ensure all dates are listed for links that have publication dates (and authors where possible).
    • Refs 35 to 40 will also be questioned at FA - "Be Prepared"...to find new ones :)

That's it. I hope these suggestions were helpful. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Glenrothes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached a stage where if other modifications are made to the article it will begin to ruin what appears to be a strong and quality article.

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am reallly not sure I understand the comment above - this is a good start, but it is not a Good Article and nowhere near WP:FA yet. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement (and hopefully not ruin). If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • References are a major problem. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation without a space, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example the Transport section has 5 subsections, 4 of which are unreferenced. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Many of the refs are just bare links - internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are many short paragraphs (one or two sentences) and also many short sections (one paragraph) which should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Article needs a copyedit and to use specifics where possible, for example in the lead The population of Glenrothes[,] based on recent [2006?] projections, is 38,927 people. [1] or better yet Based on 2006 projections, the population is 38,927.[1] (does it really need to say Glenrothes or people - aren't they understood here? Ask for copyedit help at WP:PRV
  • Headers should not repeat the name of the article unless quoting something, so "Glenrothes Today" could just be "Today" or perhaps give a date, while "Glenrothes Development Corporation" is OK as a header - see WP:HEAD

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I had a feeling the references where going to be an outstanding problem. I'll try and make the neccessary changes when I can find the time.

What I meant in my commment is that people are continuing to make edits to the article, and if that continues as it has been the article could very easily be ruined from "over editing".

Thanks, Mcwesty (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[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 currently a good article. I need to at least get this up to FA status. It is one of the best articles on Wikipedia in my opinion. Any feedback on how to improve it shall be very much appreciated.


Thanks, Greg Jones II 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Is "also" really needed in John Hurt and Jim Broadbent also play fellow academics.
  • Unclear who the three men are in Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, Frank Darabont and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts, before David Koepp's script satisfied all three men.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but critical reception and box office is not. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I also think the lead goes into too much detail on the secrecy issues.
  • In the Box office section, I would make it clearer what the date for the box office receipts is.

That's a start - hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Maximum Speed Law

[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 bring the article up to a Good Article status.

Thanks, KelleyCook (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and topic. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The lead is too long for the article length. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article is too list-y and these lists should be converted to prose
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example the whole Popular culture section is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Refs 2 and 24 need more information - see WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source for "(Source: comparison of Reasonable Drivers Unanimous historical chart against Wikipedia Speed limits in the United States.)"

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F.

[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'd like to get some comments to improve it. Also, I believe it could become a Featured List.

Thanks, Saudi9999 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. I do not think this article meets the crteria to be considered a list, so it can not become a Featured List. I think it needs a lot of work to get to Featured Article, but that seems the correct goal to me.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (the Harvard case study). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • I do not think the lyrics of the two club songs should be quoted in their entirety - that is copyrighted material and to give the whole song is a copyvio
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Article needs a good copyedit for grammar and also to tighten things up - the lead repeats 9 European championships
  • Some of the references seem to be fan sites and may not meet WP:RS - for example realmadrid.pl
  • I just removed the "Himno del Real Madrid" section as it was a cut and paste copyvio from http://www.realmadrid.pl/index.php?co=hymn&newlang=en

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit comments

  • Professional spelt wrong in the lead
  • Is the information about the presidents and secretaries relevant as they don't seem to be responsible for the splits, unless you are not making this explicit
  • "The club won the European Cup for a sixth time in 1966 defeating FK Partizan 2–1 in the final with a team composed entirely of nationally-born players - a first in the competition." - a en or em dash should be used instead of the ordinary dash
  • "It" should not be used when referring to Madrid, use the club or Real Madrid
  • Are 4 refs necessary at the end of the third paragraph in the history section
  • "Atlético Celaya in Mexico.[31]In" - space needed between ref and new sentence
  • "The first change in the crest occurred in 1908,when the letters adopted a more streamlined form and appeared inside a circle." space needed after comma
  • Not sure the budget and criticism sections are needed
  • Wikilink the respective final years mentioned in the stadium section
  • A thorough copyedit is needed as the article has a few grammar problems, and some of the sections do not flow very well
  • Have a look at other featured articles such as Arsenal F.C. and Chelsea F.C.

That's all for now NapHit (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Oldelpaso
  • It is anachronistic to say that the club has won the Champions League nine times, most of these were when the competition was the European Cup. Using "European Cup" works for both, as "European Cup" can refer to the trophy.
  • Single years should be delinked.
  • Los Blancos is the most successful club in UEFA club football competitions history mixes singular and plural within the same sentence. This also occurs on one or two other occasions.
  • What does "most extensive football club" mean?
  • Richest in terms of revenue -> has the largest turnover.
  • The early part of the history section perhaps focuses too much on presidents to the detriment of what the club did. For instance, it is not mentioned that Read Madrid were founder members of the league, or when first won the league title.
  • In 1920 the club's name was changed to Real Madrid after the King granted the title of Real (Royal) to the club. - Which King? A link to the monarch in question would be useful.
  • In 1912 it moved to its first ground called 'Campo de O'Donnell' after moving between some minor grounds. If they played elsewhere it wasn't their first ground. Was it the first ground owned by the club, the first purpose built groundm or something like that?
  • with a team composed entirely of nationally-born players - I know what this is trying to say but it needs rephrasing, all players are born in a nation.
  • It is probably excessive detail to list when and where each of the La Quinta del Buitre left the club.
  • There is a deadlinked image.
  • The club controversially got its training ground re-zoned - What does this mean?
  • Wasn't Capello sacked after winning the title on two separate occasions?
  • Listing lyrics in Spanish doesn't provide much insight on the English Wikipedia.
  • Why is the song Real's official anthem? What is the song about?
  • Was the change in crest anything to do with Franco? Speaking of Franco, weren't Real known for being Franco's favoured team?
  • The most recent modification to the crest occurred in 2001, when the club wanted to better position itself for the twenty-first century and further standardize its crest. - I don't know if you can find a cite for it, but this will almost certainly be due to a lack of copyrights and trademarks on the previous crest (most major European clubs have done something similar in the last 15 years).
  • was replaced by a 100% white version - "100%" should not appear in prose. Try "all-white" or similar.
  • Interwiki links should not be present in text. If there is no English Wikipedia article, than a redlink is fine.
  • No need to run through sponsor and kit manufacturers in both prose and in a table. One should be removed, preferably the table.
  • The world-record fee of €76 million (over US$100 million, £45.8 million) for Zinedine Zidane's transfer from Juventus to Real Madrid in 2001 is the highest ever paid - if it is a world record then by definition it is the highest ever paid, and thus does not need to be described as such.
  • approximately 68,670 - a very precise number for an approximation.
  • The Cristiano Ronaldo affair is a ephemeral news story which has no place in the main Real Madrid article.
  • Youth players without squad numbers should not be included in the squad list.
  • Either complete the list of captains for the full club history, or remove it.
  • When a team has won as many trophies as Real Madrid, it might be worth considering omitting those in which the club was runner-up.
  • Some references appear to be fansites. What makes them reliable?

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shearer

[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 recently helped take it to GA status, and would like some fresh, experienced eyes to give some feedback as to where it can be improved to help it on it's way to FA (and to point out just how shoddy my prose is!). I am wondering whether the lead is ok, and whether I should separate the international career segments more from the club career section as a lot is covered in its own section. I also feel the Honours section is a bit of a mess, and any suggestions about improving it would be appreciated!

I would like to note that the absence of photos is a known issue, and we are working on it, but there aren't any currently available.

Thanks, - Toon05 21:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was just demoted from featured list, and since then, the article has changed drastically. In fact, it is practically a whole different article. Any comments welcome. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 22:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Haha169
Ah...good. I was just about to start a peer review session. I was also just scanning the FL criteria, and I also think it meets pretty much everything listed there. I would, however, like to see a couple cites in the lead, especially the end of paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 refs seem to be listed in "General".

Good job. I really liked the coloring syntax improvements. --haha169 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Needs a copyedit - just the lead sentence is missing a few words The following is an episode list for Nickelodeon's animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender[, which?] first aired on February 21, 2005 with a one-hour series premiere,[1] and concluded its [run?] with a two-hour series finale on July 19, 2008.[2]
  • Make sure that fictional elements are described from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U
    • I'm just going to take over for Parent while he's busy doing homework per his talk page. Anyway, could you possibly give more specific examples? The only fictitious section in this list is a short plot in the lead. --haha169 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the section I meant - imagine you knew nothing of the series (I know a little bit about it, but have never seen a full episode). What is "bending"? What is an "Avatar"? That's the sort of thing that is hard to explain succinctly, but try harder here please Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried to explain it short and sweetly, is the way it is okay? Rau's Speak Page 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Somewhat - my understanding is that many people can manipulate one of the four elements fairly well, but only the Avatar can "bend" all four elements. The current first sentence of the plot paragraph makes it sound like only the Avatar can "bend" Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've partially re-written Rau's addition. How's it sound now? Remember: Avatar isn't exactly a person. He's not mortal. --haha169 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I have written it to include that normal people can do it too. And what do you mean the Avatar isn't mortal? Roku was killed. Aang would have died if not for Katara. Just because Kyoshi was a freak doesn't mean the rest of them are. And being reincarnated doesn't mean that you aren't mortal. It means that you can be killed, and then come back as something else. Rau's Speak Page 13:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add more references to the lead, especially since there are no refs after the first sentence
    • Some of the stuff in the lead is listed in the "General" section of the References section. I've added a few more refs to those that don't relate to the "General" section. I think I just resolved my above comment as well. :P --haha169 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the colors too, good idea

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Yankees seasons

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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 make this a featured list and would like an outside opinion or two before I take it to FLC. The lead is based on Boston Red Sox seasons and the table is modeled after St. Louis Cardinals seasons (both of which are featured), with some changes here and there. This is my first attempt to get a page featured, so help is appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (17-14) 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • This looks really good to me, especially for a fist effort at FL. These will be nitpicks - Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over (do not use px). For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • The Yankees article has many more images, many free. Any chance for adding more images?
  • The notes are good at explaining the abbreviations used, perhaps there should be some sort of explanation at the top that the abbreviations are expalined in the Notes below?
  • Refs look good. Any chance the table could be sortable?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I removed the px from the stadium picture, and added more photos and a disclaimer on the notes. I'm afraid that I can't figure out how to make the table sortable, though. Every time I try, something gets formatted incorrectly in the preview. I don't believe it's mandatory, so hopefully it won't be a big issue at FLC. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is reqauired for FLC. List of Pennsylvania state parks is a sortable FL if you want an example. I think that all of the fancy things in the table (breaks between the Baltimore and Highlander teams, summary at the end) may make it so that it can not be sortable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo International Airport

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Filing a more proper PR request after learning that failed FACs may only file PR requests at least two weeks after such, I hope to prepare this article once again for FA, or even GA, status in preparation for the Tinuom Festival in Cabatuan on September 10, the municipality where the airport is situated. After taking into account many comments from a PR and an FAC, I hope to be able to receive more comments in order to better improve the article. Thanks! --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Peripitus
  • A map of the airport layout would be a positive thing in the article
  • A few bits of redundancy that need cleaning up - I've just picked a few at random with how I would word them.
    • With the closure of Mandurriao Airport, Iloilo International Airport inherited Mandurriao Airport's IATA and ICAO airport codes - given the following text this seems overly wordy
    • 6.2-billion peso (US$112 million) loan as part of a loan package provided - that the package is a loan one is implicit.
    • During the course of the airport's construction, the airport - says the same thing
    • for transport services to and from the airport - from is implicit here
    • as after it was found that Mandurriao Airport was deemed unexpandable due to operational obstacles and the presence of neighboring structures that prohibited its expansion
    • Out of the three proposals, the proposal to rename the airportThe name Panay International Airport had since been was dropped due to opposition by the Iloilo city and provincial governments - again says the same thing more succinctly
  • A few bits of unclear writing with repetativeness
    • "The first proposal, Iloilo International Airport, refers to the original name of the airport which had the support of the Iloilo provincial government and the Iloilo city government" is unclearly written. Perhaps better as "Iloilo International Airport was the first proposal and had the support of the Iloilo provincial and city governments". The rest of this paragraph needs some work with repeated use of the word "proposal" that seem unneccessary
  • The lead needs to summarise the whole article. It is missing information on the naming, history and physical structure sections.
  • In the history section, the airport begins with an executive order of 1998. A lot would have occurred before this that should be mentioned. Though there is text on the reason behind its creation this would be better earlier in the section with more information and dates.
  • Currently, no airline is operating international routes to and from Iloilo - far better in an "As of <date>" format as this type of line ages fast
  • In the "Public transportation" section the values quoted, if kept, need dates on which they were valid
  • As noted in the first peer review there are many short paragraphs that could be combined. With any paragraphs of only a couple of sentences (Paragraph 2 in "Passenger terminal", all in "Other structures", the "Opening Dates" section and other places), consider combining them where they cover a common theme.
  • Quite a few repeated references. It's not necessary to have a reference at the end of each sentence - a single reference should only appear at the end of the complete paragraph subsection it references. See "History" paragraph 2 with ref [2] repeated thrice, "History" paragraph 4 with [6] twice in sucession, "Inauguration and start of operations" paragraphs 1 and 3 - there are some others as well

- Peripitus (Talk) 06:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
  • I would love an airport map, but since this airport is virtually new, there is not one available. There may be one in the records of the ATO/CAAP, but I cannot guarantee that they will allow me to get it for use on Wikipedia.
  • On redundancies: these will be fixed (points 2, 3, 4 and 5 are already fixed)
  • There is information on what happened before 1998 in the Bacolod-Silay City International Airport article and has likewise been incorporated in the article.
  • The line on international service has been changed to "As of 2008...". I can always change this though to reflect an actual date.
  • Taxi fares are valid as of 2007. Any changes to reflect 2008 prices would either entail using blogs (which Filipinos trust but Wikipedia doesn't accept as valid) or OR, which I cannot do since I am not resident in Iloilo City.
I will of course address the other issues when I have additional time to do so. In the meantime, thanks for the review! --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update
  • Sections on the airport's passenger terminal and other facilities have been cleaned up. For both, the three paragraphs were made into two paragraphs. For the former, some references have likewise been rationalized. The "Other structures" section has to be kept since these are distinct parts of the airport complex.
  • The names section was partially cleaned up, removing redundancies found in the second paragraph.
  • The lead has been expanded and re-written to be more expansive of the airport's coverage
--Sky Harbor (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hip hop albums

[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 feedback with a view to improving the article. Perhaps it'll go over to FLC at some stage. I'm away from home right now, but I'll be checking back regularly. Thanks. 86.44.xx.xx. or in this case...212.2.165.61 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Quick comments from ~ Eóin (talk)

  • Would a better title be "List of important hip hop albums" or "List of notable hip hop albums". I first expected to this page to have all hip hop albums ever made.
  • Could there be some bolding in the lead?

Got it started for you. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on the title, such renaming is beyond my power. Note though that no article of the type you expected should exist here under WP:NOT (indiscriminate lists) :)
Neutral on the bolding too; my lead is mostly cribbed from list of important operas.Thanks to you yet again! 212.2.165.61 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards renaming the list as this one is clearly misleading. Many readers will think it is a comprehensive list of all hip hop albums. Eklipse (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Emw2012 (talk · contribs)
  • It seems like most other articles contain only important related subjects, that is "important" is assumed, so the title seems good.
2pac is certainly the most striking omission. He is one of the artist penalized for having no one album universally recognized as superior or zeitgeist-changing in a way that his others are not; different critics, if they rate him, select either Me Against The World, All Eyez on Me or Don Killuminati as best representing him. Unlike, say, A Tribe Called Quest, few lists of this kind include more than one 2pac album.
MC Hammer's record, despite its success, is seen as entirely disposable. In a slightly similar way, I think Outkast's ATliens and Aquemini, and perhaps even some more of their records, are better regarded than Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, despite its success. Only Aquemini makes the list. CrazySexyCool appears on none of the ten lists consulted here IIRC—probably it is regarded as R n'B.
Taking all three sections there are 66 albums listed. Given that recorded hip hop has a history of only thirty years, that doesn't seem sparse to me. However more recent albums will be under-represented, due both to the dates of the lists consulted, and the frequent too-soon-to-tell attitudes of careful critics. 212.2.165.61 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroplasticity

[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 a seminal topic in neuroscience today. Articles appear almost daily in HHMI, ScienceDaily, and EurekAlert about Neuroplasticity and a search in any library database brings up scores of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The most important work on this subject has been done within the past 10 years. In its present state, the article is rather sketchy, and as one reader observed on the discussion page, it "lacks soul." I have made some minor efforts at revision within the past two days. I have been working on a research paper for an undergraduate class, and therefore have done a great deal of reading on current findings in the field. My progress has been somewhat impeded by the fact that everything is written either for the rank lay person (completely unschooled in the sciences) or for fellow neuroscientists. A comprehensive article on Neuroplasticity would be a great boon to the public on every level. Just think: The brain can rewire itself...! This has been extensively documented and is something that everyone needs to know about.

Another reason for my request: Synaptogenesis, one form of Neuroplasticity, has earned a deserved HIGH ranking in importance, although Neuroplasticity is the more inclusive topic.


Thanks, FrancineEisner (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

  • I am having trouble fully understanding the topic. It's a great subject, but it needs to be explained in plain English for it to be useful to the average person.
  • The lead is quite short, and it seems it includes some information not in the rest of the article. The lead should be a concise summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  • Maybe rename "Brain plasticity and cortical maps" to "History" ? Most Wikipedia articles have a History section, and it seems to be what readers expect.
  • Please look at WP:MOS to ensure the article meets the guidelines. Don't link words in section headings. The External links section should be a list with no bolding.
  • The footnotes, what there are of them, need formatting properly using {{Citation}}. See WP:CITE.
  • I see plenty of uncited paragraphs. A general rule of thumb is to add a footnote to every claim, statement, fact, quote, paragraph, etc. See WP:RS and WP:V.
  • If you can, try to use academic or scientific journals or published books to cite this article—much better than random websites and web pages.
  • It seems you intend to rewrite most of this, so I won't go through the prose. Also seems a lot of expansion is needed, as long as new content can be sourced.
  • Hope my brief "review" has helped!

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 15:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Wackymacs, I left a comment on your talk page, but on reconsideration I think you've given me a good deal of info that will assist my improving the article. I will put in a "History" section; that was my instinct in my own (unpublished) essay done for an undergraduate course.

I realize that I'll need to cite the original articles; I'll be able to access them from my university's library database, but I wanted to make a "quick fix" and the use of the ScienceDaily web site (actually press releases for the original articles) was what I was able to come up with "on the fly."

What I intend to do is to produce a new page which omits terminology specific to statistics and neuroscience as much as is humanly possible. Please feel free to offer comments as you wish.

Best, FrancineEisner (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, just as long as you an keep it all referenced. Let me know if you have trouble finding a reference you need, since I have access to Thomson Gale Infotrac, EBSCOhost and other databases. However, I would be careful if this topic is changing rapidly, as that might make information out-of-date very quickly, and it might make the article unstable in the future. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - IMO your comments are right on target. I also appreciate your offer. So far, my university library has served me well, except for a few references which have abstracts on the ScienceDirect database but lack available full-text articles (!?) Perhaps they are available somewhere else. I've also been pondering a method of reconciling how labile the topic is. There could be one section (designed to be constantly updated) listing the most current findings, especially on a molecular and cellular level. The rest of the article could remain quite stable, except of course for the edits inevitable in Wikiland,lol.FrancineEisner (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stages of growth model

[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 our group is expending this article as a school project, and our grades depend on the achieving a “good article” status. Any help is welcomed and appreciated. -- Thanks, Group I —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vucko84 (talk • contribs)

Hello. I'm glad to hear you're working on Wikipedia for a school project. I did the same thing myself a couple of times. For GA|Good article status, you're going to have to first expand this article quite a bit: I did some significant restructuring to suggest a large-scale format of the article. You might use the sections I defined to help guide your efforts for expansion. For instance, you should definitely have a lot of information on how Nolan came up with this model; this information can go in the section that I called "Development". Also you might take your sentence "However, many agree that this does not take away from his innovative look into the realm of computing development." (which I put under the heading "Legacy") as a point from which to start discussing how the model was seen as innovative.
You have made a decent start discussing criticism of Nolan's model, but you're going to have to use more than 2 secondary sources for this matter. The reader needs to know not only what King and Kraemer think, but lots of other people. Look at some current GAs and see how many secondary and tertiary sources are cited. Aim for that!
Also, in the lede, try to introduce the topic better. I, the reader, should have an idea of what this thing is after reading only the first sentence. I tried to do this for you, but I probably failed, because I don't know much about the subject... Definitely read WP:LEDE.
Mention other growth models, such as Rostovian take-off model. Compare (minding WP:NPOV).
Try and be consistent with your formatting and capitalization. Try, where you can, to follow the Manual of Style. This isn't as important as adding more information; but it's necessary to pass GAC.
If you need any further help or have any questions, message me on my talk page, or respond below. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lazulilasher Hey there. As noted above, good job overall. The article does a decent job of introducing the topic, however more information will be required to pass GA.

  • The lead. This was mentioned above, and I agree. The lead section should be expanded to provide a cursory overview of the subject and hit on the major points contained within the article. As well, the lead should be written in a style that engages the reader and encourages him/her to continue reading the rest of the article. For an article of this size, a two paragraph lead would be good.
  • Style. The style of the article reminds me of a text book. Try and link the ideas together. Also, WP tends to frown on the use of long lists. Instead, attempt to integrate the lists into the main text.
  • Application. This was my main question whilst reading the article -- in what way does the "stages of growth model" apply within a broader context? What were the effects and applications of this model?
  • MOS Most of the manual of style issues were raised above, however I would also urge you to take a look at the MOS (I have been active on Wikipedia for a long time and still rely on the MOS), as it will help bring your article within standards.

Ok, I hope this helps get you to GA. Best of luck with your schooling and I hope you stick around Wikipedia even after you complete your course.

Feel free to approach me with any concerns on my talk page. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Barry (2001)

[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 after rewriting it and getting it to GA, I'd like some feedback before an FAC. Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • However, the wave that would become Barry dropped higher amounts across southern Florida. - this sentence is confusing and could use clarification.
  • I find it hard to believe no effects whatsoever were reported in western Cuba, given the heavy rainfall.
  • Perhaps it should be mentioned that operationally Barry was never considered to have weakened to TD status in the GoM?
  • Were any structures destroyed by the storm?
  • Any power outages caused by the storm?
  • I'm interested in what the primary form of impact was. The article says $30 million in damage, but it doesn't really go into too much detail of the actual damage. For Tropical Storm Allison, which this storm was compared to, it caused billions in damage from flooding and buildings being ruined. $30 million is still a fair share of damage, and the most significant form of impact was the 69 structures in Martin County severely damaged by the flooding. Also, quick nit-pick, but the source for the $30 million damage total doesn't say anything about $30 million in damage. I know that figure is in the TCR, but the TCR doesn't specify that all of the damage was in Florida.
    • I'll try some more to find out what the primary form of impact was, but thus far I've yet to come across such a fact. Also, I've found nothing that says any damage occurred outside of Florida, so the $30 million in damage was almost certainly all in the state. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be nice to see more news reports of impact, seeing as most of the impact section is from NCDC or Florida State Emergency Response Team.

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Beghe

[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 looking for ways to improve the article further as it proceeds along in quality status. No rush, but interested in input from some fresh eyes. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One of the things that struck out at me was the vaugeness of this line: He had recurring roles on Picket Fences and Melrose Place. What episodes, during what years, and what kinds of shows are these? I knew that MP was some kind of teenager show, but I had no clue what PF was until I clicked on the link. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good points. I will research this further and provide a bit more detail. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Checked over the semiautomated peer review suggestions and everything appears to be in order. Cirt (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yannismarou
  • Being a best friend with Duchovny is so important to mention it in the lead? If yes, make clear to the reader why.
  • "Speaks" "speaking" in the third paragraph of the lead. A little more prose variety.
  • "While there, he became best friends with John F. Kennedy, Jr. and David Duchovny" Exact repetition of the phrase of the lead.
  • Narration and connection of subjects in "Acting career" could be a bit more smotth. I think you'll need a nice copy-editor.
  • "the idea that "technology" developed by L. Ron Hubbard could yield superhuman abilitites" Can you please explain that a bit?
  • "He reached the level of OT V within Scientology, and is a trained Auditor.[32][28] His wife also took Scientology courses and rose to the level of OT V.[28] He estimated he has given the Church of Scientology USD$1 million over a 12-year period.[33" Example of choppy prose.
  • "In 2007 Beghe made the decision to leave Scientology". Why and how? What made him for a critic?
  • "Beghe discussed the Xenu space opera" What is that? Explain.
  • "Duchovny was referred to as a "Suppressive Person"" Why? Just because he was Beghe's friend?
  • "known to the group Anonymous" What's this group?
  • "about his experiences as a Scientologist" How exactly did he describe his experience? Details?
  • "in the video Beghe calls Scientology "very dangerous for your spiritual, psychological, mental, emotional health and evolution"" Why?
  • "Bunker said that those issues had been resolved, and that YouTube should have given him time to prove that before pulling the Jason Beghe interview.[40] Bunker believes that YouTube removed the Beghe interview after receiving pressure from Scientology.[40] A representative for YouTube told FOX News "There’s no conspiracy here", but would not say whether Scientology pressured YouTube to remove the video, saying: "We do not comment on individual videos."[" Some prose massage is needed here.
  • "Beghe believes that Scientology's practice of disconnection is still in place". Disconnection? In general, do not take for granted that the reader understand all the scientology terms you use. Explanations are needed and wikilinks are not enough.
  • Can you expand a bit the "Personal" section; it is stubby.

The scientology story is very interesting, but the article needs work both in prose and analysis.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points, it may take a bit of time but I will do my best to address them and note it here afterward. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry haven't had a chance to get to this yet but will address this stuff soon. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have not gone through this yet. I think this is a very good list of things to improve and work on, but it will be more of a longer term project as opposed to taking place all within the time of the peer review. Thanks so much, your input will be utilized in the article. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Emperors

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to see if its ready for a FL nomination. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Wouldn't it be better to ask for the review when the current "major revamp", as indicated by the banner, is completed? Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram: Ditto to question above.

Copyediting of the first paragraph would help. It currently reads "... of the Roman Empire, until the final demise of the Western Empire in 476 or to the death of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I in 565." I think "AND" would work better than "OR". And why not give a "from" date, it would be more descriptive. Essentially construct as "this is a list from ___ to ___ in the west and ___ in the east."  Done

Also, the intro does not conform to the guidelines of wp:LEDE. It should provide an overview of the entire article, which in fact consists of several sections and lists, that should all be mentioned in the lead. The 2nd or 3rd paragraph is providing a "Note" about who is NOT in the list; the lead should be describing what the list is, in positive terms. The note belongs somewhere later. Hope this helps.  Done doncram (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sillyfolkboy:

  • What do you think about the suggestion of putting "AD" on the end of the years? Call me stupid but I personally am not very used to seeing year dates with less than 4 numbers. This is only a matter of style though and ultimately it's up to you. Done
  • I would suggest putting the eastern empire/Byzantium links into a "See also" section as opposed to just tacking them onto the end of the article - perhaps put a short sentence in the lead explaining how Byzantium and the eastern empire are related and also the reason for not including them in this list.Those emperors should actually be on the list, but cause they have their own list i'm redirecting it
  • Change the heading "Year of the three emperors". I know that the heading seems to make more sense given that there are only three entries in the section but it's also factually inconsistent with the article about the four emperors. Were there in fact four in that year? Was Galba murdered by Otho or did Otho merely command others kill him? Why do Vespasian's and Vitellius' reigns coincide with each other? This should be explained by concise footnotes. Done
  • Why are the dates sometimes stated this way: e.g. "early 251" What meaning do the italics signify that plain text wouldn't? If this is unconfirmed or argued about between historians then perhaps just the year would suffice.Its unconfirmed, and i might as well be their
  • Whilst the reference material is clearly stated in the "references" section, I'm a little concerned about the lack of inline citations. This may be a problem at Featured Lists, though I'm not too familiar with the process myself.
  • The article should carry a short explanation of the Tetrachy  Done
  • Change description of first external link to "[link] - Biographies of Roman Emperors Done
  • The lead is a little messy at the moment but i suspect that is why the under construction sign is present. Please be aware that the article won't be eligible for a second peer review instantly and will have to wait a short period if improvements follow the closure of this review. Perhaps see WP:Requests for comment or WP:Request for feedback if you're not currently working on a lead or want help writing one. I'm not over familiar with lists as such but the lead should be a brief overview and description of the scope of the list and the key should be listed outside of the lead but before the list itself.  Done

Try engaging with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_Greece_and_Rome to get the article looked over by someone with more knowledge of the subject. I'm not oblivious to the history of Rome but with my current understanding I can't really comment on the content of the list.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just read about previous concerns regarding the quality of the articles you have brought to FLC. I seriously recommend a second peer review following an improvement to the lead and prose (amongst other things). Be sure that you yourself are very familiar and informed about the subject matter before you make improvements on the article and take it to FLC. If this topic is not your forte then consider working on something else that is. Kind regards. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it's been nearly 16 months since the last peer review, which took place March 2007. Now that the Olympics are coming up, I'd like to hear some improvement suggestions so that I can nominate this article to at least GA status (maybe FA is a possiblility if we work hard enough!)

Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The order of sections could use an overhaul, and some sections could be combined with others. While there's no real guideline for international cities, it might help to review the guidelines for US cities and UK cities.

I would recommend focusing on improving prose within main sections, and reducing the number of 2nd and 3rd level subsection headers. Integrate information better into the main topics.

The 'education' section is really just a big list of schools, and many of them are red links. This section should talk about the overall education programs in the city, from the primary schools on up to higher education. How many students are in the city? How many teachers? How are schools ranked? A list of schools can be linked to from this article, but there isn't much value in having that list in this article itself.

The 'architecture' section seems to have very little content and a big gallery. I'd recommend nuking the gallery and focusing more on the content. Maybe move the section to 'geography' and call it cityscape to integrate it in with a discussion of neighborhoods. How does architecture vary in the different parts of the city, for example? Speaking of which, the 'neighborhoods' section is really just a bulleted list, and a collection of tables. This should be converted to prose. The tables themselves offer little value. Move the 'city layout' main section into the 'geography' section.

Change 'politics' to 'government and politics'. There's two important topics that need to be discussed here: local city government and the national capital and government. While I still think that individual subsections should be discouraged, a separate subsection for the national government would be acceptable here.

The 'sports' section needs a bit of work. Let's try and nuke that bulleted list and discuss something abuot sports. The mention of the 2008 summer olympics seems to go straight from that, to what appears to be an advertising promotion for Mike Davis' book Planet of Slums, which doesn't seem appropriate. I'm sure we can find out more about this topic for the article. Don't forget to discuss other sports that take place in the city at other times during the year. The olympics is pretty much a single event.

Try to keep 'see also' items on topic. What in the heck does Yanjing Beer have to do with the city, other than the fact that it's probably brewed here. It seems a bit like an advertising promotion to me?

Those are the big issues as I see them. It's good to see some interest with this article right now, though I wish people started a bit earlier. Not sure if we'll get FA before the olympics or not; GA, maybe? Though there are some at WP:GAN that like to stress the importance of the 'stability' criterion of WP:WIAGA, so the GA review may have to wait until the olympics are over,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ayrton Senna

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is extremely detailed and accurate. The content in the article is extremely relevent and should be applauded. Thanks, Cadan ap Tomos (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. I think it needs a lot more work before it can be applauded with GA or FA status, but it is a good start. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and models to follow. The parent article here, 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, is FA and would make an excellent model.
  • As in the model and per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - there has to be more than just one sentence.
  • The article needs many more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Per WP:CITE references come directly AFTER punctuation (no space), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Quotes are too long - summarize and use quotes carefully. Also make sure refs meet WP:RS - what makes www.ayrton-senna.com a reliable source, for example?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e comments
  • I'll try and get back with some more detailed stuff. I agree with everything Ruhrfisch says above, and it occured to me that the Tom Pryce article, also an FA, might be helpful as a model as well. Pryce was also killed in an accident during a race. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only another brief comment, I'm afraid: references are a real problem, especially as this is potentially a controversial topic. I would expect to see full use made of at least the following:
-Watkins, Sid (1996). Life at the Limit: Triumph and Tragedy in Formula One. Pan Books. p. 10. ISBN 0-330-35139-7. (Used only once)
-Hilton, Christopher (2004). Ayrton Senna. Osceola: Motorbooks International. ISBN 1844250962. (Not used)
-Williams, Richard (1999). The Death of Ayrton Senna. City: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC. ISBN 0747544956. (not used)
The last two appear to be the best of the many, many biographies of Senna that are out there, most of which will cover his death. They are pretty cheap online, or you could get them via your local library. Good use could also be made of the Autocourse or other season summaries for that year. Check out the WP:MOTOR library at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Motorsport/Library. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rubython, Tom (2004). The Life of Senna. BusinessF1 Books. ISBN 0-9546857-3-3. would also be a good source to use.--Diniz(talk) 08:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Dobson

[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 done extensive work on it with very little external input. Ultimately, I want to know how to get this article to GA, then FA, despite the fact that it is a BLP of a particularly controversial figure. I've no GA/FA particpation so far, so I could use help with process advice, as well as article feedback. Ultimately, I want this article to be suitable to appear on Wikipedia's front page upon Dobson's death.

Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. For example, Ted Bundy is only in the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but several of the views are not in the lead (which should be more than one paragraph). Please see WP:LEAD
  • Several places in the article need more references - for example the last paragraph of Background has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Be consistent in refering to him - he should probably be called Dobson throughout, but is also refered to as Dr. Dobson, James Dobson, and James Jr. I would also avoid a bare URL link in the text - I would put http://www.ryandobson.com/ in a footnote / ref.
  • Read WP:HEAD and look at the Views section. Also avoid one and two sentence paragraphs by combining them with others or expanding if possible.

As for experience in GA and FA, watch WP:GAN and read some successful and unsuccessful GA nominations to see what people are looking for in these reviews (a model biography article would also be a good idea - there are lots of Bio FAs). I would then watch WP:FAC when the time comes for FA. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

[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 think the article does not have good structure and the last review was 1.5 years ago. General review needed.

Thanks, Kozuch (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I note the editor nominating this for peer review appears to have made fewer than 10 edits to the article. Do you plan to follow through on the suggestions of this peer review? Hopefully so. Anyway, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Ref 7 is just a bare link, 80-82 and 108 and 109 are just links and need to provide full information. Many other refs lack publisher or access date. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Many of the references do not seem to be reliable sources - for example Wikipedia itself is not generally a RS. Where possible, independent third party sources are needed.
  • Lots of parts and paragraphs have no references - for example the h2g2 section in the first paragraph of Related projects and the fourth paragraph both lack refs.
  • The article lacks a clear narrative thread - parts of it flow well, but many parts seem to just be bits added at random.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalore

[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…this article has failed the FAC just because it suffers from style of referencing (the citation.....cite xxx template). Can an experienced reviewer who has a good knowledge of FAC's just comment on how to fix these very minor issues and some overlinking if its there. There are no prose or unreliabilty issues. So that need not be reviewed.

Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I'll be able to list the article at PR since I'm renominating the article at FAC. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Harrison State Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it could be a Featured Article, and are looking for some feedback before it is submitted to WP:FAC. It follows a format and style very similar to that of both Black Moshannon State Park and Worlds End State Park which are featured articles that we have worked on.

Thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

Not a lot needs to done to get ready for FAC. But I managed to find some tiny things that could be fixed.

  • An acre conversion is different from the others, probably should convert to hectare; "He purchased 121 acres (0.49 km²) of land"
Fixed it. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "groundshogs" be capitalized?
Good question. I wish I knew the correct answer. It's capitalized at Black Moshannon and Worlds End. The names of the other critters are capitalized too. Dincher (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be consistent with the other parks and capitalize a species name (Groundhogs) but not a genus names (oaks). This is one of those things that need to be worked on - thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Groundhog isn't capitalized in the article on groundhogs, though. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is beiong debated at the Manual of Style talk page now, so I will wait until there is a consensus there. The commented notice on Black Moshannon and Worlds End state parks is Note - the convention used for this article is that species names are capitalized, but other plant and animals are not: so "Cooper's Hawk", but just "hawks". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a big empty area to the right of the list of nearby state parks. Any chance you could break the list into two columns?
Could be done on Firefox and whatever the other one is, not Internet Explorer. Dincher (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, thanks! I knew a trick that fixed it as two columns in IE too, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some 29,150 picnickers enjoyed the park in 2003."; Sounds promotionial and the source doesn't specifically say they "enjoyed" the park; Suggest something on along the lines of "In 2003, 29,150 people visited the park whose main purpose was to picnic." That sounds awkward to me but you get the picture.
That works. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 14:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Colton Point being in Leonard Harrison's history, it would seem difficult and not beneficiary to not mention Colton Point at all (given their proximity to one another). Although, the sentence, "The land on which Colton Point State Park sits was sold to the Commonwealth for $2.50 per acre ($6.25 per ha) by the Pennsylvania Joint Land and Lumber Company, which had no further use for it." could go, as well as mentioning Colton Point in "A variety of warblers are found in Leonard Harrison and Colton Point State Parks.", without substantially affecting the article.
--​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much - good catches all, will work on fixing these in the next day Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of a few. Thanks. Dincher (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I think they have all been addressed except for consistent species capitalization Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:jackyd101 A very nice article, only three comments that sprang to mind below. Congratulations on another fine piece of work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review and helpful comments. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The state of Pennsylvania asked that Pine Creek be withdrawn from the federal program though, but did not officially include it in its own state Scenic and Wild Rivers for over twenty years." - why? If you don't know, is there perhaps a better way to phrase this?
    • Thanks for poitning this out. There is a whole chapter on this in Owlett's book and Dillon goes into some detail on the toipic too. I did not want to go into too much detail, but I can add a few sentences or perhaps a note. There was local opposition to any federal protection (some thought it meant they would lose their land to the government) and it would have kept any dams from being constructed on the creek (which there were unsuccessful schemes to do until the late 20th century - Little Pine Creek was dammed by the state to make a state park bigger in the 1950s). I think mostly it was a control issue - although it seems odd now, the rail trail had to overcome some fierce opposition initially too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pine from Pine Creek was considered the "best timber in the world for making fine ship masts"" - by who (this is more out of curiosity than as something you must change).
    • Owlett just says shipbuilders considered it so (and in the previous sentence mentions clipper ships and the growing East Coast cities of the US). I tweaked the sentence to read According to Owlett, shipbuilders considered pine from Pine Creek the "best timber in the world for making fine ship masts",[24] so it was the first lumber to be harvested on a large scale. Hopefully this is clearer. I have read that before the American Revolution, Pennsylvania supplied much of the Royal Navy with masts (but that is too early for mention here). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe he isn't but to me Leonard Harrison sounds like an interesting guy. Is there enough material to create an article on him?
    • Agreed, but sadly there is not much on him besides the brief blurb on the official park website and similar brief mentions in the books. He did help found the Wellsboro, PA electric company (their webpage has a blue-tinted version of the same photo of him). If we can find more on him, we will try for an article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doubly agreed. I have searched in vain for more info on Harrison. Dincher (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found his obituary in the New York Times. It left a lot to be desired but, nonetheless, I thought I'd offer. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link it? Dincher (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done [6], bottom of the page. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It is subscription only, but here is the link [7] and here is the search [8] which gives more of it actually. It is only 3 sentences - he died Jan 12 at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, he was 79 years old, he donated the park. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wellsboro library has a newspaper archive - I found this on a birthday dinner for Harrison [9] and there is more - I think we can get an article on him out of this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've collaborated in the past with an editor who's a genealogist and is rather good at finding pieces of info about not very well known people. If you need it, he might be able to help you find more info. I believe you may have run across him back when Presque Isle became an FA. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we will definitely write an article on Mr. Harrison, the Wellsboro newspaper seems to have a lot on him. Thanks for the offer - will take you up on it, perhaps with others articles or LH's. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. Dincher (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the richest people ever

[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 your support and improvement in the following areas:

    • Inadequate lead.
    • Poorly formatted table.
    • Very few sources, which include several wikipedia pages, which is a huge no-no.
    • If the main source is this list, then the rest of the table is original research because that list only includes Americans.
    • Standardization: Why are some 'company' and some 'main source', and sometimes 'company' is used when no company is actually there? (A monarchy, for example)
    • Poorly formatted; not really tabular at all. Many of these can be made into columns. In the process, you would change the image format from thumbnails to portraits.
    • The Fuggers. Source for this is the talk page. Absolutely unacceptable. Likewise, two other refs are links to Wikipedia; again, unacceptable.
    • Finally, the complaint on the talk page, while poorly made, is valid - "wealthiest" is the proper form, not "most wealthy".

Quote from Raul654 (talk):

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this for two reasons:

  1. Most importantly, it is not an article, it is a redirect to another article (which the nominator just listed at Peer Review too). There is nothing to review here.
  2. Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Abramovich

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this biographical-article need more references and information, especially on this person's early days about which information is scarcely available, and also more info. about alleged wrong-doings. A sub-heading detailing his relationship with Chelsea and his former business-partners might also help.

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habbush letter

[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 more sources and further information.

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War misappropriations

[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 need more concrete information and solid references. Otherwise, this will be classified as a stub.

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am archiving this because Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Limits says Peer review resources are limited and, in order to try and provide all peer review requests with a response, some limits have to be placed on requests as well. Requests exceeding these limits can be removed. Requests that are removed can be relisted when they no longer exceed these limits. Bugnot has listed five articles today and I am removing the last four. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerously In Love

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel there are more things to be done which I can't see for now. After which, I will pass the article to FAC.

Thanks, --Efe (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be expanded to comply with WP:LEAD - the length of the article seems to imply a three paragraph lead. I also think there needs to be more specifically on the critical reception of the album in the lead.
  • The article needs a copyedit - one of the criteria for FA is professional writing and this is not there now. For example Knowles had cemented her singing career since Destiny's Child, an R&B group of which she is the centerpiece, dominated the music scene in the late 1990s. mixes tenses (past and present) and the verb cemnted seems odd here. Or With completed forty-three songs—fifteen of which made it to the album[9]—Knowles is credited as co-writer and co-producer.[11] is not grammatical. If you need to find a copyeditor, ask one of the people listed at WP:PRV
  • Provide context for the reader - is it worth mentioning in the Interpretation section that Jay-Z and Beyonce later married?
  • The content seems good to me - lots of good information and generally well referenced, nice photos. Can you ask for a music person to review this?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Delaney

[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 believe that one day it can possibly be promoted to Featured Article status. This is my description from the withdrawn A-class review from July 6, 2008 (no one was available to review it, so I changed it to Peer review instead):

"I believe this article fully covers the brief professional career of Joe Delaney, and his heroic act of saving children from drowning. There are not many references because many repeat themselves, and also because his career in the early 1980s was so brief. Reference #6 (Shreveport, LA, Times article) is archived from a link that was blacklisted as Wikipedia spam. I knowingly did not include the spammed link because it is not allowed, so don't think I left the reference incomplete, because I wasn't sure of how to deal with it. This article was given GA-status in March 2008. The article's photo is from an Associated Press file, and the photo's source link is located in the file's page at Wikimedia's Commons. The photo in the section "Death and legacy," however, is fully my own work sourced from my personal camera. I feel that this article is fully capable of becoming an A-class article on Wikipedia. This is my first self-nomination for an A-class article, and any help in making this article flawless will be of great help to me."

Requests

  1. Feedback to see if this article is suitable to be promoted to A-class/Featured article status. Joe Delaney had a short career in the NFL and is more notable for his heroic rescue of children from drowning than his 2-year career. That is why there is not many references available, and many of them repeat themselves.
  2. If anything, should I expand Delaney's career in college?, but again, resources are scarce to help expand the section. I can't even find an adequate website that provides his collegiate year-by-year stats with Northwestern State. Told not to expand, see below.
  3. Was the profile picture (Image:810913JoeDelaney.jpg) uploaded correctly? I found it on the internet and I was wondering if it was uploaded with the correct liscence. Almost every time I upload a file it eventually gets deleted because I never know how to correctly upload a photo that is not my work under the right copyright tag. The second photo (Image:Arrowhead Delaney.jpg) is entirely my own work.
  4. Under "Professional career" I was wondering if the boxed quote by Elvin Bethea is suitable for the article or else I should use the format for the Ronald Reagan quote (in the "Death and legacy" section) is the better choice. (REMOVED on my request)

This is my very first request for a Peer review and the absolute furthest I've gotten in contributing on Wikipedia (I've worked on some GA articles and Featured lists, but this is the first attempt for a future Featured article. All help is welcome! Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 04:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was created shortly after the announcement of the game in September 2007. The game is still unreleased, and it is updated as new information is released. Because of a change in Featured topic criteria, this game and the other unreleased games need to go through peer review for the Kingdom Hearts topic to stay featured. One such game has already been reviewed.

Any comments you may have to improve the article are welcome and I'll try to address them as best I can. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments.
  • The {{citation}} template has been replaced with {{cite journal}}
  • The kh2.co.uk does not qualify as a reliable source, but the link is a translation of an interview in the Japanese gaming magazine Famitsu. I've tweaked the reference to cite the magazine instead with a link to the translation.
  • That posting on Joystiq is written by James Ransom-Wiley. He is a Senior Editor at Joystiq and one of the site's longtime writers. See his info page. He's covered major video game events and appeared on G4's Attack of the Show!. See video link.
Hope that takes care of everything. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ashnard comments

Okay, a strange one since I guess this info is subject to change/expansion, but I'll review what's here:

  • "It is an installment in the best-selling Kingdom Hearts". I don't want to be too stringent with POV interpretations, but I'm thinking that this is redundant anyway.
  • "Many previously unexplained elements" To be assumed I guess, but best to clarify by writing "plot" elements.
  • "single player" is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here too.
  • "Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories". Any reason why this is wikilinked the second time it is used, and not the first?
  • "based on the personalities and abilities of the three main characters; Terra, Aqua and Ven". My grammar isn't great, so feel free to correct, but wouldn't a colon be more appropriate here?
  • You probably already know this, but "gameplay" is temporal in places, meaning that references to Nomura and what the developers plan to do will become needless. Will need a rewrite in places when release beckons.
  • "Birth by Sleep is a prequel to the Kingdom Hearts series," Firstly, why isn't this in the lead? Secondly, doesn't make sense as this itself is/will be a component of that series.
  • "Keyblade masters". Don't have a clue what this is.
  • Nomura has stated that, though there are three scenarios, there is not one singularly important scenario or character, but the main theme is Ven's identity. I feel the comma and "That" are needed for better reading here. I feel that this sentence seems contradictory, but this is from an outsider's persepctive.
  • "The story was speculated early on to be connected to the unlockable trailers at the end of Kingdom Hearts II and Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix.[9] Nomura has since confirmed a connection to the trailers.[10]" Probably should be combined into one sentence. Should be more concise—why introduce the concept of speculation only to state confirmation?
  • "for example, a young Hercules in the Coliseum" This is going to have to be explained or linked.
  • "to original characters Terra, Aqua and Ven," Maybe a pedantic one, but what makes these original since this isn't their first appearance in a KH article, according to the lead?
  • "Nomura mentioned he wanted to do a spin-off" Create? "do" sounds a bit unprofessional.
  • "In 2007, Nomura mentioned he wanted to do a spin-off Kingdom Hearts game on a mobile platform and wanted the game to play slightly different than other titles in the series.." Repetition: wanted...wanted. The game technically doesn't play iteslf, so this should probably be reworded.
  • "Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+" Why does it have a plus here but not in its first usage? Same with inconsistency between other usage of the same title.
  • For the references, use |language=| as opposed to using the brackets manually.

Okay, I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments.
  • "best-selling" removed. See no need to include it.
  • "plot elements" makes more sense.
  • "single-player" is now hyphenated.
  • The first Re:CoM was probably added after the second one. Either way, the first is now the linked one.
  • Quite right on the colon. Good eye.
  • I'm hoping the entire article will undergo a complete rewrite by the time the game is released. So temporal issues that are present now should be gone down the road.
  • Prequel info has been added to the lead and clarified in the "Plot" section
  • "Keyblade masters" has been rewritten as "knights that wield Keyblades". Keyblade is also further clarified.
  • "That" word has been added to that sentence. Also, I agree that it sounds contradictory. I attribute this to the minimal amount of plot details that have been released. I believe this will be clarified further down the road when more info is available and the article has been rewritten.
  • I did not combine the two sentences because I'd like to keep the info separate for now. I agree it should be combined, but would like it separate to make the full rewriting a bit easier.
  • "Young Hercules" has bee clarified some. I hope it is enough.
  • The three new characters were original characters created for this installment. I'm not sure how to better convey this. I'm open to ideas, but have a feeling this will get taken care of in the rewrite.
  • It's just that I saw the reference to their appearance in another game in the lead that was released before this. If they were created specifically created for this game, then perhaps that could be elaborated on when the article expands.
  • "do" is now "create"
  • The info about playing differently has been reworded.
  • The Final Mix+ is a tricky thing. The second game re-released as Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix, but it was released together with Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories. The total package of the two games was called Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix+. I'm not sure how to better clarify this without going into excessive detail.
  • I believe all the necessary references using the language parameter are using it.
  • Oh, it looks like the aesthetics have been changed. It used to be greyish, bold text in brackets (as seen in exteranl links), so I'd thought they'd been inputted manually as these are just ordinary brackets. Never mind.
Thanks again for the helpful comments and I hope I've addressed most of them properly. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Cheers, Guyinblack. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Matrix

[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 while not all that long, I think this article is one of the better written ones that I've seen (that wasn't reviewed) and would like to see what it lacks to become a featured article.

Thanks, Flash176 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article is too short - one of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness and this is too short to be comprehensive. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several car brand FAs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Featured_articles that may be good models.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the only two section headers (First and second generation) are not explicitly in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Abbreviations should be explained before their first use, so NUMMI and SEMA and perhaps others need to be explained as CUV already is
  • One thing that seems to be missing is any sort of info on reception - what sales have the years had, what have auto reviews said about this?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Israel

[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 (History of Israel) for peer review because I want to improve it, because despite dealing with a hugely controversial topic it seems to attract little edit warring and because I (said with trepidation) am quite proud of the job I've done on it. There is a major problem with the History_of_Israel#1948:_War_of_independence_and_statehood which is very controversial. The article finishes with the election of Ehud Olmert in 2006 and I am unsure how up-to-date it needs to be. I would welcome suggestions for improvement to the introduction. Thanks, Telaviv1 (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cool10191

  • I would add History of ancient Israel and Judah to the DAB at that top of article. My initial reaction was: "This article is missing about 3,000 years of information".
  • There is alot of short paragraphs, try to expand some of the more important ones to give more information on the event or combine them with other paragraphs. Try to keep you paragraphs about the same size, its easier to read that way.
  • Main and See Alsos like Main article: First Intifada should be at the top of the section per MOS.
  • split your reflist like this {{reflist|2}}.
  • Most references are not formatted properly. Try using the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite news}} templates to maintain consistent formatting Each website also needs at access date added to it.
  • Alot of sentances start out "In 2000" or "In 1995". Try breaking the pattern up and using different ways of saying it, like "During 2000", or insert the date later in the paragraph rather that start out with it - that will make for a better read.
  • A few more images would not hurt. There is a long stretch of text with no images.
  • I would also change your section titles. Example: turn 2006—2008: Ehud Olmert into Ehud Olmert (2006-2008)
  • There is a citation tag that needs a ref
  • Some parts of the article have no inline citations, you should try to put one for each event - at least one per paragraph. Better refs will also help to enforce NPOV.
  • Many of the verbs are future tense, referring to articles that already happened. I would also suggest changing that. For example, change The committee recommended that 100,000 Jews be immediately allowed entry to Palestine and the British government reneged on a promise to Truman that it would abide by the recommendations, rejecting further Jewish immigration to The committee recommended that 100,000 Jews be immediately allowed entry to Palestine and the British government reneged on a promise to Truman that it would abide by the recommendations, and rejected further Jewish immigration
  • After doing all that a good copy edit wouldn't hurt either.
  • As some overall content additions, some information on the growth of the Isreali ecomony, trends in trade, recessions, booms, would be good. Also some information on the important Isreali corporations, Like maybe pick out the two or three biggest and put in when they were started.
  • Some cultural and religious development could also be good.
  • To improve your introduction try to use one line out of each top level section of the article. The length of the article deserves a good 3-4 paragraph intro. Give a couple sentences to each decade and be sure to name all the wars and a couple prominent leaders.
  • I would not worry so much about information for the last five years or so. At least leave off the last couple years. Until time passes a bit, the merit and view of the events are not fully comprehended.

Hope that helps some. Charles Edward 03:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China (Taiwan)

[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… There have been a great deal of large edits to the article recently, which seem to be spurred on by unaddressed and definitely imminent issues of separation (see Talk:Republic_of_China_(Taiwan)). Someone is getting a little antsy at the lack of attention the article is getting, but I don't really hold the expertise on Chinese history to do it. Would appreciate a look!

Thanks, Utopianfiat (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a tad busy with a nomination over at WP:FAC, but I'll try to get to a more formal review soon! -epicAdam (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead has several problems. It should not be more than four paragraphs, but is five - see WP:LEAD. It is needlessly repetitive, for example the 1912 establishment is in twice. I also think the organization of the lead is a bit confusing - it jumps around chronologically and by subject too.
  • Biggest problem is lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Images do not follow WP:MOS#Images - for example the widths should not be set using pixels, but just using thumb. Also do not sandwich text between images.
  • Article has some very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or expanded

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shugo Chara!

[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 an idea of where the article stands. A lot of work has been put into this article to improve it an turn it from a fan-ish plot article into an encyclopedic article on a popular manga and anime franchise.

Things I would like to know are:

  • Is the format and organization of the content logical and unambitious?
  • Are there any obvious gaps that has not already been mentioned on the article's talk page?
  • Are there any issues with the prose that needs to be corrected?
  • Do the references properly support the information in the article?
  • Are there any statements that could be challenged that do not have have a reference?
  • Do the references comply with Wikipedia' policies and guidelines?
  • Is there sufficient supporting material on the article? And if not, what additional supporting material could be added?
  • What else needs to be done to this article before it should be nominated as a Good Article Candidate?

Thanks, Farix (Talk) 20:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article requires a "production" section—per the article's talk page.
  • "The first chapter was published in the February edition of Nakayoshi magazine[5] which when on sell on January 3, 2006."—please correct. checkY
  • "In 2007, Shugo Chara! was adapted into an anime television series of the same title."—sentence structure needs to be revised. checkY
  • "anime television series"→"anime series." It seems redundant to specify TV as well. ☒N
  • "Expected to consist of fifty-one episodes, the first episode, "Shugo Chara Born!" (しゅごキャラ誕生! Shugo Kyara Tanjō!?), aired on October 6, 2007 and the series continues to air today. "—sentence structure needs to be revised. checkY
  • "; episode twenty-seven on,"→"and from episode twenty-seven," (etc.) checkY
  • "The story is about an elementary school girl named Amu Hinamori whose "cool and spicy" exterior belies her introverted personality."—please clarify this sentence. checkY
  • "But when Amu wishes for the courage to be reborn as her "would-be self," she is surprised to find three colorful eggs the next morning, which hatch into three Guardian Characters"—Never start a sentence with "but"—remove it. checkY
  • "It won the 2008 Kodansha Manga Award for best children's manga."—is it possible to add more information, when, at which event?
  • "ongoing"—add "as at..." ☒N
  • "With the Guardian Characters, Amu's life becomes much more complex as she now struggles to deal with her "would-be" selves and the Guardians—a special student council of Seiyo Elementary—who recruit Amu to search for, and seal, the X Eggs and X Characters, which are the corrupted forms of peoples' dreams."—restructure sentence. This sentence is too long. I cannot figure out what is meant by the part past "Guardians–". (Guardian Characters / Guardians?)
  • Add citations to all quotes. (e.g. "cool and spicy.").
  • Use logical citations—e.g. "cool and spicy."→"cool and spicy". checkY
  • The spaced en dash ( – ) is preferred to the em dash(—) (WP:DASH). ☒N
  • The character sections seems redundant to the plot section. Consider combining them (I am aware of the manual of style, but refer to Tokyo Mew Mew for an example). As WP:NOVELS points out, the "Characters" section can make an article feel like SparkNotes.
  • The article requires a longer reception, plot, media, lead section.
  • The article requires a copy-edit:
    • There are a lot of short paragraphs.
  • I will add more items later. G.A.S 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Production section: I'm not sure that a production section can be written because the information isn't available. So far, I've been only able to find two concept drawings in the manga, but that isn't much to base an entire section on. I've made a request to the Japanese language Wikipedia for assistance in locating sources over a week ago, but there has been no response.
  • Anime television series: It is important to clarify that a television series is being discussed as opposed to an anime OVA series. If you leave it as just "anime series", the reader may not know if you are referring to a television series or an OVA series.
  • Guardian Characters / Guardians: Because Del Ray Manga has decided to translate Shugo Chara (しゅごキャラ) to "Guardian Characters", there is no way to further distinguish them from the other group, the Guardians.
  • en dashes/em dashes: The use of em dashes are grammatically correct since they indicates an interruption, and replacing them with en dashes would be incorrect. WP:DASHconfirms this.
I'll look at the other grammar and spelling issues and see how to best fix them. --Farix (Talk) 11:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update added:
    • Anime television series: No problem.
    • Production section: I have doubts as to how the article will attain good article status if it is incomplete (criteria 3b), but maybe that will not be seen as an issue.
    • Quotes: If you use wording from the source text, it should always be cited.
    • Dashes: WP:DASH – "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above." This is optional in any case.
    • Characters section: Much of the information in here is repeated in the plot section. It might be better to combine these sections. Per WP Novels's style guidelines—"Instead, use a finely crafted plot summary to introduce the characters to the reader."
    • Dates: Refer to Wikipedia:MOS#Precise language.
    • Guardians: Use different sentences to explain this and consider adding the Japanese text to disambiguate.
G.A.S 15:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Further comments:

  • Expand upon the significance of the 3 guardians in the lead.
  • Production: I will add some suggestions for this section on the article talk page, as they are outside of the scope of this peer review.

G.A.S 07:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've finished rewriting the episode summaries to the point I can, I can focus on the main article. I still don't see how the plot and character sections are repetitive. Both contain different types of information from different preservatives. Both could be expanded with more detail since details are very limited in both. I also don't have a clue what you are talking about with the dates. I've looked though the text and don't see anything that isn't as precise as sources allow. --Farix (Talk) 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are not that big an issue; the only issue is to update the infobox the moment that the series is not "ongoing".
Re the characters and plot: I trust your judgement in this case.
Good luck with the article! G.A.S 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

History of Indiana

[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…

Mainly I would like input on improving the reading of the article, copy edit. Being rather familiar with most of the topics in the article, I would also like other editors to point out what areas may need additional clarification or what areas may be pared down. Pretty much anything else you think that would keep it from passing a Feature Article review, please let me know.

Thanks, Charles Edward 03:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • One of the two biggest problem I see with this at FA is lack of references - for example the first paragraphs of Indiana Territory and of Statehood have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article needs a good copyedit to clean up the language and polish the prose - this is the other one of the biggest problems, a professional level of writing is required for FA. Just in the lead At the time the United States took possession of Indiana, there were only two permanent European settlements in the entire territory. The United States immediately set to work to develop Indiana. The first sentence does not seem factually accurate - wasn't what is now Indiana then just a part of the Northwest Territory (not a separate territory), and the NWT certainly had more than two settlements (and should be mentioned in the lead, since Indiana was part of it for nearly 13 years). The whole "The United States immediately set to work to develop Indiana." sentence is also odd - did the US government decide to do this? Where is the law to cite? How aboiut something like "Settlement and development proceded at a rapid pace" instead?
  • Per the MOS images should not sandwich text (as is now done ion the Indiana Territory, at least on my monitor - the map on the left and Treaty and Harrison images on the right sandwich text. I miss the aerial view of the Indiana World War Memorial.
  • Modern Indiana ends in 1988 - nothing has happened in 20 years?
  • Watch for things that are just plain errors. For example, in the lead the last sentence is During the second half the of the 20th century, Indiana became a leader in the pharmaceutical industry, as Eli Lilly and other companies settled in the state. yet Eli Lilly was founded in Indianapolis in the 1870s and did not settle in the state sometime after 1950.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, I will see what I can do to address the issues. I have done my best with copy edit though, I am admittedly an amateur. Is there somewhere or someone who could assist me with this? In my attempt to summarize the article into the lead I have perhaps left some things to vague, thanks for pointing that out to me. The Indiana World War Memorial was apparently "stolen" from the IHB website, I am trying to get the IHB to give me permission to use it. In regards to the last twenty years, it is more of a lack of good sources (other than news reports), but I will see what I can find! Thanks again. Charles Edward 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask for help for a copyedit at WP:PRV. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trenton

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a lot of work on it and I want to see what people think.

Thanks, Red4tribe (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded to 2 -3 paragraphs. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that need to be combined with others or expanded - they interrupt the flow as it is now
  • Article is generally well cited, but repeated refs can instead use the <ref name = "blah">Jones p. 123</ref>, then the next time the ref is used just put in <ref name = "blah"/. Also make sure the internet refs meet WP:RS
  • I am not an expert on this, but Legacy could be expanded to include the annual reenactment of Washington's Crossing of the Delaware (Grace Kelly's brother played George for years) or the Washington Crossing parks in PA and NJ. You might want to ask the Military Histopry Wikiproject for a review and for a copyedit at WP:PRV

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jackson

[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 very close to meeting Featured Article criteria. I'd like this peer review to work as a "mock" FAC; I would ask any editor who chooses to review this article as if it were currently in FAC and hold it according to the following criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is—
    • (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
    • (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
    • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    • (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
    • (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
  3. Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

This way, I can aviod a lenthly FAC and get any major (and even minor) concerns out of the way before nomination. Thanks, The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of former Football League clubs

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've reworked this list to fit the style of List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which has gained WP:FL status. I have the same aim for this article, and with this peer review I'd like to add any improvements or fix any mistakes to the article that will help it achieve FL status. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much to say other than:
  1. "clubs lost their league status by failing to gain re-election after finishing last in the bottom division" - incorrect, the bottom four teams had to apply and any one of them could be voted out in favour of a new club.
 Done Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think describing Wimbledon as simply "defunct", without at least some form of qualifier as to their theoretical continued existence as MK Dons is contoversial and potentially inaccurate..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Clarified. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment from myself. I think the lead will have to be re-written. I think the featured list criteria have changed to move away from such starts as "This is a list of former member clubs of the Football League, detailing all the clubs to have played in the league since its formation but which are no longer in membership." I'd give The Rambling Man a shout to get some guidance on the best way to re-write it. Peanut4 (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kareena Kapoor

[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 has improved substantially over the past few days. The article, about an Indian actress, has recently reached a GA status. Even since the GA review, it has been substantially edited. Please leave your feedbacks, suggestions and ideas to improve the article further.

Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 09:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procar

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like a general review of anything I might have missed or any suggestions on what to add, expand, or remove before the article goes for GA.


Thanks, The359 (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Valce1

[edit]

Hey! So generally a well written article with a lot of love put into it, but a few things:

I didn't see a reference to things like lap counts, lap sizes, duration of the race, the size of the competition, etc. - this may not be important for racing type events, but would have made interesting stats nonetheless.

In terms of race length (lap counts), it's stated in the format section that "Races varied in length, but each lasted for approximately half an hour." As to the size of the competition, that also varied, although a mention of the approximate size will be added.

Also, the idea of one-make auto racing series is rather interesting - did Procar suffer much from this restriction (I'd imagine that other car manufacturers didn't much like the idea), and did this contribute to BMW's decision to stop running Procar? And what role did Procar play (if it did play a significant role) in the development of its host company BMW? Are there any reasons behind BMW's present plans to revitalize Procar, especially given the deteriorating state of the automobile industry in general? Just some interesting questions that would be cool to answer.

One make series are actually quite popular in motorsports. We have things such as the Porsche Supercup, Ferrari Challenge, TVR Tuscan Challenge, Spec Miata, and numerous others. It's not seen as a restriction for the series but more as a promotion tool as well as a way to concentrate on driver skill rather than mechanical workmanship. Other manufacturers played no part or had no influence in the creation or end of Procar.
Procar on the other hand did help BMW develop their motorsports program for the World Championship, which in turn helps the company in general through advancements, although none really came specifically from Procar. The revival was just a one time event, a historical look back on what was the 30th anniversary of the launch of the M1. There's no plans to continue the revival, especially as these cars are very old and cost quite a lot to their collector/owners. It is simply nostalgia, not a future plan for BMW.

Valce1 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word of note, regarding Peer Review. It's actually best if you provide your critique at the article's actual Peer Review page, instead of on the talk page. This at least lets everyone easily see your comments on the Wikipedia:Peer Review area. Your work is appreciated however. The359 (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Did not know that :) Valce1 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice (2008)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to GA status. There isn't many references, 31, but they are all, besides maybe 3 or 4, from reliable sources. To me it is written fairly well, better than I wrote Lockdown. I just need to know if it is written well, all grammar issues are fine, everything is spelled correctly, since I can't spell worth crap, and if I have enough references and every little detail that is needed to pass a GA review is fixed. If you don't mind helping me out, thanks,--WillC 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Valce1

[edit]

Okay, I'm going to be a bit harsh because I really think you have the potential to write really well, considering how much effort you've clearly put into this already. There is a fair deal for you to work on, but most of these points will help you improve your writing abilities as a whole and any future articles you may write.

Okay, thank you for being harsh. I need it, this is the second article I'm going to GA with. I need to make sure it is a GA before I nominate it. Also thanks for noticing how much effort I've placed into it already. Though I feel like I haven't done much since I've used most of my time with Lockdown.--WillC 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of commas is, I'm sorry to say, not very good. In general you use way more commas than you need to. The second paragraph is very long - consider breaking it into 2 or 3, or cutting some of the material. I highly suggest using a table format for the teams and partcipants in Sacrifice, rather than listing them in the opening paragraph. As a smaller note, the phrase "but, however," is not fantastic English - use but or however, but not both, however ;)
    • I've made the table like you wanted, however, I only did it for the Deuces Wild Teams and the TerrorDome. Also I'm not exactly sure where you want me to put it. Maybe you could be a little more clear since I usually need stuff spelled out for me. As for the commas; I suck at English. I'm not even sure if that sentence was a actual sentence or this one was either. I'll get a friend who did Lockdown to do it if he will because he is better at it than I am.--WillC 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of the background is a bit long winded and wordy - again consider breaking large paragraphs into more digestable chunks. Also your description of the event, while clearly written by someone who cares very much about the subject, crosses the border into the verbose and could seriously use some trimming. See articles for any other sporting/entertainment event for suggestions on how to summarize the event itself. A play-by-play account of the event is not necessary (for example, a Wiki article on a basketball championship series would not tell you about every basket scored in every game)
  • I also suggest working on your writing style for describing events, since you like doing so. Focus on making it flow, rather than just having events follow each other. It's the difference between "See Spot. See Spot run. Run Spot run." and "The onlookers watched and cheered as Spot, smoke streaming from his matted fur, ran from the burning building clutching a basket containing the Smith family's newborn child."
    • Okay, I have problems writing the event section. So maybe with you feed back I'll be a little better.

Some other minor things:

  • 'led pipe' --> lead pipe
  • A angle --> An angle
  • Commas commas commas! There are many instances of commas being abused. You would make this article SO much more readable by just fixing the commas.

Valce1 (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great power

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it used to have Good Article status but it's since been delisted after some upheaval. Since then, a lot has changed and it has stabilized in the last few days. We are looking to reach GA status once again and would appreciate feedback. Thanks!


Thanks, Nirvana888 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Emw2012 (talk · contribs)
  • Inconsistent capitalization of great and middle power occurs throughout the article (Great power, great power, Middle Power). As neither superpower nor middle power are capitalized in their respective articles, I would remove capitalization from all usages of 'great power' or 'middle power' in this article. If a quote originally capitalized 'Great power' then that should be preserved, but only inside that particular quote. Fixed.
  • There should be no spacing between in-line citations and the punctuation they proceed. See citation [7], and there's one more I can't find again right now. Fixed.
  • The following sentence from the 'Current great powers' section needs work: "Germany is considered by experts to be an economic power.[26][27], and by chancellor Angela Merkel[28], former president Johannes Rau[29] and leading media of the country[30] as a middle power in Europe." While placing citations close to their subject helps specificity, here it's overwhelming and a distraction. Fixed.
  • Also in the 'Current great powers' section, the parenthetical note next to 'United States' -- "(also referred to as a superpower)" -- should be normally sized/formatted. Fixed
  • References 16 and 29 should have their formatting fixed.
  • ISBN identifiers should be added to the referenced texts. For example, see current reference 26 (Max Otte, Jürgen Greve (2000). A Rising Middle Power?: German Foreign Policy in Transformation, 1989-1999, 324. ISBN 0312226535.).
  • Redundant wikilinks in the same section should be removed per WP:OVERLINK. Specific offenders include 'Napoleonic Wars' in History (I'd keep the second wikilinked), and names of various nations throughout the article. Fixed
  • Image captions that are full sentences should end in a period; those that are sentence fragments should not. Every graphic except for the first gets this wrong. Fixed. Emw2012 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Bangladeshi

[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 it is a very good article which contains many information, probably enough needed for this type of subject. It is about Bangladeshis living abroad in the United Kingdom, and I would like to request users to contribute by looking for any mistakes or any suggestions needed to help improve the article so it can be reviewed to as a Good article or Featured article. Many phrases or words are structured in a non-encyclopedia way, mainly in the history section, so that will be needed reviewing as said by Kabir. Thankyou very much.

Thanks, M Miah 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Félix Houphouët-Boigny

[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, quite frankly, I would like to see this article become featured.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Chino Hills earthquake

[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 know what things we can fix before promoting to a GA article (though I realize it's already nominated in GA).

Thanks, Splat5572 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is getting close to GA quality. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • Although this is a short article, the lead should summarize the essence of the main text and not leave out anything important. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the material in each section of the main text and not to include things in the lead that are not mentioned in the main text. The existing four-sentence lead includes information that is not repeated in the main text, and it says little about tectonics or damage and nothing about aftershocks. See WP:LEAD.
  • Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles in the citations from all caps to what's called "title case". For example, replace "GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA" with "Greater Los Angeles Area, California". The "USGS" part of this citation is fine because it's an acronym, but the title needs fixing.
  • I see some overlinking. The linking is like italics or bolding; it emphasizes a word or phrase. It says "click me" to the reader. If you link too many things, the links lose their effect. On that basis, I would consider unlinking "Southern California" in the lead, and I would certainly unlink "two months" in the tectonics section. Ditto for "service", "amusement rides", and the second link to "Chino Hills" in the damage section. The second link to "foreshock" could go, and you might find some I missed.
  • It's a good idea to insert no-break codes between digits and nouns in constructions like "Over 2,000 people lost power" in the damage section. This prevents the number and the noun (which might or might not be a unit like "feet") from being separated by line-wrap on computer screens. See WP:NBSP.
  • USGS should be spelled out on first use.
  • I noticed the extra white space between Response and References. I've never seen another article that deliberately added an extra space in that way. You might consider taking it out.
  • I saw one distance given in miles but not also in kilometers. I fixed it. I probably missed some other nit-picky things. After you re-write the lead, you might ask someone to do one more top-to-bottom copyedit to look for nits and to improve concision and prose flow where possible before going to GAN.

If you find these few comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your concerns are addressed, except de-linking Southern California (because it's a global encyclopedia). Other than that I didn't really get to fix the lead, but I'll do it if I have time. Lead fixed. Thanks for your review! --Splat5572 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean

[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 not sure where to go with it. It is a huge article, but much information has already been split off into sub-pages. I think it will ultimately be a 100k+ article, but that's okay. It's just hard for me to get a handle on which sections need improvement. Some style comments are welcome, but I would rather focus on the arrangement/expansion of the article's content and come back to style issues in a few weeks when the information is in place.

Thanks, Plasticup T/C 15:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs a copyedit to polish the prose - just in the lead is this Remarkably, none of the deaths were the result of Hurricane Dean's exceptionally unusually Category 5-strength landfall. Remarkably seems a bit POV and "exceptionally unusually" is just not grammatical and POV / possible peacock language - see WP:PEACOCK
  • The lead is a bit sparse for such a long and detailed article, especially the thrid paragraph, which is only two sentences. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article may need fewer sections / header too (Does one sentence on Diverted Cruie Lines really deserve a section?). I owuld also try to avoid one or two sentence paragrpahs.
  • A reference only needs to be used once per sentence and can be used once per several sentences or per paragraph if a direct quote is not involved, so Tourists were forbidden from entering the island[69] and extra flights were added to evacuate those that were already there.[65][69] sould just have ref 69 at the end. Also refs 111 and 112 are just links now and need more information (publisher, access date, etc.)
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • I am not a storm person - seems very complete to me, not sure how else to organize it but there are many hurricane FAs that would make good models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of elements by atomic number

[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 list for peer review because I am not sure what else it needs to be listed as a featured list.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This list should be either merged with other similar lists or renamed in order to be listed as a featured list. Currently, since the table is sortable, this is a list of elements by atomic number, name, atomic mass, symbols, etc. The title does not correspond to the page.--Crzycheetah 08:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is there looks good, but I agree that it seems these lists should be merged into a List of elements (this is currently a redirect to the next article, i.e.) List of elements by name, which is a FL and has some more info in the notes that could be added here. List of elements by symbol is also a FL and has extra tables that would have to be merged. There are also lists of mp, bp, and density which could be merged here. When tables were sortable, it made sense to have these separate articles, but I agree that sortable tables eliminate the need for separate articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purdue University

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it as a featured article. Please review 'Campus' and 'Traditions and legends' sections in particular. Any kinds of comments and contributions are welcome! :)


Thanks, Jainrajat11 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Frankly, this article is grossly unreferenced (I am not trying to be insulting, but that is my opinion). Entire sections are unsourced. I suggest that referencing this article be your top priority.
  • Legends and Miscellany are like WP:TRIVIA sections. These are discouraged. Perhaps you could make separate articles for the legends and integrate the miscellaneous info into the different sections.
  • The prose is not bad at all; but just so you have something else to work on here is an example of a sentence that could be improved: "Contestants would run laps around the courtyard of Cary in the nude on one of the coldest nights of the year, and the one that could last the longest would be declared the winner" --> "Contestants ran laps around the courtyard of Cary nude on one of the coldest nights of the year; the person that endured the cold the longest was declared the winner."
  • A way to improve the campus section is that for each landmark of the campus; combine the one sentence paragraphs to make larger, flowing paragraphs. It's not that hard to do; just eliminate the space between the sentences, add transition words or phrases, and eliminate the redundant information.
  • When working on the article, look at a FA class university article as a model, such as Georgetown University

I hope my comments helped. If you have a question or want me to go deeper into something, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Gate

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a key article in the WikiProject Chicago Featured Topic Drive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Images have some problems - why use Image:800px-The cloud gate.jpg with a fair use rationale I do not understand when it is on Commons in better resolution and a clear free license as Image:The cloud gate.jpg. I did not check all of the other pictures, but there is also a Fair Use tag on Image:Pre-buffing Bean'.jpg - however, a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License does not need a Fair Use rationale.
    • I have swapped the first image you mentioned. Shouldn't most sculpture images have FURs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the images need to be fair use. The entire Cloud Gate category is up for deletion on Commons [10] (unfortunately, the individual images weren't tagged, so this isn't apparent). A Tribune article cited by this article does note that, although the city has stopped hassling individual photographers, you still need the artist's permission for commercial use or publication of photos [11]. --dave pape (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References must back up what they are claimed to report - the article claims "The piece has become one of the most popular public artworks in the country.[6]" (and extraordinary claim if ever I read one) but the ref from Time Magazine does not actually say this. It does say it is "a destination" and "an essential photo op", both of which would be good quotes here, but it never says it is one of the most popular artworks in the country. I note that I caught a similar mis-use of a reference in my peer review of Crown Fountain.
  • Lead seems to have too much detail on former names of the Plaza (this is about the sculpture) and I still think "the Loop community area of Chicago" is odd sounding.
  • Needs a copyedit - see WP:PRV for help - prose needs to be at a professional level for FA.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Football League Second Division playoff final

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm reasonably confident this article is of GA quality, but it's my first stab at doing an article on an individual match, so please let me know if I've lurched a bit too much into journalistic match report mode at any point :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coincidentally I've recently been working on a match article for the first time; Struway and I have been expanding 1956 FA Cup Final. I'm not sure what I'd consider as GA or FA quality for a match article yet, but we might gain pointers from looking at each other's work.
  • I don't see why the Football League website is linked in the infobox.
  • I'd imagine geography is a large reason for the disparity in fan numbers, if you can find a source for it.
  • but left out captain Carl Bradshaw and first-choice goalkeeper Roy Carroll, who had missed both semi-final matches following an appendix operation - makes it sound like they both had the appendix operation.
  • was described as "one of Wembley's great goals" - might be best to directly attribute the quote. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

For balance, should we also say what happened to Wigan in the season(s) following? :-) --Jameboy (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lange

[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 upgrade this article to GA status, so I need several sets of eyes to point out things that I may have missed.

Thanks, Neonblak (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NoHomers.net

[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 basically just need to know how to improve it, and I have hopes of it becoming a B-Class (or higher) article.

Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example Episode reviewa section is unreferenced, My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V Also need many more refs from reliable (blogs are not generally reliable) independent thiurd party sources - if this were up for deletion, what would prove its notability? See WP:RSand WP:NN
  • Avoid needless repetition - the origin of the name is given twice, once as a long quote of dialog that probably abuses fair use.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! I will go through them all soon. --TheLeftorium 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great username - I was tempted to add lots of "Diddlies" and other Flanders-isms to my review, but held back. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. If you like The Simpsons you can check out my Ned Flanders dedicated website, The Leftorium. ;) Anyway, I've made some changes to the article now. I haven't been able to reference all information but most of it is referenced now. TheLeftorium 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American Bash (2005)

[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 myself, and I have hopes of it becoming a Featured Article.

Cheers, -- iMatthew T.C. 23:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Great American Bash (2005)/archive1.

Midland Football Alliance

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Having got West Midlands (Regional) League up to GA status, I've followed essentially the same model for this article about another league in the Midlands region. Let me know if there's any bits I need to "touch up" before I send this one to GAN...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The template (while not all your responsibility!) could use some work - e.g. "Feeder To" should be "Feeder to", etc etc and the 2007-08 needs an en-dash.
  • Need to specify this article on the fair use rationale for the league logo.
  • I get a bag of whitespace after the first para of the History section, probably relating to the placement of the image - I'm using IE7 btw.
  • "These leagues had existed since before the Second World War, having originally been formed as the Birmingham & District League and the Worcestershire Combination respectively,[1][2] but their catchment areas had gradually converged, and by the early 1990s the standard of play and geographical coverage of the two competitions were considered to be almost identical." huge sentence could do with a split and I dislike "almost identical", although that's personal, it's either identical or it's not, there aren't degrees of identicalness!
  • I know you'll work on it at some point but it'd be good to fix those red links.
  • "won the first league championship " remind the reader when this took place.
  • "and gained promotion to the Southern League, and the Alliance's " split the sentence after Southern League.
  • "One of the promoted clubs was " why not name them both and expand upon the Oadby.
  • "due to further imbalance between the number of teams joining and leaving" seems an odd way of putting it!
  • Consider making the table sortable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cheers for your comments TRM, I've actioned most of them. Regarding Oadby, the point of that sentence is to highlight that it was the first time a club from the LSL joined the MFA, I'm not sure mentioning that Cradley Town were promoted from the WMRL in the same year would really add anything to the sentence. As for the table, I'm not sure it's worth making it sortable, as the only column worth sorting by would be the "year joined" - I can't see anyone wanting to sort it alphabetically by stadium name, and the "2007-08 position" column wouldn't sort correctly anyway, as the three teams promoted from lower leagues would jump to the top, which would look bizarre and potentially confusing. Just my thoughts, though...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francis Meagher

[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 looking for a copy-edit and general readability of the article. I have been looking at it off & on for a couple months and I think I need other eyes to see it. Subsequently, I plan to nominate it for GA. Any suggestions to further refine & improve this article are appreciated.

Thanks, Mitico (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States v. LaRouche

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article covers one of the more famous politically-related trials of the 20th century in the United States. It has been stable (except for some quibbling over a quotation). Any suggestions on how to improve it would be appreciated. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've gone over the semi-automatic review and found some things to fix, and some that don't need fixing.
    • Fixed linked years.
    • There's one contraction, "can't", in a quotation - didn't change.
    • There are no appropriate free use image that aren't already in use. However a navigation template with photo occupies the top right corner.
    • There are no infoboxes that would fit this topic.
    • I believe it is free from errors in spelling and grammar. Specific suggestions on improvements in writing would be appreciated.
    • I'm working on a better (longer) intro. [Done].
  • Any other input? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Generally the prose looks decent, but it could use a copyedit to make things as consistent as posible. For example, is it "Federal" or "federal" (both are used)? Or the photo caption for the then FBI Director - I have always read of him as "William Webster" not "Will Webster"
  • A few places need to provide context to the reader - it might help to give some brief background right at the beginning on LaRouche and his movement for those who do not know about him (not everyone will know that "Tanks will roll in the streets of Chicago!"). It might also help to explain what in limine means and especially what a "voir dire" motion means, especially in the context of the trial.
  • Needs refs in some places - this would be a big deal at FAC. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Need more info for some refs. FOr example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and some short (one paragraph) sections - can these be combined with others or perhaps expanded to make the article flow better?
  • Per MOS:QUOTE block quotes should only be used for quotes that are at least four lines long.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that review. To help me keep track of what I've fixed I'll note here:

  • Fixed the consistency issues.[12][13]
  • Added a short "background" section.[14] While I didn't add "Tanks will roll in the streets of Chicago!" I did add a link to the speaker of that quotation. I also added short descriptions of in limine and voir dire.[15]
  • The article currently has 117 refs, which seems like a lot. The article was developed in an adversarial editing environment, so most assertions likely to be disputed have been sourced. I'll work on adding more refs. The only problem with doing that is that as I recheck refs I may be likely to add more information. Hmm, maybe that's not so bad. ;)
  • I've converted all of the bare web cites.[16][17] The rest of the citations need reformatting, templating, or other refinements.
  • The short paragraphs and sections are mostly there because they cover individual subtopics that are distinct enought to treat separately, but which don't merit longer treatment. Combining them with other paragraphs or sections would not improve the article in most cases. I did combine two.[18]
  • Of the two blockquotes, one of them was four lines in my skin and browser but it turned out to be only 3 lines in a more standard configuration so I made it an inline quotation.[19]

There's still more work to be done, but this review helps focus the effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GLad my comments were useful. I did not mean Tanks will roll has to be in the article, just showing off my obscure knowledge base ;-) I would only combine paragraphs or sections if it made sense too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of good quotes from the trials and surrounding events. So many that it's necessary to use some discretion and stick with those that are most relevant. I've added sources to almost every sentence (besides the intro and background). I've run it through MS Word's grammar checker twice, and even fixed some of the "passive voice" violations. If Ruhrfisch or anyone else has any further suggestions for improving the article I'd love to hear them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

[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 frecently failed FAC and I would like some feedback on how I can help this article have a little star at the top.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake/archive1.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has gone through most of the basic recommendations given for the previous Avatar season articles. Nonetheless, I would still like some general input on the article. Specifically, I would like comments on the lead and overall prose. Other comments are welcome as well. Thanks, — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The article needs a copyedit - ask at WP:PRV for someone to help. Just one example from the lead The season released four DVD volumes, with a complete box set to follow.[1] First off, seasons can not release anything, so perhaps it would be better as something like The season was intially released on four DVDs, with a complete box set planned to be released in September 2008.[1]
  • Give specifics where possible Season three received a similar critical reception to that of the previous seasons. tells me nothing if I do not know the other seasons' critical receptions. Perhaps, As with previous seasons, the critical reception was quite positive.
  • Current ref 9 Nick.com's Avatar Website states the nature of Combustion Man's attacks" should be a link to the website in question
  • I do not write TV articles, but it seems to me that the sources used could be better. Do they meet WP:RS - for example, LiveJournal or DVDTalk? I also note that almost half the sources are either Nickoledeon or Amazon - try for independent third-party sources (Nick and Amazon both want to sell DVDs presumably).
DVDTalk and LiveJournal are used for their reviews, how is someone's opinion unreliable? Blackngold29 02:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, if someone had a blog and wrote on Avatar, that would be someone's opinion, but not a reliable source. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Board of directors

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article seems to be a prime FA candidate, and one of the steps to candidacy is peer review.

Thanks, CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 02:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement - I do not think this is anywhere near FA quality and think it needs work to get to GA. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - also need at most four paragraphs in the lead (this has six or so). Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs MANY more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Article has many lists (bullet points) that should be converted to prose in almost all cases. Also has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • An FA requirement is to have an image - this has nonw. See WP:WIAFA and look at any recent FA for model articles.
  • Article seems to focus mostly on the UK and Commonwaelth - what about other countries?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter

[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 looking toward expanding it to Featured Article status, and I would appreciate comments that help the page meet the featured article criteria. Thanks a lot, Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwain Chambers

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FA. I'll skip GA because large articles tend to scare off reviewers. I've worked very heavily on this article and the majority is now my own work. I know it needs images but I've requested photos here on wikipedia and by emailing people with photos on flickr (but not with a suitable license...yet). I'm happy with it but i need further opinion/input on - the use of quoteboxes, the use of "notes", the length and content of the article (i.e. does it bore you?) and the use of the rugby infobox (stay or go?). Also I'd appreciate thoughts on the "drug ban" section as it's half and half my own work and others' and not sure if it flows.


Thanks, Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding gbrathletics - I myself was hesitant to use the site at first but it is maintained by Athletics Weekly; a periodical with a history spanning back to the 1940s. When searching I found it constantly in accordance when the same information was available from other confirmed reliable sources. Also, the information which the citations support are of Junior British tournaments and are not readily available is the mainstream press.
  • Regarding belgrave harriers: This is similar to a primary source as it is the athletics club Chambers belongs to. The information it backs up is:
    • Firstly; that a time equalled a meeting record. (minor info: can be removed if necessary) Better reference found now.
    • The other I specifically chose to note disappointment over his 2003 World Championships performance. Their documentation of expectation and underperformance was particularly poignant and neutral: interesting given it was actually his own club. If this use is not appropriate I'll remove it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: here are some suggestions for improvement. Mostly nit-picks, looks pretty good to me.

  • I believe one of the requirements for FA is that there be an image in the article. See WP:WIAFA Flickr has 120 images on a search for "dwain chambers", 5 of which have a CC license (but not free enough for Wikipedia). Maybe you could ask some of them if they would change their license?
    • I have already done so - about 10 days ago now - but haven't received any confirmation on whether they are willing to release them.
  • The lead is cited inconsistently - either the lead has no cites (except for direct quotations and perhaps extraordinary claims) because all of refs are in the main body of the article anyway, or it is cited like anything else. Some extraordinary claims Chambers has won medals on the international stage numerous times and is one of the fastest European sprinters of his generation. in the lead would need a cite I think (especially if his name and birthdate are cited)
    • I've removed some excessive citations in the lead: my intention was to cite only when the statements in the lead could arguably be disputed.
  • I know that for many people "athletics" means track and field, but it also has a more general meaning of just being an athlete, so Disillusioned with [track and field] athletics, Chambers joined American football team Hamburg Sea Devils of NFL Europa but the league folded several months later. sounds odd to American English ears. Perhaps add the phrase in brackets for clarity?
  • What's wrong with "he"? Try it in The runner managed to register under ten seconds twice in Edmonton but only finished fourth overall, injuring himself in the process and missing the 200 metres. Generally well written but needs a copyedit for things like this and I noticed a few typos (while reading for comprehension)
    • That was my own mini-rebellion against wikipedia style - namely that a large portion of sentences begin with "he/she" or the subject's surname. I'll change it back to fit with standard use in a few instances but I think it works fine mid sentence in other uses. Tell me if you think otherwise.
    • I just did a spell check of the article and couldn't find any typos. Are these not just UK/US differences? (e.g. equalled)
  • Provide context to the reader -again just in the lead, when were the Edmonton Games (link says 2001, but it would help to have that in the article). Or when did he move to California? Or when did he join the Hamburg Sea Devils? See WP:PCR
    • Clarified.
  • Personal life section is very short and oddly placed after all the tables - could it be combined with other sections? His birth could go in the first section after the lead (are his parents' names known?) His partner and their child could go wherever he met here chronologically.
    • This has been quite difficult in the making of the article as I have verification of the facts but little more info than that - I'm missing all dates (even the year) when he met his wife and had his first child. I haven't come across his parents' names either. What do you suggest I do here?
  • I think See also is primarily for links not in the article otherwise - several (Linford Christie etc.) are linked in the article.
    • Reduced links to articles that aren't so well linked.
  • Many of the sections are just one paragraph - could some of them be combined to flow better?
    • Fiddled around a bit with the headers - does that improve things on that front? It's difficult sometimes as the sections deal with such different topics (i.e. Athletics >Drugs ban >Rugby >Court case) I'm using the headers to form a hierarchical system in the TOC but if it's still impeding on readability please tell me.
  • The Senior athletic and Sydney Olympics sections start the first sentence of a new section with "His ..." or - I prefer "Chambers' ..." just to make it clear. Suppose someone came to the article and just went to that section to read it.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your reviews here Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look I like the photos and the changes. I did not find any typos this time - not sure now what they were. Sections seem fine. I like the placement of Personal life better now. Is Skye a boy or girl (assume the latter)? I do not see any problems on a quick read through, seems FAC ready to me (but I am not a sport editor). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters discography

[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 recieved only one short review from three previous peer reviews. The list has also failed featured list status twice and I would like to know how I can improve the article, so that it follows the criteria. It arguably it is not "a timeline of important events on a notable topic" and therefore I wonder if using further third-party sources make it one. I am looking for any suggestions about improving the article, meeting the criteria or directly editing the article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhfisch comments:

  • The references seem to me to be the biggest problem here. For FLC the refs have to meet WP:RS but most do not seem to.
    • For example, ref 13 is to photobucket.com and appears to be a link to a copyrighted image. This is not allowed.
    • Or what makes illusiontv.com a RS?
    • Also links to Blogs definitley do not meet WP:RS, but TotesUmbrellas seems to be a blog.
  • Of the more reliable sources, some seem to be closely related to the band, i.e. the record label's own site or to the publisher of their e-albums (Internet Archive) or wizardrock. Where possible, the references should be to independent third party sources like the Boston and Dallas newspaper articles.
  • It is possible to write a FL about things which are not notable in and of themselves - I am the main author of one - see List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
  • Second paragraph of the lead has no refs and needs them.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, references are the problem and I will fix them. Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Nixon

[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 feedback on it. I feel that it is, overall, indeed a WP:GA and am considering nominating it for FAC when everything is in tip-top shape. This is step number one :) So please comment on anything you feel could use improvement, or just anything you feel should be changed. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tamar of Georgia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it from a stub and I want to know what needs to be done so the article can become a GA or a FA. I am not a native English speaker and I need some help to check the text for general MOS compliance, especially in the areas of articles and punctuation. I would also very much welcome any advice regarding the tone of the article.

I’ve also got a couple of specific questions:

  • Should the phrases such as "golden age" and "age of chivalry" be capitalized?
  • Should the words such as "romanticism" and "biblical" be capitalized?
  • Should the definite article be included and capitalized in the translated title of a non-English literary work (e.g., the Tale of Queen Dinara vs. The Tale of Queen Dinara)?
  • Should the words "obverse" and "reverse" occurring in the same sentence be internally linked when both of them lead to the article called obverse and reverse?
  • Should the words already linked in the text be linked in the image captions?

Thanks, KoberTalk 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • For capitalization questions, I would look at 1) the articles linked to in order to see what they did, and 2) also look at your sources. So based on Wikipedia articles, I would go with "Golden age" and "Romanticism", but keep "biblical" as just an adjective (it seems to be capitalized in thinks like "Biblical Hebrew" though). I could not find Age of Chivalry here and would follow the refs for the "The..." in titles question. As for obverse and reverse, why not link them now (and remove a link if asked in GAN or FAC). I think the links have value if they are not too close to the other link in the article.
  • I think this is probably already pretty close to GA level. It seems to have the material to make it to FA, but the lanquage needs a copyedit. For example, Her remains were transferred to the cathedral at Mtskheta[,] whence [word choice?] they were moved to be interred at the Gelati monastery, a familial [word choice - family?] burial ground of the Georgian royal dynasty. how about just something like Her remains were transferred to the cathedral at Mtskheta, then to the Gelati monastery, a family burial ground of the Georgian royal dynasty.
  • Per WP:MOS#Images all images should be set to just "thumb" (not pixel widths). Also is this Image:TamariIcona.jpg a copyrighted icon?
  • Try to avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - merge them with others or perhaps expand them.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Ruhrfisch. You have been helpful, indeed. I have implemented all suggested changes and removed the icon image for the time being until its copyright status is clarified by the uploader.--KoberTalk 07:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome - copy editors can be found at WP:PRV Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O.C. (season 2)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I will list this for FL when I return from a wikibreak but see no reason to leave an inactive peer review open. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm interested in getting this to featured list standard, but am keen not to use WP:FLC as a peer review, so would like some feedback first before I list it.

Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • "It continues to the stories about the characters living in Newport." -- Remove the "to"
 Done
  • Please don't pipelink Newport, as this will give extra context and understanding to the reader
 Done
  • Why the hyphens in "Ryan-and-Marissa and Seth-and-Summer"?
 Done
  • Use American English on US topics. "whilst" is British English and considered archaic in the US; "while" is more commonly used
 Done, thanks I didn't know that.
  • "documented the shows impact" -- possessive apostrophy needed
 Done
  • "under the title of The O.C.: The Complete Second Season" -- no need for "of"
 Done
  • "The second season is yet to be released on any iTunes Store." Why mention it, then?
 Done, yes sorry, good point it. That was rather WP:CRYSTALBALL of me as with the first season was recently released, it was there to remind me to include the second "when" it was released.
  • "The executive producers were creator" -- perhaps "series creator"?
 Done
  • "written out of the show" -- "the series" is more American
 Done
  • In the episode table, the black text is a bit hard to see against the dark blue. Could you either lighten the blue, or change the text to white?
 Done, went with white.
  • "tension fills the air in the Cohen family is desperate to convince Seth, who ran away at the beginning of the summer, to return home." huh?
 Done, yes huh indeed.
 Done
  • Is savetheoc.wordpress.com a fansite or official? If it's a fansite, it doesn't belong in the WP:EL.
 Done, happy to remove but can you clarify why it fails. It is a fansite but it includes detailed guest appearances which are not covered by WP:RS's.
I just see a lot of fansites get removed from ELs in other TV articles, including those that I work on. I assumed it was part of the guideline but I can't find it anywhere, and WP:MOSTV#External links doesn't disallow it either.. I guess I was wrong! :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Shouldn't be too long before it appears at FLC, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, once again, for your help in peer reviewing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty signatories

[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 on the prose in the lead section of the article as well suggestions on the structure of the table:. The Rambling Man provided me with some suggestions, and I now believe it satisfies at least the basic standards of a good list article, and am hoping to eventually make this a Featured List article.

Thanks in advance for all your help, Allstar86 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Anything in the lead which is not repeated or referenced later in a list needs to have a ref / cite. I would add cite(s) for the whole second paragraph of the lead. I would also make sure the "To date" in that paragraph is replaced by July 2008 or whatever the date of the most recent update is.
  • The "Not Annex 2" in the first small table is confusing. It also took me two read-throughs to understand what Annex 2 is - any chance this can be made clearer (might also be my denseness / the late hour).
    • Partially Done I'm not sure of a better way to describe states that aren't Annex 2, though I suppose "Annex 1 only" is another option, but also a bit cumbersome. I added the word 'states' to emphasize what these numbers referred to, and also used bullets to mark a clear differentiation to explain the difference between the states.--Allstar86 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current refs 4 and 5 need a publisher
  • The first paragraph of the lead is just one sentence - could it be combined with the second paragraph? Generally one sentence paragraphs should be avoided.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all the comments! --Allstar86 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it as a Good Article, and want feedback first. My chief question is whether I've covered the topic well enough, or whether there needs to be more (and if so, what?) Also, are there enough references, does it conform to MoS etc.

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.[reply]

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be expanded per WP:LEAD. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Article has several short paragraphs (one or two sentences) which should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • I would provide context for the reader and explain what CEDAW is - perhaps make Genesis into a "Genesis and background" section?
  • Since there are "ten complaints against seven countries" why list only five?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was tagged as being mixture between prose and timeline and there was no list but a mess. i have now converted it to wikitable episode list and removed a lot of information that shoudl not be there. it has been cleaned up a lot, i like to know any other problems i can try work on and i think the article might b a c class now.

Thanks, Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am archiving this - there are two cleanup banners on the article and the PR page clearly says Articles must be free of major cleanup banners ... Once the article has been cleaned up, feel free to renominate at WP:PR Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.

Thanks, MASEM 12:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guyinblack25

Obviously as this is a stub, I have barely any comments. Though if you don't think any news/updates will be announced for a long while, you might want to consider merging it to a "Sequel" section of Guitar Hero: On Tour.

  • Awkward wording:
    It was announced at Nintendo's 2008 E3 conference, and isfor a planned to be released fall 2008 release.
  • Trimming/tweaking:
    The game will use the system's WiFi capabilities feature the ability to share songs between On Tour and On Tour Decades utilizing the DS's local wifi capabilities.

That's all that stood out to me. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Simpson and Delilah

[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... although its probably a long way from FA, its a GA right now, and I would like to see what could me done to improve it further. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by Sillyfolkboy:
    • State "egyptian dance" in the couch gag, as the BBC source states.
    • Expand the lead by including a little information from the production and reception sections.
    • In Plot - Expand "ad" to advertisement for clarity. Is "miracle breakthrough" a direct quote from the episode? If not, remove the inverted commas. Can you replace "go-getter" with a better synonym? I think it's a quote from the episode if my mind's working well but I think there's a better way of describing it. Also replace the second Homer in that sentence with "him" instead. "The next day, Homer, bald again, arrives at the meeting" should be rephrased to read less awkwardly.
    • Shift the Karl picture so that it doesn't push the "plot" header (Move pic to end and place {{clear}} after it.
    • In reception - wikilink the Nielsen rating on its first occurrence.
    • In production - the first source doesn't seem to support the idea that it "fascinated the writers". You can cite the BBC source for the gay slogan use perhaps. Maybe a little something in the lead about this early open showing of homosexuality on primetime tv?
    • Referencing - why the hell is ref #2 linking to Itchy Scratchy and Poochie info? Italics for "The Record", "Deseret News" and "Tampa Tribune". Wikilink BBC and entertainment weekly in the refs.

If these problems are all dealt with I may post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Judy Garland Show

[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 it has the potential to be an FA so I would like feedback on what need to happen to elevate it to that status. Otto4711 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think it looks pretty good. The two criteria I can think of for FAC that seem possible problems here are comprehensiveness and a professional level of writing. It seems pretty comprehensive to me, but there are a few places where a bit more could be added or context could be provided for the reader. For example, Nielsen ratings are often explained in terms of millions of households watching and / or percent of the total audience - is this information available? Or explicitly say why episode 5a was never taped (change in production team?). Or why was taping switched from New York to the West Coast? Or what were Garland's reactions to the various changes in personnel, format and cancelation? More details on Garland's financial situation might not hurt either - how did the 26 episodes affect her finances? Various Emmy nominations are menioned, but did these win?
  • Language is pretty good but could use a copyedit - for example the lead sentence could be a combination of the current first two sentences (The Judy Garland Show was an American musical variety television series which aired 26 episodes on CBS during the 1963-1964 television season.). Or the sentence on her finances is unclear - could probably be two sentences (and expanded). Or Garland's old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was, at Garland's insistence, her first guest.[21] could be something like Garland insisted her old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was her first guest.[21] or even Her old friend and frequent MGM co-star Mickey Rooney was her first guest, at Garland's insistence.[21] (this last is part of a short two sentence paragraph - could these be combined with others or perhaps expanded?)
  • The table - do Guests and Notes need to be sortable? Some places where N/A is used could be clearer - for example could "No guests" be used in the concert episodes? Or "Never taped" for Episode 5A? Would it make sense to add an aired number (order in which they aired)?
  • No followup - when were the episodes released on TV? Were there long term effects of the show on Garland or her career or others associated with it?
  • Trailer dimensions - spell out feet and give meters too. The {{convert}} template may help here

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of most wealthy historical figures

[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 your support and improvement in the following areas:

    • Inadequate lead.
    • Poorly formatted table.
    • Very few sources, which include several wikipedia pages, which is a huge no-no.
    • If the main source is this list, then the rest of the table is original research because that list only includes Americans.
    • Standardization: Why are some 'company' and some 'main source', and sometimes 'company' is used when no company is actually there? (A monarchy, for example)
    • Poorly formatted; not really tabular at all. Many of these can be made into columns. In the process, you would change the image format from thumbnails to portraits.
    • The Fuggers. Source for this is the talk page. Absolutely unacceptable. Likewise, two other refs are links to Wikipedia; again, unacceptable.
    • Finally, the complaint on the talk page, while poorly made, is valid - "wealthiest" is the proper form, not "most wealthy".

Quote from Raul654 (talk):

Thanks, Bugnot (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Ruhrfisch comments

  • I am tempted to just say WP:SOFIXIT, as you and Raul have clearly identified many of the problems with this list. Peer review is more a place to point out problems than to find people to fix them (that is the nominator's job, though they can recruit others to help of course).
  • I also note that Wealthy historical figures 2008 is better in all respects - merge this.
  • Article has a major cleanup tag and is up for deletion - archiving the peer review per PR rules.

Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero World Tour

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
While this is an unreleased game, it has been suggested for the WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series that it may be good to complete a PR for this article as to be able to include it in the topic; irregardless or not, I think it is helpful to get a PR done on this to start with.

Thanks, MASEM 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Randomran

I've had a chance to look at it so far. Overall, it's well-written and well-referenced. The problem is the topic is highly unstable. It's comprehensive in the sense that you cover everything that's known, but it can never be comprehensive until the game is actually released. That said, there are a few things you can do to improve the quality right now:

  • I'm not sure the organization of the gameplay section is ideal. I would prefer to see shorter paragraphs and sections, while still avoiding stubs and scattered sentences.
    • The lead of the gameplay section might be better organized if you recapped the basic gameplay, and then spent the remainder of the section focusing on new features.
    • The instruments section might be better organized if you separated the enhanced guitar from the new instruments altogether.
    • The characters section is great. I think the other sections would be more manageable if they were at that level.
    • You can take or leave these suggestions, if you think there's a better way to lay this information out and simplify these mega paragraphs/sections.
    • It might be enough to use better "topic sentences" for each of these paragraphs.
      • In fact, this might help some of the paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. That first sentence should tie together what you're about to read.
  • A lot of the references don't use templates.

Once again, the prose and the research are both pretty solid for such inherently unstable content. I only found a few grammatical and spelling issues which I have fixed. Just keep the article organized as new information becomes available. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guyinblack25

[edit]

I realize this article will be drastically different when the game is released, but here are the issues that stood out to me; mainly grammatical.

The lead
  • Minor trimming, unnecessary "also"
    "A version of the game has also been rated by the ESRB..."
  • Should it be "in" instead of "of"? Also minor trimming.
    "...Guitar Hero World Tour will be the first game ofin the Guitar Hero series to feature the drum and microphone controllers."
Gameplay
  • I noticed that some mode names later in the article are written in quotes, but the first section of gameplay does not. I believe either way is fine as long as it is consistent.
  • Instead of this:
    "Guitar Hero World Tour will build on the existing gameplay from previous Guitar Hero games. The Star Power feature which has appeared throughout the Guitar Hero series is coming back."
    Try this:
    "Guitar Hero World Tour will build on the existing gameplay from previous Guitar Hero games and include several older features; for example, Star Power."
  • Split this sentence up. it seems like the two ideas conveyed aren't connected enough:
    "The difficulty levels include a new difficulty called "Beginner", as well as the regular difficulty modes (Easy, Medium, Hard, and Expert),. thisThis Career Mode will allow players to drop to a lower difficulty without restarting their careers if they have difficulty with one song."
  • Clarify; restart the game or the system? I would also move this sentence after the next sentence mention what all the instruments are: "The player will also be able to switch to a different instrument during the same Career without having to restart"
  • Clarify: I assume this is suppose to be two or more players:
    "When multiple players with differing progress play together, Aa player that has not progressed as far as another player's band will still gain benefits for successfully completing songs when playing together.
  • Switch "will" --> "can"/"are able to". The player is not guaranteed to activate star power:
    "A player on drums willcan activate Star Power by..."
  • Weasel word, "yet again":
    "Like the previous game, Aartists are writing new original songs yet again for their battles."
Instruments
  • Sounds more encyclopedic to me. Your choice though.
    "Older Guitar Hero guitar controllers will still workbe compatible with World Tour."
  • Missing commas:
    "...the existing Rock Band instrument controllers, as well as other third party controllers, will also work in...
Development
  • I would try to avoid proseline as the article progresses.
Soundtrack
  • Gamer jargon: "downloadable content" --> "content available for download". At least introduce it in laymen terms followed by (downloadable content).
  • The last part about IGN seem tacked on. I would start the sentence with it.
    "IGN has also reported that Wwhile there will be a renewed commitment to downloadable content, existing downloadable songs for Guitar Hero III will not be playable in World Tour, according to IGN."
  • Some of the content in the paragraph right after the confirmed song list seems to border on synthesis. However, I'm sure this won't be an issue once the game is released, so I'm not going to comment on that paragraph and the one after it.
Custom songs
  • I believe having text sandwiched between to images is discouraged.
  • Minor trimming, the "and" distributes the "to" to both parts of the sentence:
    "Guitar Hero World Tour will allow players to create their own songs and to share them with others through..."
  • This sentence looks lonesome by itself. I would first find a source for it and then add it to another paragraph. "Guitar Hero World Tour will be using Line 6 POD technology to emulate more realistic guitar sounds."
  • Run on sentence; break it up:
    "Custom songs will be able to be uploaded to the "GH Tunes" service, which will be used to allow other players to rate songs, and toas well as search and download songs by these ratings, and. Neversoft will include a Showcase by Neversoft to offer some of the best user works alongside new songs from popular artists."
Downloadable content
  • More gaming jargon: "DLC"
References
  • Are consolehero.com and videogamesblogger reliable sources?
  • Ref 37 is a YouTube video
  • some of refs have the dates wikilinked but with double brackets displayed around them as well.

There you go. It's a somewhat lengthy list, but addressing these issues should remove any doubt of the article joining the topic. The article is well on its way to GA and FA, but grammar, structure, accuracy needs to be monitored (as I'm sure you're already aware of). Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Can I ask for a recheck of the article? I've done significant work to fix most of the above problems (including fixing the references, though I had to replace the youtube with a consolehero ref -- consolehero's not too bad at this point, and it's only for pre-release info). --MASEM 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading, I noticed there are still some lengthy sentences that could be split up or reworded, and the gameplay section still needs some clarification for the average reader. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

PNC Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have written this article from scratch and would it article to become a FA, comments on anything that will help it reach that goal are welcome. Thank you. Blackngold29 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NatureBoyMD

[edit]

Here are a few things that I noticed:

  • You may need to removed the Pittsburgh flag per Wikipedia:MOSFLAG.
  • You souldn't link to stand-alone years like 1998 at the end of the first paragraph in the lead. Of course, linking to years in baseball that are by themselves is OK.
  • Don't forget to link day and month combinations and full day/month/years like in the panoramic photo.
  • MOS:CONVERSIONS says that conversions should be provided for units of mesasurement. Sure, the conversions are already provided in the infobox, but it wouldn't hurt to provide them again.
  • I can't find it, but I remember reading before that primary units of measurement should be linked in their first instances. (e. g. "410 feet / 125 m").

Well, there are some small things that can get you started. Good luck with you drive to FA status. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are the lengths OK like they are? "10 feet (4 m)" Everything else is fixed. Blackngold29 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it looks right to me. -NatureBoyMD (talk)

Comments from Killervogel5

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • "The park features seating close to the playing surface, the batter is closer to the seats behind home plate than to the pitcher." - a run-on sentence, the comma should be a semi-colon.
  • "The ballpark was built in the style of classic stadiums, such as Fenway Park; while introducing new features, such as the use of limestone." - there are an independent clause and a dependent clause separated by a semicolon; that one should be a comma.
  • There's no consistency throughout the article about whether the north side of Pittsburgh is spelled "Northside," "northside," "North side," "North Side," "north side." You should pick one spelling (preferably the one used in the north side (Pittsburgh) article) and use that throughout.
Opening and reception
[edit]
  • Maybe link Pre-season?
  • "The first pitch was thrown from Todd Ritchie–a ball–to Barry Larkin." The en-dashes should be spaced or replaced with em-dashes.
  • ..."however, later in the inning Jason Kendall singled–the first hit by a Pirate." Same as above; it's an interruption, so it requires a larger stop, per WP:DASH.
  • "Caple compared the park to Fallingwater..." - perhaps you should say Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater, because his name is almost universally identified with Fallingwater, but I wouldn't remember Fallingwater by name without looking at the article.
  • Jason Kendall is linked twice in quick succession in this section.
  • "Former Pirates catcher Jason Kendall called PNC Park, 'the most beautiful ballpark in the game'." - remove the comma.
Alterations
[edit]
  • "In 2007, Allegheny County passed a ban on smoking in most public places, including PNC Park; thus making PNC Park a completely smoke-free facility." - again, semicolon separating an ind. clause and a dep. clause. For this one, I would consider rewording the dependent clause to be a sentence and keeping the semicolon, i.e., "this made PNC Park a completely smoke-free facility."
  • "The Pirates plan to feature bands in The Hall of Fame Club after the completion of select games; the first band to perform was Joe Grushecky and the Houserockers." - the tense does not agree. "Plan to feature" implies the future, "the first band to perform was" implies the past. The first should be changed.
Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you mention Fallingwater, I was just there three days ago. I think I got everything, though there's probably another "Northside" that I forgot. Thanks. Blackngold29 18:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you got them all except the one in quotations, and that one should stay since it is a direct quote. Great job!! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hit bull, win steak

[edit]
  • It'd be nice to see discussion of some of the ballpark's monuments (the statues of Wagner, Clemente, Stargell, Kiner's hands, and the Negro League players, etc.). Maybe also the Great Pierogi Race.
    • I just added the Statues section. Wow, that was one of the most enjoyable sections out of the whole article. It's funny how I walk past them every game I go to, but I never really knew too about them; especially the Wagner one. I know hardly anything about Kiner's hands, except that they're out there in left field. Hopefully I'll get some time to throw in a few sentence about them too.
  • The statement that it's "hailed as one of the best ballparks in the country" should be cited.
    • It was hailed as such by multiple people, usually the lead doesn't need cited for things later sourced; does it?
  • It would be nice to see further expansion of the section on non-baseball events, such as concerts.
    • I added info about evacuation drills that the park has hosted in the past, in all my reasearch I never came accross this; but when a random article popped up on a Google seach, I went with it. I could've sworn that they showed a few movies there, I looked for a half hour for articles about it since I couldn't remember the details, but came up empty.

-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. I think I got everything, is that enough? Blackngold29 04:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully satisfied. Fantastic work! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Television Council

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate this article for GA status and have some suggestions on how to improve this article, which I've been working on for about a year now.


Thanks, Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are my running comments as I read through the article.

  • Your lead is very strong, but watch for weasel words. "The PTC has generated the vast majority of complaints over perceived indecent television content." I know you don't want to get too specific in a lead, which is why the previous sentence "with the PTC succeeding on several occasions" is ok, but this one is pretty easily avoidable.
  • As this is an activist organization, I'd like to see a little bit more history before the publications part of the article. It provides a little context and also follows up better on your lead than going into more detailed content. I know there might not be a whole lot out there -- it may be appropriate to take what you can find and just put it straight into the lead.
  • Very well done with the sourcing. I havn't critically evaluated them, but a once over indicates that they're pretty good and well used throughout the article.
  • I don't know how much you can do about it, but the "Best and Worst Shows" section is really really heavily wikified and its a little imposing to read.
  • The Foundation section might qualify as the history section I was looking for earlier. Should it be called Founding, by the way?
  • Its not quite clear with the sourcing is for the graph in the FCC Complaints section. Using "# Complaints Received" in the legend could be better written. I think its a little dubious to hve the complaints and the associated fines on the same graph anyway...I'd recommend two separate linegraphs next to each other.
  • Activism should probably come after Viewpoints and Positions.
  • At this point, the article is starting to feel like its running long. Part of the problem seems to be that the article reads like a series of text heavy, detailed lists next to each other instead of a cohesive explanatory text. This is a hard problem to fix, but one that is really important for a good article.
  • Try to keep events when talking about their activism chronological. Mostly I say this because it helps to keep the narrative logical.

I've got this page on watch, let me know if you need anything else. EagleFalconn (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've put the foundation section at the beginning and removed "vast". I also cleaned up the cable choice section. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 USC Trojans football team

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its reached GA status, using Wikipedia:WikiProject College football Peer Reviews and the general GA review process, and I wanted to have others take a look before moving on towards an FA nomination. The only precedent for a FA college football season is the exceptional 2005 Texas Longhorn football team article. This article mimics the 2005 Texas style fairly closely; both articles are very long due to the nature of summarizing a 12+ game season. The extra size in the USC article is due to a more extensive "Before the season" outlook and storyline. Other than the length-issue inherent to these topics, I feel the article is strong.

Thanks, Bobak (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now addressed the automated peer review issues that were brought up; several were false-positives (i.e. article titles that used "don't"). --Bobak (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-Since the structure and relative comprehensiveness of the article is based on the aforementioned 2005 UT football season FA, I will focus on prose (I'll address a section at a time):

Lead

  • "The team entered the season with high expectations ranked #1 in all national pre-season polls, picked unanimously to win the Pac-10 Conference and expected to play for a national championship." Split the sentence up: "The team entered the season with high expectations. It was ranked #1 in all national pre-season polls, picked unanimously to win the Pac-10 Conference and expected to play for a national championship."
  • "41 point underdog". Hyphen between 41 and point.
  • "After suffering a second loss, there were questions as to whether the team would be able to even win their own conference, let alone compete nationally". suffering a second loss-->their second loss. "Suffering a second loss" sounds a little unencyclopedic to me.
  • "However USC defied mid-season expectations and rallied its season, rising to a final rankings of #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll." Comma after however. "...rising to a final rankings of #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll." would be better written "finished the season ranked #2 in the Coaches Poll and #3 in the Associated Press (AP) Poll."
  • "By the end of the season they were said to be playing the best football of anyone in the country." I know that there are four references provided to verify that statement, but you might want to provide a general description of who said that (sports magazines, commentators, etc.).

Before the season

  • "The team received a boost in the offseason when many draft-eligible juniors decided to return to school for their senior seasons, leading to the Trojans being tabbed as the preeminent national championship favorites for 2007." This sentence is a bit awkward. Change the comma to a semicolon, and change "leading to" to "resulting in".
  • "On the day before the season, three of four experts at Sports Illustrated online predicted USC would win the BCS Championship Game, attributing the decision to the Trojans defense." What is the day "before the season"?
  • "Senior starting quarterback John David Booty will enter the season as a front-runner for the Heisman Trophy." This sentence needs an update; will enter-->entered.
  • "In judging USC as a pre-season favorite, particular emphasis was made on the defense with 10 returning starters and key backups returning to a defense that was considered to be one of the best in the nation during 2006 season, the highlight being the linebacking corp led by Brian Cushing, Keith Rivers and Rey Maualuga under a return to a 4-3 defense." This sentence simply needs to be rewritten.
  • "USC was able to bring in another top recruiting class, highlighted by the top three players from the "ESPN 150": #1 Joe McKnight (RB); #2 Chris Galippo (LB); and #3 Marc Tyler (RB)." How about a shorter, sweeter sentence: "USC's stellar recruiting class was highlighted by the three highest ranked players from the "ESPN 150": #1 Joe McKnight (RB); #2 Chris Galippo (LB); and #3 Marc Tyler (RB)."
  • "USC also recruited former University of Nebraska kicker, Jordan Congdon, but will not be eligible for the 2007 season; and Brad Smith, formerly of Davidson College who is eligible because the NCAA permits graduated non-scholarship players a one-time transfer with immediate eligibility." Shouldn't "but will not" be "who was not"? Add comma after College and change is to was.
  • "Also in August, backup receiver and redshirt freshman Jamere Holland was dismissed from the team, although not for any violation for team rules and he was allowed to stay on scholarship for the year; Holland redshirted last season after breaking his collarbone, reinjured it during spring practice and had clashed with coaches during his return to fall camp." Try this: "Also in August, backup receiver and redshirt freshman Jamere Holland was dismissed from the team, although not for any violation of team rules. He was allowed to stay on scholarship for the year. Holland redshirted last season after breaking his collarbone, reinjured it during spring practice and had clashed with coaches during his return to fall camp."
  • As a general note, I don't think that dates should be autoformatted. However, the decision whether to take out autoformatting or not rests with the consensus of the editors of each individual article. See User:Tony1/Survey_of_attitudes_to_DA_removal#Proposal_to_remove_date-autoformatting.
  • "Some intra-conference controversy arose in March 2007, when Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh was quoted as saying '[Pete Carroll]'s only got one more year, though.'"
  • "The comment caused a rebuke from Carroll and added some intrigue to their October 6 game." Once again, "some" is the unnecessary word.
  • "In early July, LSU coach Les Miles stirred some inter-conference controversy when he publicly criticized USC's 2007 schedule in front of LSU boosters; though the two schools had not played each other since 1984, the LSU Tiger faithful maintained a strong grudge against the Trojans after they shared the national title in the controversial 2003 season." Can you guess what word should be deleted? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this very useful feedback; I've made all the changes --though I'll probably stick with autoformatted dates since it was previously brought up as an issue and I think its the safer option for now. The problems you noted definitely made me cringe, several date to my early, ill-advised attempts to cram every fact that could be associated with a citation into one, ultra-long sentence. That was a bad idea. I look forward to any more suggestions you might have. --Bobak (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You're probably right about date-autoformatting. It is a hot button issue right now. Best to keep everything the same until the storm passes. I'll post the next section's issues soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule-No issues :)

Roster

  • Were there any walk-on players? If so, make a note about them.
  • You may want to make a note that the redshirt symbol indicates that the player redshirted their freshman year. Remember, the goal is to make the article as comprehensive and self-explanatory as possible.

I need to catch-up with the walk-ons, I'll go look at the online edition of the 2007 Media Guide and 2008 Rose Bowl Media Guide which should have them listed. As for the redshirt note, despite its prevalence, some players do not redshirt a freshman season (the most often reason is a medical redshirt, like CJ Gable who ended up redshirting the 2007 season due to an abdominal injury); did you mean more of a general note of what a redshirt means? --Bobak (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've come up with what you're looking for on the redshirt issue. All the walk-ons are also included now. --Bobak (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was exactly what I meant, good change. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching staff-No issues :)

Game notes

Idaho

*"Trojans Defensive Coordinator Nick Holt had previously been the head coach of the Idaho Vandals between 2004–2005; previous to that he was USC's linebackers coach from 2001 to 2003 under Carroll." previous to that-->before that.

  • "The highlight of the Trojans offense were the running backs, who rushed for 214 yards while Idaho was held to 98." was-->were, the sentence is talking about one highlight.

At Nebraska

  • "In the pre-season, the game was named as one of the candidates for the 10 most important games of 2007, particularly for the Huskers trying to show progress under 4th year head coach Bill Callahan." Let's split this up: "In the pre-season, the game was named as one of the candidates for the 10 most important games of 2007. For the Huskers, the game was especially critical to their hopes of showing progress under 4th year head coach Bill Callahan."
  • "Because of the significance of the game, ESPN College GameDay chose the game as the site of its weekly broadcast." Could we get rid of one "game"?
  • In the Idaho recap, I see "true freshman Joe McKnight". In this section, I see "true-freshman Kris O'Dowd". Which is it, hyphenated or not?
  • "Anticipation for the game was high in Lincoln with strong demand for tickets and accommodations; and the game brought celebrities including USC fans Will Ferrell (also an alumnus) and Keanu Reeves, Nebraska fans Larry the Cable Guy, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and Ward Connerly; past Husker Heisman-winner Mike Rozier, Trojans Heisman-winner Marcus Allen and star Trojans safety Ronnie Lott were on hand for the game." Issues for this sentence:
    • "Anticipation for the game was high in Lincoln with strong demand for tickets and accommodations;" Comma after Lincoln, eliminate with and replace with fueling.
    • The "and" after the first semicolon is unnecessary.
    • Insert also between were and on; otherwise it makes it sound like the other fans didn't come to the game.
  • "The game fell on Pete Carroll's 56th birthday." You know the people at FAC will want a source for this, might as well insert one now.
  • "The Trojans led 42–10 going into the fourth quarter, with Nebraska scoring two touchdowns in the final five minutes during garbage time." Eliminate the additive link with+ -ing construction whenever possible. Change the comma to a colon, eliminate with, and make scoring "scored".
  • "The Trojans dominated on the ground, out-gaining Nebraska 313–31 in rushing yards and averaged 8.2 yards per carry: the most ever against a Nebraska team." Comma instead of colon, that is additional information.
  • "Stafon Johnson led the USC running back corp with a career-best 144 yards in 11 carries with one touchdown; also with major contributions were C.J. Gable (69 yards in four carries, including a 40 yard run), Washington (43 yards in 12 carries with two touchdowns), and another versatile performance by fullback Stanley Havili (52 rushing yards in 2 rushes with one touchdown, thre passes for 22 yards with one touchdown)." The is redundant; corp is unnecessary, pluralize running back. "also with major contributions"-->other major contributors. Typo check: Thre?
  • "After losing some first place votes in the polls during the bye week, USC's performance regained six after their performance against the Huskers in a hostile environment." Two options here: Remove the redundant word some, or replace some with the exact number of first place votes lost.
  • "Receiving particular attention was the Trojans offensive line, as well as the continued poise and ability of freshman center O'Dowd." What type of attention did the O-line receive?
I've made all changes suggested up to this point. --Bobak (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited the at Washington and Washington State sections. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also copyedited the Stanford game section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that will make you groan: All the references must use the cite template. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been going off of policy statements in both Wikipedia:CITE, stating "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged"; as well as WP:CITET, noting that "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." Thus I've been sticking to my way because its consistent and encompasses all required information for citations. --Bobak (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thanks for informing of that; I had never read that section of the guideline before. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm going to copyedit the rest of the article's prose myself. Then, I'll look for other issues and post them here.
I've finished copyediting the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tremendous job! It reads much better now. Other then the few specific comments I had about a few issues, I've followed all your recommendation. Thank you very much! --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues:

  • Arizona State game note section needs link to their 2007 season.
Fixed this and other see also links myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USC visited inter-sectional rival Notre Dame for their 79th annual game for possession of the Jeweled Shillelagh." I know that Notre Dame is an independent, but is it really considered an intersectional rival?
On Notre Dame: the term "intersectional" was more popular about 50 years ago, but is still used for this rivalry. Here's a NYT article from 1958, an LA Times article from 2002, and an SI piece from 2005 that use the term in describing the term "intersectional" in describing the rivalry, the latter two include the more recent trend of calling it the "greatest intersectional football rivalry" --a phrase I didn't use because it hasn't quite become "official" (see Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate). --Bobak (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the After the season section, wouldn't the subsection titled "Comments" be better titled "Achievements"?
The subsection title was based off of the Wikiproject:CFB's Yearly team page format. Also, if the team had flopped (I'm currently working on a season where the team was abysmal), this section would be much more critical; since USC finished #2, it didn't have too much negative to write about under the end of season comment section. --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the loss to 41-point underdog Stanford, their season came into serious question, and after further losing to Oregon there were questions as to whether USC would even win the Pacific-10 Conference." What does "their season came into serious question" mean?
Clarified. --Bobak (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been resolved. I think this article is FAC-ready. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot (30 Rock)

[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 the article is already listed as a Good Article and has gone through a failed FAC, but since then I have tried to expand the article further and I have improved the lead. In the peer review I would like comments regarding how I could get this article to meet the Featured Article Criteria.

Thanks, Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

I'm actually a big fan of 30 Rock, but my experience with editing TV-related articles is fairly nonexistent. So consider this review from the standpoint of an outsider. :) As requested, I've reviewed this article as I would for FAC.

  • Because the episode doesn't have an exact title, I suggest beginning the article with a different lead-in. How about something along the lines of, "The pilot episode of the American situation comedy 30 Rock was..."  Done
  • I believe the lead is a little too substantial for an article of this length. I would say it should be three paragraphs, tops. Also, try not to begin the lead section with a laundry list of times/places the episodes aired; begin with what makes the episode notable.  Done
  • I see some redundancies in the lead that need to be trimmed down. For example, in the last paragraph there's: "...is introduced in this episode. This episode also introduces..." "The episode focuses..." etc. Copy-edit, vary word usage and sentence structure, and trim down!  Done Merged paragraphs 2 and 3 and trimmed the original paragraph 2.
  • In the refs, "TV.com" and other non-publications/newspapers/magazines do not need to be italicized. There's also something funky going on with the publishers in refs 30 and 33. Done
  • Rachel Dratch originally played the role of Jenna DeCarlo, in an unaired pilot for 30 Rock. A little background regarding Dratch's relationship to SNL would be good here, I think; even if it's just "SNL performer Rachel Dratch" or something similar. Done
  • Speaking of SNL, I believe that the show's background should come before the episode's production since, chronologically, that's how it happened. The whole SNL parody, Fey's inspiration, etc, should come first and then tie into this episode's history.  Done

I did not get too far into reviewing the prose, but I may do so later if needed. Best of luck, if you have any questions just let me know! María (habla conmigo) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've sorted all the points. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)
  • I would bold pilot episode rather than just pilot. Alternatively, rewrite the sentence to something like "Pilot is the first episode produced and broadcast for the American situation comedy series 30 Rock." Done
  • "the first episode produced and broadcast of the series." should be "for the series" Done
  • Just in case you weren't aware, date linking (and autoformatting) is no longer required by the MoS. It's entirely optional now, so if you want to remove them, you can. I prefer not to have them linked, as it will allow your high-value links to stand out more (is it necessary to know that it aired in Canada on the anniversary of Evgeny Kissin's birthday?) and see whether the date formatting is correct. Done
  • There's really no need to wikilink Canada, United States or United Kingdom -- see WP:CONTEXT and WP:OVERLINK. I think everyone who uses en.wiki will be aware of those countries and not need to visit those articles from this one. Done
  • Don't overlink NBC{{done}
  • "With this advise," What advise? also, the spelling should be "wikt:advice" Done Copy and Pasting error.
  • "a few years later," I'd prefer a real figure than a vague "few" Done
  • "re-tooled" is a bit of a specialist word. If there is no wikilink for this, perhaps use a different word? Done Linked to Wiktionary
  • Do not link month-years, such as May 2006, per MOS:NUM Done
  • WP:MOSTV says the word count for plot sections should be between 200 and 500 words. The plot falls just within that with 211 words, but for an hour long episode I feel it could be more. Having said that, I haven't seen the episode so I don't know if anything more can be added, but for the first episode which usually introduces many characters and sets a lot of stuff up, I think it probably can be. For example, what does Liz do with the $150 worth of hotdogs? "Liz is sceptical due to Tracy's past record of various infamous stunts." What stunts? It seems kind of teaser-ish, and not wanting to give away spoilers, but WP allows Spoilers. Done The old word count was based on an old guideline at WP:TELEVISION which was something along the lines of 10 words per minute of runtime for the plot. I've expanded the section to 314 words.
  • "Liz, against her own judgement, meets with Tracy" --> "Against her own judgement, Liz meets with Tracy" Done
  • There's a few passive voice sentences. "In 2002, Fey, who was then the head writer and a performer on Saturday Night Live (SNL), pitched the pilot that became this episode to NBC, originally as a situation comedy about cable news." --> "A pilot episode for a situation comedy about a cable news network was originally pitched to NBC in 2002 by Fey, who was then the head writer and a performer on NBC's Saturday Night Live (SNL)." Done
  • "The NBC Entertainment president, who was then Kevin Reilly, felt that" --> "NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly, felt that" Done
  • "In May, 2003," --> "In May 2003," Done
  • "In May, 2003, Fey signed a contract with NBC to remain in her SNL head writer position until at least the 2004–2005 television season." --> "Fey signed a contract with NBC in May 2003, allowing her to remain in her SNL head writer position until at least the 2004–2005 television season." Done
  • "U.S.", but "United Kingdom". Would be better as "US" and "UK" Done
  • Remove the a in "which was a 6% of the viewing audience" Done
  • No need for the first comma in "Stanley further praised Baldwin's performance, as Jack Donaghy," Done

Hope these help! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've sorted all of them. It's much appreciated as i'm looking to submit the article for FA in the next few days. -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to run it through WP:FL soon, and I'd appreciate some comments first. The last time I went to WP:FL (with Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford), many of the comments were minor MOS points that I think I've managed to avoid this time round. I should be turning the remaining redlinks to blue in the next few days. The unlinked names are people about whom nothing is known, or about whom nothing can really be said to show notability.

Thanks, BencherliteTalk 23:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1.

Defense Technical Information Center

[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 finished a major overhaul. This is my first major contribution to Wikipedia and I'm looking for comments and assistance for this article, but tips and comments on my work for my future edits here!

Thanks, ThomasOwens (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the semi-automated peer review (SAPR) because it should not be included here for the following reasons: 1) when the SAPR is included here, this peer review request does not show up at WP:PR for others to see it and make comments; 2) this saves space at WP:PR; and 3) this follows the directions above, i.e. "Please do not ... paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead." Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: You need to decide if you are going to develop this into a full Wikipedia article, or leave it as a brief summary with links. If it is to be a full-scale article, the following require attention:-

  • The lead needs to be expanded into a full summary of the article. At present the brief lead section simply defines what DTIC is, whereas the article covers its foundation, history and range of activities. The general rule is that anything of significance in the main article should be briefly anticipated in the lead; conversely, anything that appears in the lead should be expanded in the main article.
  • Sections in the main article should generally be in prose, not in bullet-point list format. I see from the article's talk-page that the need to rewrite the History section in prose has been acknowledged, and perhaps this would be the first place to start the development of the article.
  • The bald links in the IAC lists need to be replaced by short descriptions of what these agencies actually do, cited to each web source.
  • References need to be properly formatted, using the cite web template.
  • The appearance of the article would be improved if you can find a related image or two. You may have to stretch your imagination, but I expect there will be DoD material on Commons that has some relevance to this article.

I have not looked in detail at the prose, but will do so if you decide you want to develop the article on the above lines. Brianboulton (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickman-de Bruijn function

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After extensive edits to this article, I decided it would be best to get feedback on how to improve the article. I don't think that featured article status is appropriate for a technical article like this, but an outside opinion would be great.


Thanks, CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall:

  • The names of the mathematicians in the text aren't too helpful for the reader. For example, "Dickman showed heuristically..." could read "In 1930, the Swedish-educated actuary Karl Dickman showed heuristically..."[20] The article should also list the individuals after whom this function is named and explain why they are so honored.
  • The graph at the top should describe the axes. Presumably the horizontal is u and the vertical is ρ(u)?
  • In the computation section for u in the range [2,3], the analytical function of ρ(u) is given in terms of x. It probably should be in terms of u.
  • Is this function useful for any practical application?

I hope this was some help. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layered clothing

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to hear if there are any problems with it that'd make unrealistic its nomination as a Good Article.

Thanks, Skarkkai (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • There are no in-line references using {{cite web}} for example. I imagine it would be quick-failed for this alone.
  • Not keen on the links which just head to the same article, only two lines lower (e.g. Inner layer).
  • Why is some of the text in bold (e.g. Synthetic materials)? Doesn't need to be.
  • Explain what PETE before using the abbreviation.
  • A lot of claims in this article read like WP:OR e.g. "Silk feels more comfortable, but is weaker and harder to take care of, and is less commonly used. " - either reference this or reword to stay purely factual.
  • " (UK company Buffalo" avoid these kind of links.
  • Second EL appears to be bordering on advertising, giving undue weight to one manufacturer.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition

[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Would love to have some feedback on this since wanted to nominate it for FA once done. This would also help to improve Hindu-German Conspiracy to FA standards, so all help will be appreciated. Particularly looking for help with prose, grammar, suggestions at condensing, etc. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hemlock Martinis comments
  • Vague
  • Thank you for including a "Background" section an a "Influence" section (although the latter might be better renamed to "Aftermath" or "Impact").
  • There are a few instances where some of the sentences are excessively complex. Example: "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, sometimes referred to as The German mission to Kabul was a diplomatic mission sent by the Central Powers to Afghanistan in 1915-1916 that sought to encourage Afghanistan to declare independence from Britain, draw her into World War I on the side of the Central Powers, and attack British India." A possible fix: "The Niedermayer-Hentig Expedition, sometimes referred to as The German mission to Kabul, was a diplomatic mission sent by the Central Powers to Afghanistan in 1915 and 1916. The expedition's primary goal was to encourage Emir Habibullah to declare independence from the British Empire and bring Afghanistan into World War I on the side of the Central Powers by attacking British India."
  • In the above example, you originally referred to Afghanistan as a "her". I would prefer to refrain from addressing countries with personal pronouns that ascribe a gender. While I don't know if such a thing is written down anywhere as policy, either for or against, I certainly don't like it.
  • Make sure you standardize the name you ascribe to the United Kingdom. In this case you've used "Britain" (which is fine) although 1) make sure you address it as either "the United Kingdom" or "the British Empire" in the first instance in which it appears and 2) make sure you use only "Britain" thereafter, not England (as you have in a few instances).
  • When discussing Turkey before 1922, refer to it as the Ottoman Empire unless specifically addressing the Turkish part of the empire.
  • Specific
  • "It may have further influenced policies of the nascent Bolshevik Russia to propagate socialist revolution to Asia and the western colonial empire." Do you mean "western" as in the direction or as in the Western civilization sense?
  • "Mehmed V, the Sultan of Turkey, was then regarded as the Caliph by a substantial part of the Islamic world." Do you have a citation for this? Also, see the Turkey-Ottoman Empire thing above.
  • "The Kaiser himself toured Constantinople, Damascus and Jerusalem in 1898 to portray solidarity with Mussalmans, who at the time were predominantly subjects of the British Empire." Kaiser who? Please specify. And although I personally disagree with Wikipedia's choice to refer to Kaiser Wilhelm II as German Emperor William II, I would be lax in my review if I didn't suggest that you change all instances to the latter.
  • "In this situation, Britain perceived Afghanistan as the only entity capable of directly destabilising India." Do you mean the British people or the British government?
  • "As the war started, advice from the foreign office, the military, and from Moltke considered using the pan-Islamic movement to destabilise the British Empire and begin a revolution in India as early as the first week of August 1914." Specify which foreign office and military.
  • "With the onset of the war, revolutionary unrest itself increased in India, and a number of Hindu and Muslim leaders left clandestinely to seek help of the Central power for an Indian revolution." No need for "itself" and specify where they left to go. "the Central power" should also be changed to "Germany" for clarity.
  • "The pan-Islamic movement in India (particularly the Darul Uloom Deoband) also made plans for an insurrection in the tribal belt of North-west India with support from the Afghan Amir, the Ottoman Empire and Imperial Germany." A few things here. Should "north-west" be hypenated? Please standardize Emir/Amir, the aforementioned Ottoman Empire/Turkey and Imperial Germany/Germany.
  • "Aware of the sensitivities of the Persian tribes, it was suggested that the Germans wear Turkish army uniforms but this idea was rejected by the Germans." Suggested by whom?
  • "Moreover, the aims of the expedition were far from clear, and this was expected to be confirmed only after it reached Constantinople." This should be clarified.
  • "Werner Otto von Hentig was a Prussian military officer who before the war had served as the military attaché to Beijing and Constantinople in 1910 and 1912 respectively." Is Prussian the correct term here or German? Also, you might want to check if Beijing was Peking at this time.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Per the MOS, quotations shouldn't be inclosed with the graphical curly quotes. {{blockquote}} works fine.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

PennPraxis

[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 honest feedback, since the topic is still new, but there has been coverage of the group for a while now. The group is just now beginning to influence Philadelphia city planning.

Thanks, - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article is very short and needs to be expanded - what is the history of this, what are some other projects they have been involved in, how many people are involved? Peer review is typically for more developed articles, but always glad to help improve articles.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. If the words in quotes are direct quotes, they need refs too.
  • Any chance of a free image - the building this is in? The professor in charge? A project they worked on?
  • Language needs to be cleaned up in places - overuse of quotes around words, PennPraxis is an it not a they so change They offer opportunities for Penn faculty and students to test ideas and theories ... to It offers ...

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

[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 discusses an important epoch in the development of literature in the Kannada language. The article is well referenced but needs a peer review to improve grammar, presentation and style. Please provide constructive feedback which can help this article eventually become a FA.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Literature in the Hoysala Empire/archive1.

Farthest South

[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. It has recently passed GA with the observation that it perhaps had too many images. I've deleted one, and shifted the positions of others. I'd like further comments on choice and positioning of images, also on the prose generally, and any other suggestions for improvement.


Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FactotEm comments...

General...

Ferdinand Magellan...

  • "...in quest search of a western route..."? Quest sounds somehow wrong.
    • Yes, search is better
  • "...otherwise known as the East Indies...". In it's current form it reads like he was questing for a route to the Spice islands, but he would have settled for the East Indies.
    • My wording was lazy and wrong. The Spice Islands were (indeed are, under their current name, the Moluccas), a part of, not an alternative name for, the East Indies, and I've altered accordingly.
  • "His success depended on his finding...". Unnecessary 2nd his there.
    • Agreed

Garcia de Nodal expedition...

  • "...,the islands remaining. The islands remained the most southerly confirmed known land on earth until Captain Cook's discovery...". I think it reads better as a new sentence, allowing the active voice to be used, and "most southerly confirmed" seems a little clunky.
What are you beginning to wonder? Is it serious enough for me to suspend the PR? It's a fascinating subject, amongst my favourites on wikipedia, and I hope you continue with it. --FactotEm (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please continue the review. I was just wondering whether I have put enough work into the article - it's a new approach for me, the broad brush of exploration rather than the minutae of individual expeditions. Now that SNAE is out of the way, I will be able to give more attention to it. Disregard my private musings Brianboulton (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that you are an accomplished editor of articles to FA, or near-FA standard, and my review seems only able to find very minor issues with prose. If it's OK with you, rather than the laborious process of identifying them here for you to address, I'd like to just make the changes as I find them. You can obviously revert those you don't like, and I would still comment here on issues that are more than just small re-arrangements in wording. Sound OK? --FactotEm (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. On past experience, your edits have almost always improved the prose, so it's unlikely I will revert. What I would value most, when you're through, is some brief overall assessment of the article's worth. Its GA promotion was fast-tracked, without a detailed review report, so I haven't had a proper critique of it yet. As I said above, it's a different type of article from my usual expedition histories, so an outside perspective on it will be specially welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow. --FactotEm (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Falcon Scott...

  • "...difficulties caused by the party’s lack of ice travelling experience and the failure of its dogs through inappropriate food." This makes it sound like the dogs broke down because Scott was trying to feed them kitty food. What happened to the dogs? Did they die ("...losses amongst the dogs...")? What was inappropriate about their food, or do you mean inadequate? --FactotEm (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first surmise is actually quite near the truth. The story is this: On the advice of Nansen, Scott took with him to Antarctica a large supply of stockfish, to use as basic dog fodder in place of the more usual biscuit. Unfortunately, on its long sea journey south, with inadequate refrigeration, the fish went a bit "off", and by the time of the southern journey it was enough to sicken and weaken the dogs, who all eventually died of a combination of poor diet and overwork. I can't put that much detail into this brief summary, so I chose simply to say that their food was "inappropriate". Would it work better if I said "tainted" instead of "inappropriate", and added a referenced footnote by way of explanation? Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...loss of all its dogs through poor diet and overwork." seems to me to be a perfectly valid way to summarise this. --FactotEm (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead...

  • Having finished a copyedit of the main body, I turned my attention to the lead, but this reads to me as if it is from a subtlely different article. Some of the concepts introduced in the lead that do not get explored in any detail in the main article include...
  • The matter of pride in gaining the record;
I have added further details into the Scott and Shackleton expeditions, to illustrate this point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (up to 18th century) belief in a fertile continent hidden in the south;
The Captain Cook section mentions that one of the primary purposes of his expedition was to discover the Great Southern Continent (the other purpose, not mentioned, was to observe the transit of Venus). Cook's journey, and his high latitude circumnavigation, killed off all hopes of a fertile continent, and I have added Cook's own words to this effect, at the end of the section.Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sighting of Bouvet Island (which is mentioned only in the lead);
Bouvet Island wasn't sighted on a voyage that led to a Farthest South. Its discovery is only relevant in that its bleak nature should have warned explorers that any land south of 60° was likely to be equally inhospitable. I have briefly made this point in the Cook section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stormy nature of the southern seas (the dangers from ice are regularly mentioned, but the stormy seas are not).
Storms are mentioned in relation to the Hoces and Drake expeditions. The Cook and Weddell expeditions also experienced rough weather, and I have added afew words in each case.
  • Conversely, much of the salient points in the main body do not seem to be summarised in the lead. I suspect this is simply a case of re-casting the lead once you are happy with the main content though.
    • I will have to give some thought to this. I cannot summarise ten or eleven expeditions in the lead, only the general motivations that successively drove them on (first trade, then discovery, then adventure). I will work on it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I really like this article. To this layman, who's own Farthest South mark is 65°15’S, its a succinct, accessible, eminently readable skip through man's gradual approach to the south pole. The only point at which I felt something was missing was Borchgrevink's 1900 return to the continent. Please tell me he picked up his shore party that was left there the previous year. The only substantive thing that I think would improve this article would be a map image showing each explorer's farthest south record (and their routes if at all possible).

My review is based on what you have included. You know better than I what, if anything, is missing, but it does not read like there is anything substantial lacking. --FactotEm (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am most grateful for this review, which has been of great assistance. My inclination is not to take it anywhere further for the moment, but to work on it with a view perhaps, in the autumn or maybe later, of giving it a punt. For the record, my own Farthest South is 31°15'North (Beersheba), but I am going on an Arctic voyage in September that will take me to 73°. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX media

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been cleaned up a lot and referenced now. The article might fall into a B article or higher, if not it be good to get feedback to improve it more.

Thanks, Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Per WP:CITE, references come AFTER punctuation with no spaces, so ... peace of the world. [1] [2] [3] should be ... peace of the world.[1][2][3]
  • Lead does not summarize the article, which is about songs in the series - the lead is a summary of the plot. See WP:LEAD
  • The Theme songs section essentially summarizes all of the informtion in three sentences, then gives it again in three tables. While the tables have a bit more information (note that a band is not the same as vocalist), I am not sure why these three sentences couldn't be in another article. Merge this and move on.
  • The Episode list section is not a true episode list - again why is this needed? Sorry, but I agree with the merge tag. Wyy should this be its own article?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Léon M'ba

[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 has recentlybeen translated by User:Nishkid64 and myself. I would like to hear your comments so this article can get featured.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another good effort on this article. I'll give it a full read later and post some more comments later. Off hand my main concern with glancing at it was the number of citations from the same source. The majority of the article seems to be written from Biteghe 1990 and Bernault 1996. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's what happens when not much is written about the subject. we also use Keese and the radio emission as huge references. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000

[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 receive feedback to complete this list in the most acurate way posible. Note: When I sent the list for the 1999 number-one albums to the FL reviewer they asked to choose between the rowspan or the sortable, and I choose the rowspan.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Nice to see how these have improved - not too much to comment on that has not been addressed already, so most of this will be nit-picky. Since Latin is capitalized in the title, should it be chart that features Latin music information? FIXED
  • Needs a copyedit too - The number-one albums of 2000, according to this chart were eleven ... could be simpler, just say There were eleven number-one albums on this chart in 2000... FIXED
  • Nationalities are generally capitalized (Colombian, Guatemalan). Why is Guatemalan not linked? Also why do some artists have nationalities given but others (Gloria Estefan) do not? FIXED
  • Watch overlinking - singer-songwriter is linked twice in the lead at least. FIXED

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this as a features article. Any suggestions, comments and contributions are welcome! :)


Thanks, Jainrajat11 (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you are serious about trying to get featured status for this article you will need first to attend to the following:-

  • In-line citations: At present, these are almost non-existent - 15 in an article of 5,000 words. Someone has started to put citation tags in the text, but has given up. Dozens more could be added.
  • Sources: You need to base the article on reliable sources. Some of yours are dead links, some are promotional websites. I don't know what [11] is. I believe there must be better sources than these.
  • Encyclopedic tone: This is generally lacking. Take the "cuisine" section, for example; where is the neutral point of view here? You should be writing a strictly factual article, not one that promotes the city or its facilities.

It might be a good idea to look at other city articles, particularly those like Washington DC which have recently been raised to FA status, to see the general standards of writing, sourcing and referencing that are required in featured articles. You should not be discouraged from attempting to make bring this article to the required standard, but you need to be realistic about what this will involve. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Airport

[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 the recent promotion to good article status and on suggestion by the reviewer to pursue featured article status. Hopefully some good input can be provided to further refine and improve the article. Thanks! Mvjs (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • I very vaguely recall there being more than one "main" airport in Melbourne (I lived near Tullamarine for a short time and I always thought there was another big one somewhere far away... but then I was 9 so yeah...). Am I totally wrong? If not, can there be a link to it in the hatnote?
  • I'm not sure if I like the fact that the article starts off with a stack of statistics... I prefer Sydney Airport's first few sentences; thoughts?
  • "The airport is located 25 kilometres (16 mi) northwest of the Melbourne city centre and has its own suburb boundaries with the area officially named Melbourne Airport, adjacent to the suburb of Tullamarine and has the postcode 3045" - this sentence needs some work... (try reading it aloud)
  • Is the flying of the A380 at Melbourne such a big deal that it warrants its own section?
    • I believe so, there's major terminal modifications happening to accommodate the aircraft and this aircraft beginning commercial service at the airport is an important mark in the airports history. I don't like to participate in the "me too" mentality but Singapore Changi has a section on accommodating the A380.
  • The refs in the Traffic and statistics table seem to get overlapped by the header text... not sure what to do about it, but yeah...
  • Is it worth having really small sections like the Other facilities and Melbourne Centre ones?
  • "and the noise from jet operations made Essendon an unsuitable site." - this is a bit awkward considering there's already an airport at Essendon (or so you write...)...
  • "with the first international flights arriving" - feels incomplete; when did they arrive?
  • "The first domestic flight landed on June 26, 1971[12] and also that year, the first landing of the Boeing 747." - this sentence is a bit choppy midway through, play around with the commas and see if you can make it flow better.
  • "Melbourne Airport was originally called Tullamarine Airport and locals still commonly refer to it by that name or simply as Tulla." - source? (And for the rest of this paragraph.)
  • Yeah, took a look at a few random paragraphs of prose; an independant copyedit would be a good idea before FAC.
  • I hope these comments help. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Cheers, —Giggy 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal

[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 the article on Montreal for peer review because I have been working on this article a lot since its last peer review, and I want to know what the article needs to bring it to the next level (either GA, A or FA). It has over 100 sources (about twice as much as before) and evidently needs some more in the locations I've pinpointed. Any sort of commentary is useful in improving the article. In particular with regards to the way its written, information to add and remove, missing sections, layout, tone, etc. I want this to be a great article and with your input I can help to bring it there.

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks in advance, MTLskyline (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dtbohrer

  • A lot of "citation needed" tags (but you already know that).
  • Some of the sections need to be summarized more.
    • I really think the whole "Neighborhoods" section should only be in its own article. (Of the cities I checked that were FA, a few cities (Cleveland, Ohio & Detroit, Michigan for example) had a section for neighborhoods (and they were at most 3 paragraphs) the rest either didn't mention them (Hamilton, Ontario) or had it as a "see also" (Minneapolis, Minnesota).
    • All the "Culture" sections should be merged and condensed.
    • "Transportation" should be split to a "Transporation in Montreal" and then summarized in the main "Montreal" article (there's a tag for that already in the article)
    • The "Road" section should also be merged with "Transportation" and with the majority of info moved to "Transporation in Montreal"

This is just a brief review of the major problems. I'll add more later. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 01:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta@home

[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 think this article has been significantly improved from the version I started working on almost a month ago, but I would like input from more experienced editors before nominating it as a good article. Considering that the article was flagged as reading like an advertisement and being generally NPOV before my overhaul, I would appreciate comments on if/where those violations still exist in addition to any other general advice.

Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJH comments—Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use to you:

  • The following assertion doesn't appear to be explained in the text: "Two particularly important tests..." Why are the tests particularly important?
  • I'd like to see "Computing platform" list the protocol and port number for the internet connection. You should also mention how it is initiated, including as a screen saver. Is this open source? Do you know what language(s) it was written in?
I expanded the 'Computing platform' section from one paragraph to four, addressing each of your concerns. Emw2012 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page includes many brief sections. You might consider merging them.
I think most of the second level sections (e.g. Mini Rosetta, HIV, etc.) are brief, but the subject of some of them should be distinguished from the rest of the first level section. I will work on expanding those second level sections to at least four- or five-sentence paragraphs.
  • Normally you shouldn't repeat the article title in a section title. The section is assumed to be about the article topic unless it says otherwise.
The section title in question, 'Development history and branches of Rosetta', has been changed to simply 'Development history and branches'. It's necessary to have 'Rosetta' in some of the second level sections (like RosettaDock and RosettaDesign) since those describe distinct applications that run in Rosetta@home.
  • The "Features and Issues" section should be converted from a bulleted list to prose. Some of the bullets could be merged into the "Computing platform" section.
As of now I've removed the "Features and Issues" section -- it seemed to contain a lot of outdated information, would be a pain to overhaul into good prose, and important parts can be merged into other sections. I will incorporate some of those bullet points into the 'Computing platform' section when I expand it with your other suggestions.
  • My personal preference is to use citations rather than inline links. The former can include other information about the web page, while the latter is subject to link rot and then you have lost all information about the source.
I'm not sure what you been by 'citations rather than inline links' -- could you explain? Emw2012 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul, Minnesota

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I and other members of WikiProject Minnesota would like to improve this article in preparation for the 2008 Republic National Convention which will draw a great deal of local, national and international press coverage. The will corresponded to people viewing this article more frequently than in the past.

Our overall goal would be to achieve GA or higher.

It is that spirit that improvements are needed—so that we may put the most accurate face on St. Paul (and the surrounding area).

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jena Six

[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 this article recently passed GA. I'd like to nominate it for FA, but I'm not sure it is ready yet, and would be grateful for a peer review. The article is extensively footnoted and is kept up to date.…

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article could provide context for the reader in several places - see WP:PCR. For example, would it make sense to give some demographic and other information (a sentence or two) on Jena, Louisiana at the start?
  • Many of the headers seem overly detailed - perhaps "DA address" or "DA Speech" instead of "District attorney addresses the school assembly"
  • While the detail there is good, there were places that seemed to me to need an explanatory note to clarify things. For example, in "School arson, fight, and confrontation" (another section header that seems like it could be shorter) it says Six black youths, including 16-year-old Robert Bailey, Jr., attempted to enter the party at about 11:00 p.m. - I think it should make clearer here who these youths were - are they the same six who are the "Jena six"? Are their identities unknown? Are they a group of different members, some the same of the Jena Six? Or at the start of the "Attack on Barker" section would it make sense to explicitly say at the start that this was "the Jena Six" incident? You get the idea...
  • There are places where it says things like this According to media reports, a black male freshman asked the principal whether he could sit under the tree.[9] - could the media reports be identified?
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just wrote this last night, but I believe this is one of my best articles so far, and I'd like some feedback before FAC. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BP Pedestrian Bridge

[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 FAC reviewers suggest it needs retooling. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of the Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/BP Pedestrian Bridge/archive1.

Banagher

[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 done extensive updating on it and brought it from Start to B rating. I have followed the WP:MOS and referenced extensively. I would like to know how far away it is from being a GA or FA. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and it was suggested by an editor working on the Wikipedia Ireland Project that I submit it for peer review.

Thanks, Corcs999 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. While it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it, some more is needed to improve it further. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • History section ends in 1963 as far as I can tell - nothing has happened in 45 years?
  • Generally well referenced, but some sections need refs, for example the first, fourth and fifth paragraphs of Geography have no refs, or the second paragraph of Cuba Court.
  • Watch for needless repetition - for example Cuba Court gives details on Charlotte Brontë and her connection to Banagher in about the depth needed, then there are four very detailed paragraphs on her connection in Literature and the Arts (see WP:HEAD - this should be "Literature and the arts" I think). This does not need to be in two places in the article.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Navenby and Bath, Somerset are FAs and more possible models may be found at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography_and_places

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruhrfisch. I'll take those comments on board. I've had a look at the articles you mention and will be guided by those. I might come back to you when I have some more work done, if that's ok? I will also consider peer reviewing an article at that stage - I am new to this so might need a bit more experience for that.--Corcs999 (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just drop me a line on my talk page to take another look. Take your time on peer reviews, but any help is always appreciated here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001

[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 this lists to be as good as possible, and also I want some feedback about them.

Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I just reviewed the 2000 list so I thought I would look at 2001. Since they are very similar in format and share some text, so of this will be repetitive. Nice to see how these have improved - not too much to comment on that has not been addressed already, so most of this will be nit-picky. Since Latin is capitalized in the title, should it be chart that features Latin music information?. FIXED!
  • Needs a copyedit too - The number-one albums of 2001, according to this chart were twenty ... could be simpler, just say There were twenty number-one albums on this chart in 2001... Ask for copyedit help at WP:PRV and tell them this is short - not too much to edit!. FIXED!
  • Per WP:LEAD this is too short for four paragraphs and I always say one sentence paragraphs should be combined or expanded anyway. FIXED.
  • Last two paragraphs in lead are unreferenced. They are all extraordinary claims, especially Grupo Bryndis became the third act to release two number-one albums in the same year after Tex-Mex performer Selena did it on 1995 and 1996 and Enrique Iglesias in 1999. and need refs. FIXED!.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slackers CDs and Games

[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 recently got this article up to GA status, now what would need to be done for FA?

Thanks, Me5000 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is a long way off from FA and am a bit surprised it is a GA. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article is a bit short, while this is not a FA criterion, comprehensiveness is. This just seems way too short.
  • Article needs a copyedit - contactions should not be used for FA (professional prose is an FA criterion) so spell out "it is" (not "it's"), while in other places the possessive "its" is spelled incorrectly as "it's".
  • Lots of one or two sentence paragraphs that should be combined or perhaps expanded.
  • Do the sources all meet WP:RS?
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Elderly Instruments is an FA on a small local music based business and may be a good model article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fethullah Gülen

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
gulen has driven attention after he voted top thinker in an online poll by the foreign policy magazine. i've listed this article for peer review because the article sounds like a battlefield between the gulen enemies and followers and never becomes stable. the neutral tone is not preferred by the enemies if it does not sound negative enough to satisfy their emotions. and followers wants more in some cases. the community oversee seems to be necessary to end this and stabilize the article. i posted a request on the 'request for comment' page before too, but did not get enough attention from there. i hope you have some time to review the article and provide some useful comments on the talk page. Thanks, Philscirel (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, don't bother with this request. This is the fourth time he is doing this (check the talk page). This user is swimming against the tide and it's time to take action. We can do the peer review after the article reaches neutrality. --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Adoniscik. This article is far from ready for peer review, don't waste your time. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am archiving this as PR is not for dispute resolution per the PR guidelines. Sort this out on the talk page for the article, when consensus has been reached, please renominate it. Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stripped (Christina Aguilera 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 improved this article a lot and I think it has become a really good one, but I still wanted to know if I could do something!

Thanks, Olliyeah (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "" Exactly, she has co-written fourteen songs and has been involved in the production of the record, which majority was produced by Scott Storch and Linda Perry. The artist's public appearance has been critizised heavily in the US" needs a good copyedit...
    • Starting with "Exactly..." reads odd
    • "which majority was" - not good grammar
    • critizised - typo.
    • "The artist's" - you mean Aguilera? Refer to her by name, not The artist.
  • "yielded 5 commercial singles to help selling over 9 million " 5->five, 9->nine.
  • Headings should follow WP:HEAD so "Critical Reception" should be "Critical reception".
  • " Rolling Stones Magazine " Rolling Stones magazine.
  • "and is Christina's lowest " refer by her surname please.
  • "you call her a @#%$" how do you pronounce @#%$? remember Wikipedia is not censored.
  • "it said " Aguilera's ..." remove the space before A.
  • " renowned American Idol judge" - we don't need this info here.
  • Avoid overlinking - Dirrty is linked far too often.
  • "but quickly began to slide down the charts" not particularly encyclopaedic.
  • "due to massive downloads" ditto.
  • Tour heading shouldn't be in italics, and none of the tour section is referenced.
  • The personnel section reads like a huge trivia list. Trim it down.
  • Have you considered looking at other album articles which are currently featured, e.g. Rock Steady (album)?
  • Refs 53 through 79 need to make fuller use of the {{cite web}} template.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Seegoon (talk · contribs)

Apologies if I repeat anything!

  • "Stripped is the second English studio album" - "English" confused me in this context. I'd extend it to full "English language".
  • "Christina supported the album with the Justified and Stripped and Stripped World Tour." - "Christina"? Aguilera, I think.
  • "She has co-written fourteen songs and has been involved in the production of the record, which was mainly produced by Scott Storch and Linda Perry." - tense is a little off here. I'd change it to "She co-wrote..." and "and was involved". Plus, it doesn't flow too cleanly into the next sentence, which could also do with a little expanding upon.
  • "The album has yielded five commercial singles to help selling over nine million copies worldwide." - again, weird tense. I'd remove "has".
  • I've copy-edited the Background paragraph. It didn't flow well whatsoever. It's still not great, though.
  • Your referencing, overall, is in dire straits. References 1, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39, 72 and 79 evidently need {{cite web}}-ing. 38 needs attention, evidently. References 2 and 3 need consolidating. Also, there are minor issues with almost all of them. For instance, under the publisher field, it's nice to have a wikilink. If relevant, for instance with magazines, you should use italics. Dates written like January 1, 2000 should be wikilinked too.
  • I could keep going, but I think that it's more important that you do so. If you keep working at the prose, trying to make continuously flowing paragraphs instead of random sentences following one another, you could end up with something very nice. I'm going to give it a quick once-over in terms of MOS tweaks, but I think this just needs more and more TLC! Seegoon (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struthiomimus

[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 desire feedback on how to improve the article. Comments on grammar, layout, clarity, etc., are appreciated. I already understand that the lead needs expanding. I am not truly interested in an automated review.

Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: What is there looks pretty good, but it needs some more work. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (but the history seems to be only in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - this is not the case now. Please see WP:LEAD
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several dinosur FAs including Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus that may be good models.
  • The article needs many more references - for example Struthiomimus, being a member of Coelurosauria, probably had feathers. needs a ref (and is a very short paragraph and should be combined with another or perhaps exapnded). The "Popular culture" section has NO refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Watch for jargon - some is needed, but could perhaps be explained better (like Its feet were elongate, and the metatarsals were tightly appressed, with three toes tipped by claws with very slight curvature.[6] - what does appressed mean?) See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, Ruhrfisch. Your comments and thoughts are appreciated. I can certainly cite the uncited feather sentence, but aside from the pop culture section, which may be jettisoned at some point, everything is cited. I'm not sure where the extra references would go. I can certainly tone down the science jargon; this is exactly what I wanted: confirmation that the tone of the article was too scientific for a layman (I felt so myself, but wanted another opinion). The Struthiomimus article was modeled after Gorgosaurus and other theropod FAs. The history of the genus is explained in more than just the lead; it's here. Thanks again for your review! Firsfron of Ronchester 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the feathers and pop culture I do not recall any other uncited material. Assuming it can be cited with WP:RS I kind of like the pop culture stuff (as long as it is not a cruft magnet). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Academic Decathlon

[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 looking to submit it for GAR and would like a fresh set of eyes to look it over before it is submitted. It has gone under substantial revisions since early June and has improved greatly. I'd like it to be looked over mainly for MOS and prose/clarity issues mostly in addition to the standard GA criteria. There is a little bit more content I'd like to add, but as it stands now, it's fairly complete without going into too much detail.

Thanks for any and all input! Yohhans (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article needs more references - for example the last half of the 2000 – 2001 section, the second paragraph of the Events section, and direct quotations in Subjective events all need refs, as does the entire Topics section / table. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. It would also help to get more third party indepepndent sources.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase (so change Previous winners of the competition are listed in the table below[39]:). Refs also need to be consistently formatted - look at the first three refs, all from the LA Times, all formatted differently. {{Cite news}} would help here - also "pp." is for multiple pages but you opnly list one page so use "p." See WP:CITE and WP:V
    • Fixed the punctuation problem and the use of "pp.". However, I am indeed using {{Cite news}} to reference things. It's just that the template formats the reference differently if an author is not supplied. So for the sources where I could not find an author, the reference looks different than sources with an author. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for peacock language - try to make the article more encyclopedic in tone. Generally the examples themsleves prove the point - Show, Don't Tell and WP:PEACOCK Examples Decathlon has long been regarded as the most exciting aspect of the competition ... (needs aref anyway) and That year at Nationals, James E. Taylor High School produced the phenomenal score of 52,470, the highest team score the country had yet seen.[12] could be just That year at Nationals, James E. Taylor High School had the highest team score yet seen in national competition, 52,470.[12]
  • In the Topics table, why not make Super Quiz a third column, so it would be in the same row with the year and topic?
  • Any chance of getting a photo of an actual competition? Any criticisms or scandals - article may be seen as too pro this topic (POV)
    • I have actually included various (sourced) comments about previous scandals/controversies in the past but one user continues to remove these edits. I have just re-added them. Perhaps you can tell me what you think. i.e. do they have biased wording? The relevant sentences are the first four sentences in the "2000-2001" section, and the second paragraph in the "Cheating and biases" section. Regarding a picture of the competition, there are a great number to be found on state AD websites, but I'm still new to fair use rationale, so I am not really sure what I can and cannot use. So far, all the images I have used I have either created myself or retrieved from Commons. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I know you are incredibly busy which makes me appreciate your review all the more. - Yohhans (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scandals seem to be written well to me and I owuild include them. As for photos, fair use is usually for things that are difficult to obtain otherwise. Since anyone with a camera could theoretically get a AD photo at a local competition, I doubt that fair use would hold up here. Two possibilities would be to ask for premission to use a photo or two - they would have to release it under the GFDL or a Creative Commons CC license and their email releasing it would need to be sent to WP:OTRS. Another possible source would be Flickr - a search there finds a lot of AD photos with a CC license, but it has to be all the allowed options, so again you would have to ask the photo poster to change the license. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the worst case scenario, I can always take a picture in the next regional or state meet I attend, if I'm not judging. So, fair use wouldn't hold there. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Wars

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to FA status in the future. I know it's some rough copy, so help with spelling and grammar is appreciated, but any more fundamental suggestions for improvement I would love to hear as well.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an image which could demonstrate that it was almost a war in the literal sense, with guns and similar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:OCmarsh.jpg Not sure what the caption should be. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I've got some info I can add that will work for a caption; I hadn't gone trawling for free use images yet. :) (Something about how Marsh feared for his safety :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Nice and quite interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Since you already know it needs copyedit help, I will not comment beyond saying I agree. You can ask at WP:PRV for a copyeditor.
  • My biggest concerns were lack of context (see WP:PCR) and comprehensiveness. I wound up reading the articles on both men here and both had things that should be included here too. These would both be problems at FAC. For example, the lead sentence says the Gilded Age, but this is a fuzzy time period to most readers - I think the phrase The digging lasted from 1877 to 1892... later in the lead would be better here. Or nowhere does it say the professional affilliations of the men - one was at Yale and the other was essentially a freelancer with connections to the USGS and University of Pennsylvania. Or Cope supported neo-Lamarckian theories - surely this played a role too?
  • References are odd in places - ref 1 is to "Dodson" which I had to use search on my browser to find was an interview subject in a PBS documentary. Or what makes http://www.levins.com/bwars.shtml a WP:RS?
  • There are places where the language is imprecise - Elasmosaurus is a plesiosaur, not just a "sea reptile". Or Among the species the two men discovered are the most well-known dinosaurs today, including species of Triceratops, Allosaurus, Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, Camarasaurus and Coelophysis. the first "species" is somehwat misleading as each name given is of a genus. (I had to check to make sure these were genera and got it wrong myself at first )
  • There are stories in the articles on Cope and Marsh that should be here - they met in Berlin, the Triceratops discovery by both men with a garbled telegram changing the assigned credit. The chronology is fuzzy here too - it seems more dates could be given.
  • Perhaps some images of dinosaurs excavated by these men could be used in the article? Or sketches they made? What about something like Image:Sharp lull brontosaurus.jpg?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1995 Pacific Grand Prix

[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 it can become a featured article. It is similar to the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix article, which recently became an FA. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'd consider merging the first two sentences since the second is a little stilted.
  • "race" gets four mentions in the first para of the lead, a bit too much.
  • " Hill, as a result, ..." = "As a result, Hill..."
  • "with Schumacher dropped down to fifth" - "dropping" or "and Schumacher dropped..."
  • "Schumacher managed to get past Alesi and Hill during the first of three pit stops, allowing him, on a new set of slick tyres to close on Coulthard, who was on a two stop strategy." - this sentence needs work. A few too many clauses and commas for good reading.
    • The only feasable option, I think, is to split it into two sentences. It now reads: "Schumacher managed to get past Alesi and Hill during the first of three pit stops. This allowed him, on a new set of slick tyres, to close on Coulthard who was on a two stop strategy." - I've also changed the comma positions. D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to open a margin between the two of 21 seconds" - at what point? at the very end? So maybe "to win by a margin of 21 seconds?"
    • I've changed it to: "Schumacher opened up a gap between the two of 21 seconds by lapping two seconds a lap faster than Coulthard, so that when his third stop came, he was still leading the race." - D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconfirm it was the 1995 Drivers Champion in that last line in the lead.
  • I wouldn't link "third round of the season" - instead I'd say "third round of the 1995 season
    • OK. Changed positioning of link.
  • "Only a maximum of 30 points were available for the remaining three races, which meant that Hill could still win the title." - why Only? If Hill could still win there's no real need for the Only there.
  • "third, fourth and fifth places were covered by three points:" not sure this is needed - the subsequent facts spell it out.
  • "In the two weeks leading up to the race, there was heavy criticism towards, Damon Hill," -I think you need only one comma, the one after Hill.
  • Brundle's quote doesn't have quote marks or anything around it so it looks a little odd because the infobox and image squeeze it in - it appears as a normal paragraph rather than a quote.
  • "title—rival" - no em-dash here, just a hyphen.
  • You use FIA as an abbreviation before abbreviating it.
  • "emphasied " -typo.
  • "The Benetton cars disappointed" - team, cars or cars and drivers? You're placing undue emphasis on the team/car here I think.
  • "albeit two seconds off the pace." - why "albeit"?
  • "commenting on wasting a new set of" - wasting seems a little POV?
  • "from the dirty side of the track." - dirty side probably needs explanation for non-experts (I take it you mean the side opposite to the racing line?)
  • "only two positions behind team-mate Blundell" - two places?
  • " 21 degrees celsius" - use the {{convert}} template for Imperial-ists...
  • "Coulthard converted his pole position to lead into " - pole position is lead so it wasn't converted. Perhaps you need to emphasise that he held his position at the front of the race?
  • "were baulked by the " I'm not sure what you mean by this?
  • Don't link Benetton in Benetton pitcrew - the section of the article you link to isn't specific.
  • The tables aren't sortable so I'm wondering if you need to relink repeats (like Williams, Renault etc).
  • I don't see a need to embolden the top six finishers - they have points in the points column so it should be obvious. If you leave it like that then you ought to have a key.
  • Any reason why Lap is capitalised in the second table?
  • Probably worth explaining to a non-expert what the Pos, No etc means.
  • No need to bold Schuey or Benetton in the Standings section. It's obvious they're top. Because they're at the top!
  • I may have missed it but did you mention this was the last running of the Pacific GP?

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - My peer-reviewing services were requested on my talk page, so I've come to offer some pre-FAC advice. Hopefully this won't take as long as the last one.

  • Couple of problems with the lead: It serves as a race recap only and could summarize the whole article better. The pre-race, qualifying and post-race sections aren't represented at all. Also, the one-sentence paragraph at the end of the lead could be moved to the end of the first paragraph.
    • I've rejiged it a little bit, but I don't want to go into too much detail. I don't want to represent the pre-race and qualifying too much there, as the main attention of the article is quite rightly the race. D.M.N. (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: "Schumacher would be more than twenty points ahead of Hill with two races remaining." Should be 20, to match the others numbers nearby.
  • Citation required for the media's criticism of Damon Hill's driving.
  • "However, the Formula One's governing body, the FIA emphasised..." I think this would be tighter writing: "However, Formula One's governing body emphasised..." The last word is British English, correct?
    • Yeah. I've changed it to your version, seeing as how "the FIA" is mentioned a few lines earlier.
  • Practice and qualifying: Move the link for slick tyres up one line.
  • Race: Repeated Jean-Christophe Boullion link. Also a repeat racing line link.
  • "Hill in third, who himself only a few tenths behind Alesi." Connector needed.
  • Give Autocourse link italics.
  • "Irvine was heading for eighth place, but made an unsecheduled pit stop..." I'm pretty sure this isn't British English.
  • Might be going into original research territory with this one, but how rare is it for a driver to come back from fifth to win a race? I don't know much about Formula One, but from what I've watched there is never much passing. Could be an interesting angle for the article.
    • It's not very rare for that particular season, mostly down to luck depending on which of the main runners retires from the race - in this case, it was a good strategic move to get Schumacher ahead. D.M.N. (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. The lead should be your primary concern, but overall it's in good shape. I actually think you have an advantage with this as compared to the other article, because this race sounds more exciting, giving you plenty to write about. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Halo: Chronicles

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being reviewed as part of a big Halo (series) media topic being created, and so this article needs to be peer reviewed. Not much has been revealed yet, so take a crack at what's here, make sure it's in good shape; prose, fair use rationales, other. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wackymacs (talk · contribs):

  • Seems a bit premature to be listing this for peer review as there is little context and the game is unreleased. A few things I noticed:
    • "It was revealed that it would in fact be part of a new series (or mini-series) of games, not a single release." - When was this revealed, and by who?
    • "They also speculated that the game could retail for half the cost of a normal Xbox 360 title." - Assume the reader knows nothing about games. How much exactly?
    • "dramatically expanding" - Really? Doesn't sound very encyclopedic.

Until there's more context and information available, don't expect much. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's required by featured topic criteria that it be reviewed, so that's why its here so early. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those fixes, I did them :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is the second article in a series, the first being History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942), which is now a FA. I am looking for feedback on the quality of writing, and how well the article flows, especially in comparison to the first. All other comments are welcomed.

Thanks, Resolute 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This doesn't include one of my favorite hockey stories from this period: Bobby Baun scoring the winning goal in a vital Stanley Cup Finals game on a broken ankle. The article is well-organized as is, but is there any way this could be included?
  • Here's a possible addition to the expansion section: the controversy over six more teams diluting the talent pool. It was a view held by many at the time, and many people feel that way about today's NHL.
  • I'll look for some random writing improvements while I'm here. To start, I found the following typo: "O'Ree's breakthrough came a several years after another black player...".
  • "Richard finally scored is 50th goal..."
  • Regarding the Norris House League, has there been any talk of fishy transactions between the teams at the time?
  • "and improve the NHL's chances of returning to television in the United States." It should say somewhere when the NHL lost its TV deal.
  • "Vancouver lost it's chance the day it turned down the referendum on our arena proposal" Is the punctuation in "it's" correct in this quote?
  • In the lead: "Maurice Richard became the first player to score 50-goals in a season in 1944-45." Hyphen isn't needed.

For the most part, it looks as good as the first in the series. Hopefully, these comments will help improve it further. Let me know if you want any more, otherwise I'll see you at FAC. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on Baun. None of the three books I am primarily using made a big deal of that so I completely forgot about it. There is also a great image of Baun on his article too, which is really nice since I am finding it very difficult to find freely licensed images from about 1950 to 2000. The rest of the spelling mistakes have been corrected as well.  ;) Resolute 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metallic bond

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the main contribuitor asked for feedback. Nergaal (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sildenafil

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. I am also nominating it for peer review during this process so that we could also get some eyes on it (both individuals familiar with drug-related articles, and others, familiar with the copyeditting process as a whole) as it is improved towards FA or GA status. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - the lead should be 2 or 3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD
  • Article is full of citation needed tags and should have these refs provided. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Ref 20 is just a link - most refs are nicely formatted and complete, but all internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There are a large number of one or two sentence paragraphs that interrupt the flow of the article - these should be combined with others or expanded where possible. Does Use in psorts really need its own section? Could this be combined with another section?
  • Article is short - while length is not an FA requirement, comprehensiveness is. I note that the approval of the FDA in the US is mentioned, but not its approval in other countries.
  • See also is mostly for articles not already linked in the article, but Tadalafil (Cialis) and Vardenafil (Levitra) are linked at least twice each already.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it previously failed a featured article review on copy edit grounds. Changes have been made since then which, hopefully, clear these issues, but an independent review would be appreciated.

Thanks, DavidCane (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UT

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead seems a little sparse for an article this long and detailed - anyway it can be made more detailed? See WP:LEAD
  • The lead image Image:CCE&HR.png uses three shades of grey, which are difficult to distinguish - any chance the image could be redone with clearer colors so the various extensions would be clearer? Also, since the line opened in 1907, are there any historic images that are old enough to be free that could be used?
  • Per MOS:QUOTE block quotes should be at least four lines long - the ones in Hampstead Heath controversy are not even two full lines on my computer.
  • Reads fairly well to me. I might see if the bullet point lists could be converted to text (unless this is a rail MOS issue). I would also try to avoid very short paragraphs - the Legacy section has two paragraphs of a total of 3 sentences - why not just one paragraph here?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments:
  • I have expanded the lead a bit.
  • Black is the colour traditionally used for the Northern line on the tube map, so I want to keep the colours as they are but I have made a new version with the extensions shown with dashed lines of different spacings to make them easier to differentiate.
  • Unfortunately, most of the images available for the London Underground are in the London Transport Museum archive which claims copyright as most of them haven't been published until recently. Most of the station articles linked from the CCE&HR article have links to the archive.
  • I have removed the indenting of the quotes and combined them with the sentences
  • The bullet lists have been queried before when the article was a featured article candidate. The use is common on articles of this type and helps the list of stations stand out from the body text.
  • I have combined the two legacy sentences as there was no special reason to separate them.
--DavidCane (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Shannara

[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 thinking about nominating it to be a Featured Article, but I would like to make sure that it is at that point...I don't want it to fail horribly. =) So basically I'm asking for people to read through the article and tell me A) What is wrong with it and B) If it has a chance at WP:FAC.

Thank you very much for your time! the_ed17 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)

[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 as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guyinblack25

[edit]

Since I don't have that much time today, I can't dissect all the prose—I skipped the episode summaries too. Here are the issue that stood out to me.

The lead
  • I would change this "It" to "The series" as I'm sure it was the series that was created by these people and not just this single season. The article is about season one, so in this case "it" would refers to season one. "ItThe series was created by Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko with..."
Done --haha169 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence seems redundant. I would remove it. "The season was completely animated and did not feature any live-action actors."
  • The plot is summarized twice in the lead; once at the end of the first paragraph, and then again at the end of the second.
  • I would wikilink the DVD regions here. They play in other places besides the ones listed, and it is extra information that doesn't really pertain to the subject. "The original releases were encoded in Region 1, a DVD type that usually plays only in American DVD players. A couple of months later, Nickelodeon released Region 2 DVDs, which can play in Europe."
Production
Reception
Episodes
DVD release
  • I would combine the two subsections together. Most of the information overlaps, and the two sections give undue weight to the different regions. The two tables can be combined to save space and compare region release dates.

Sorry for the half review. I hope it still helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you so much. I'll get to work on it immediately. :) --haha169 (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these are very thorough suggestions. Thanks greatly - I would've never have caught them. --haha169 (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question by NuclearWarfare

[edit]

Any other issues here, or can I close up this peer review and put it up for a FL candidacy? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)

[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 as a last review process before an attempted FLC nomination. Please, any and all comments are welcome.

Thanks, haha169 (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR by Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2: Episode Three

[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 receive comments to improve this article, and also so this article is marked as being audited for a future featured topic nomination. Gary King (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • http://www.stuffwelike.com/stuffwelike/2007/12/12/half-life-3-world-exclusive/ - RS?
  • Ref 3 needs formatting; it has an author and the publisher is Computer and Video Games or something like that (italics?).
  • Ref 5 has an author too (and publisher is PC Gamer?)
  • "and the game is also not expected to be released for some time." - is the also necessary?
  • "The game did not appear at E3 2008; however, some concept art has surfaced." - the semi colon and comma make readability a bit tricy, could do with some smoothing...

And yeah, that's about it. —Giggy 02:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done Gary King (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkcaldy

[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 there are still some problems like page numbers for citations and sentence structuring that are preventing it from moving forward and especially for the sake of the former considering the vast information i have acquired from three main sources - how i can going to get round this, i don't know. The article itself has a good strong introduction and history section plus a wealth of sources and pictures. Overall, a general inspection and tidy up is desperately required here plus some good advice on how to deal with those sources citing page numbers.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dtbohrer

Here is what I found initially. If you would like more or if there is something you want me look at specifically, just ask and I'll more than happy to oblige.

Intro

  • You may want to add a translation for its nickname "the lang toun". It might not be obvious to most people of what it means.
  • "Dysart later joined the fold in 1930" - Forgive me, but what's a fold?

History

  • You mention the battle in 596 AD, and then describe the origins of the name, and then jump back into more history. You may want to move the battle to directly in front of "However, the roots of the town can be traced" to keep from jumping around.
  • "The meaning of the name "Kirkcaldy" is unknown but many claim in relation to previous spellings of the town as "Kirkaladunt" and "Kirkaladin" indicating pictish influence," - Hard to follow, I suggest "The origin of the name "Kirkcaldy" is unknown but possible origins suggest that the relation to previous spellings of the town, as "Kirkaladunt" and "Kirkaladin," indicate a Pictish influence."
  • "as well as the names of the once nearby settlements of "Dunnikier" and "Raith" it may be relating to a "fort"." - What does this mean?
  • "purchase for "the shire of Kirkaladunt" from the crowns" - Who are "the crowns"?
  • "acknowledged as a "villa", according to records," - What "records"?
  • ...the abbot and covenant of Dunfermline was in a discussion with King Edward I, - It should be plural ("were" not "was").
  • The quote by Thomas Carlyle should not be in block quotes as only quotes longer than 4 lines should be block quoted. I count only 2 lines on my screen.

Governance

  • "Labour continues to gain strong support in the town," - I'm assuming you're refering to the Labour Party.
  • "supplying Gordon Brown MP (for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) and Marilyn Livingstone MSP (Kirkcaldy)" - What do "MP" and "MSP" stand for?

Geography

  • "Kirkcaldy is located on a southeastern bay leading out into the sea along a sandy cove" - Do the "bay" and the "sea" have names?
  • "The landscape may detect parts of a medieval layout in the form of raised beaches above sea-level around the town" - What's a "medieval layout"?

Religion probably could be merged with "Demography"

To take care of the page numbers in the citations, you may want look at using shortened citations. I'm willing help with this, if you need it.

Overall, it shouldn't be to much trouble to get it to GA. The information is there, it just needs to be cleaned up. --​​​​D.B.talk•contribs 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany women's national football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've recently translated the German page of this article and I am wondering how it might be improved further. I used the FA Scotland national football team as a model in parts.

Thanks, EnemyOfTheState (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a sports editor, but this looks pretty good to me. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I think the lead could be expanded a bit. None of the Early history seems to be in the lead, for example. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Also places where it says "currently" should give a date "as of August 2008". Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:MOS#Images, images outside the infobox should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "vertical" can be used to make the image narrower.
  • Some adjectives may be seen as POV - easily in winning easily 6–0 over Mexico. or suffered in At the 1995 Women's World Cup in Sweden, the German team suffered a loss against the Scandinavian hosts, or Germany again met Italy in the semi-final, this time winning comfortably 3–0. Also watch for WP:JARGON such as friendly in losing 0–3 to Czechoslovakia in a friendly on May 9, 1990.
  • Article needs a copyedit to polish things - for example She was not unquestioned at first, and she was particularly criticised before the start of the 2007 World Cup, after disappointing results at the Four Nations Tournament and the Algarve Cup.[35] is just awkward. Or "joined" is meant in After German reunification, the East German football association joint the DFB. Try reading the article out loud or asking for help at WP:PRV

Looks well referenced and sources also look generally good. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Wars

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A massive Halo media topic is being built, and this is one of the articles that needs to be peer reviewed for it to pass. This is an unreleased game, and so please take a look for prose issues, fair use issues, and any gaps of information. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy
    • I did a couple of minor fixes to the article.
    • Similar to New Halo Project - Not much to comment on really, all information seems good and present. Do not expand more on rumours/speculation about the development as information tends to be completely useless/irrelevant a few months later. As more info is announced (official no rumour) add that to the article.
    • Once real reviews are made available I would reduce what is currently in critical reception to the first sentence followed by the citations of the rest of the material.
    • Do not attempt to add this article or New Halo Project to a featured Halo topic until they are brought up to at least GA standard (nigh on impossible until the game is released). Try making Halo (series) a featured article first.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand, these articles must be added to the featured topic we are creating, and since they are not released yet, they must be peer reviewed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Halo: The Cole Protocol

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is an unreleased Halo novel that needs to be reviewed for an upcoming Halo Media featured topic. It doesn't have too much content yet, so it should be simple to review, just check for prose, gaps information, and fair use issues. Thanks much! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Sillyfolkboy
    • I would change the first link of the article to Halo_series#Books instead of plain Halo_series
    • Any source that this is the final novel of the contract?
    • "Set to be written" - has he started working on it or is it just his intention? This seems a bit forward as it is.
    • Any source for the November release date? If so then surely it must be in production now.
    • Should this and other articles really include an external link to "Halopedia"?
    • Similar to New Halo Project - Not much to comment on really, all information seems good and present. Do not expand more on rumours/speculation about the development as information tends to be completely useless/irrelevant a few months later. As more info is announced (official no rumour) add that to the article.
    • Once real reviews are made available I would reduce what is currently in critical reception to the first sentence followed by the citations of the rest of the material.
    • Do not attempt to add this article or New Halo Project to a featured Halo topic until they are brought up to at least GA standard (nigh on impossible until the book is released). Try making Halo (series) a featured article and SPARTAN Project a Good article first.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the review, but these articles need to be in the featured topic, and obviously cannot be made GA or FA yet, so they must be peer reviewed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records

[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 after re-working the list in format and making it more in line with lists of a similar nature that are Featured Lists such as List of Birmingham City F.C. statistics and records, I feel the list is close to reaching that standard. I have brought the list to Peer review to iron out any kinks before I go to FLC. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)
  • I think you should explain what is meant by "ever-present", maybe by adding a footnote. Does it mean that Neal played in every minute of every match, started every match or played some part in every match? Does it refer to all matches or just league games?
  • The lead needs to be re-phrased so as not to start with "this is a list of..."
  • In the 'international' section, you should link the countries to the national football team, not the country itself, e.g 'Germany' should link to Germany national football team. More of these could be linked than currently are.
  • I think the first instance of Rotherham Town should be linked, rather than the second
  • In the 'Points' section, I don't think you need to link every instance of 'First Division' - just the first one would be OK.

Hope this is useful. --Jameboy (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons comics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I've rewritten most of the article and now I need feedback on how to improve it further. Also, what grade on the assessment scale would you rate it (the article looked like this before I began working on it and it was rated Start-class back then).

Thanks, TheLeftorium 16:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! rst20xx here.

  • I don't think you need to repeat "The Simpsons" in the names of sections 1 and 2.
  • I also don't like the use of "out of print" here. In American comic book terminology, out of print is generally only used for collected editions which have sold out, not series which have been cancelled/come to an end (as you are intending to mean here). I would suggest instead for the name of section 2 "Discontinued series, limited series and one-shots" (as it doesn't just cover discontinued series), and that you replace "with issue 6, Bartman went out of print" with "with issue 6, Bartman was discontinued."
  • Similarly, for section 1, I would suggest the name "Ongoing series".
  • Examining section 2, you should distinguish between which are discontinued series and which are limited series. Limited series are series which were intended to have a set number of issues from the start, whereas discontinued, finished or cancelled series are ones which were initially intended to be ongoing indefinitely, but were subsequently brought to an end. For example, you cite that Bartman and Itchy and Scratchy were cancelled (you misspell it canceled by the way), but what about Krusty Comics? Was it an ongoing series which was cancelled, or a limited series?
  • In fact, your source for the fact that Bartman and Itchy and Scratchy were cancelled doesn't actually say that, so it remains unclear as to whether these series were cancelled or were simply limited series.
  • "Bartman and Radioactive Man was a comic book that was only released in one issue. It was released in 1994 and was 16 pages long." -> "Bartman and Radioactive Man was a 16-page one-shot released in 1994." ("Comic book" is a singular term so refers to just one issue of a series. So saying a comic book was released in one issue doesn't make any sense. Multiple issues are a "comic book series". However, I believe this was probably intended to be a one-shot, as opposed to a series that was cancelled after just one issue, hence my recommendation above.)
  • "Krusty Comics was another short lived comic book series published by Bongo Comics. It was only printed in three issues from January 1995 to March 1995." -> "Krusty Comics was another short-lived series, with three issues published from January to March 1995." In fact I would generally remove the "printed in X issues" throughout and replace it by "published as X issues".
  • "Bartman was a short lived comic book series" -> "Bartman was a short-lived series" - it is clear from the context that this is a comic book. And similarly elsewhere.
  • You say for almost every series that they were published by Bongo Comics. Instead I think you could say in the lead that "all series are published by Bongo, except where otherwise noted", and then note any cases where Bongo didn't publish the material being discussed (are there any?)
  • In the table at the top, it shouldn't be "first release" and "last release", but "first issue" and "last issue". Also this table shouldn't be in the lead, though I'm not sure where best to put it. Possibly it could be eliminated, though I see that having an overview like that is helpful. Finally, the last three entries in the table aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article, when they should be.
  • There are many other similar places where things should be reworded, I've only mentioned a few. I think you should get someone to copy-edit it in order to fix the prose.
  • I think the paperbacks should be taken out of the various sections and given their own section after section 2, like for example here. You're also missing a few, such as the Bartman collection.
  • I think Simpsons Classics should have its own short section within section 1.
  • Also, for Radioactive Man, your "Main article" should point here, not here.
  • This article is List-class, as it is a list.

- rst20xx (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I have crossed over the points I have changed in the article. I think I'll do the rest later today. TheLeftorium 08:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sherk

[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 eventually get this article to GA status. I want to know what I have to do (other than expand the personal life section) to get this article to that point.

Thanks, --LAX 15:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SRX
  • He continued to wrestler for eleven years, where wrestled over 400 matches. - where ___?
  • In 1999, Sherk fought his first MMA fight, which we won. - is there any more info on this?
  • In 2005, Sherk resigned with the UFC. - source?
  • Is there any other up to date information of him?
True, but any other info from May to July could be notable to add.--SRX 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is relatively short, I recommend expanding it a bit and adding more details to a few statements, IMO.
  • The personal life should be made into prose and not a list and their should be more information covering his life.
Oh Ok cool.--SRX 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--SRX 16:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal

[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 and others have done significant work on it recently, and would appreciate any criticism with a view to proposing it as a featured article candidate. I've added as much detail as I can right now, there is one reference that doesn't have page numbers. The gallery I'm unsure of, as well as the table formatting. I'm most interested though to know if any readers come away with a sound knowledge of the subject and its history. I'd also like input on some of the references, are they all suitable for this article, particularly references that go to pages that show primarily images?

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: In terms of content this looks very good - seems comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Still needs some work to get to FA, so, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and this one seems to need some more details. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I was surprised that the length of the canal(s) and the number of locks were not in the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD - DONE
  • Having Features right after the lead seems a bit odd organizationally, would it be better to start with either the History or perhaps with a descripion of the course of the canal? That way the items in the Features section have some context for the reader not familiar with the geography of the area. - DONE
  • Put abbreviations after the first use of the full term, so (a depiction of which is used as the logo of the MB&B Canal Society) took me a second to figure out what MB&B was. - DONE - I removed the abbreviation, its only used once anyway.
  • Provide context for the reader - the map Image:MBB canal map.gif shows blue and red sections, but does not explain the color scheme (assume blue stretches still have water and red do not). - pending permission for the file, I will expand on the description
  • The same map may be a copyright violation - the webpage it is taken from has no free license comaptible with the claimed Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. If the website has given permission to use this map and perhaps other images, then an email or letter needs to be sent to Wikipedia / Wikimedia to confirm this, see WP:OTRS. - I did have permission, I will seek OTRS for it. An oversight on my part.
  • There are a lot of one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - can the be combined with others or expanded? - DONE
  • Some things need a ref, for example the blockquote following The Manchester Evening News reported the breach on 7 July 1936: needs a cite ad may be too long a quote too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. - I have the article but not at home, I will find out the author and page number and ref it. I think the quote should stand as its an interesting (if somewhat embellished methinks!) tale :)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V - DONE
  • There are several lists (Subscribers, committees) that could be converted to prose text (and may be too much detail - could they be summarized instead). The first needs a ref. - I will seek help for this
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples - Talyllyn Railway is another British transport system now run by volunteers and may be a useful FA model

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS Thanks for your very thorough review elsewhere.
Thanks for the review and the excellent points, I have addressed some, and will address them all in course. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dysart, Fife

[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 know if my efforts will be successful enough to acquire start class for the article. I know that the article can do with some more pictures, a shorter better written introduction and maybe do with another section - governance (which i have been pending) but on a general view does this stand any chance.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MeegsC

It would certainly now qualify as start class, but it has a ways to go before it moves much higher. In particular, here's a look at the lead:

  • Be sure to mention which country Dysart belongs to; don't assume your readers will know that Fife is part of Scotland!
  • What on earth does the sentence The origins of the actual town were discovered into a record around 1220... mean to say?
  • There should be no gaps between punctuation (or the end of a word) and an associated reference number. Like this.[2] Not like this. [3]
  • Is the "Sinclair" family important enough to have a Wikipedia article? If so, link to it. If not, briefly explain who they are and why they're important.
  • Who is David I? If there's a Wikipedia article on him, link to it.
  • Read WP:MOS regarding "em-dashes"; all your in-sentence dashes should be converted to em-dashes.
  • There is a misplaced clause in the sentence The town became known for various industries such as nailmaking, linen, coal and salt [5] - which for the latter went into direct competition with their neighbour, Kirkcaldy in 1244. [6] "The latter" here refers to salt—which most certainly did not go into direct competition with Kirkcaldy! : )
  • Is it Tolbooth or Tollbooth? And why is this (and Town House) capitalised?

If you'd like some additional feedback, please respond here, and I'll continue my review... MeegsC | Talk 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal government of the United States

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it up to GA, and eventually, FA. Right now it has reference issues and jargon issues (the references I'm going to work on right after I save this page). I'm looking for any problems with the text and any improvements that should be made for this to reach GA. I think it should be noted that I have not done too terribly much to this article, and I wish to stick with from now until FA.

Thanks, Leonard(Bloom) 01:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doncram

  • It seems to me that the intro should state the approximate size of the U.S. Federal government in terms of #employees and budget and assets under its control, and perhaps also budget as percent of U.S. GDP. I believe that NYC government, for example, has 100,000 employees and $30 billion annual budget; in the U.S., only NYS and CA and USA are larger governments.
  • The current intro comes across as a bit wordy in describing the balance of powers. If it is stated that each of three branches has some authority over each of the others, is it necessary to also state that some of the powers of each are subject to authority of each of the other two?
  • The article goes on a lot about high-level balance of powers, and 435 congressional seats, and so on, but does not address the scope and size of program (notably no mention of budgets and employees of large divisions of the Federal government). Here are some questions: the U.S. federal government has operations in how many countries in the world? How many employees abroad vs. domestic?
  • Can you provide any rough estimate of the assets under the Federal government's control, or at least give some sense of the vast resources? List of current ships of the United States Navy documents about 444 major ships under Federal control (with some leased). How much land area in National Parks etc. How much land owned in military bases abroad? Does the Federal government own 10% or more of the land in the U.S.?
  • Likewise, what is the size of Federal liabilities: explicitly, the national debt, but also obligations like delivering on Medicare and on Social Security pensions on a vast scale. Or protecting the environment? The Federal government has vast obligations and the welfare of people of the U.S. and many other countries is dependent upon it. I guess i would like to see some of this kind of scope in the article. Keep in mind that a wikipedia encylopedia article, while it should be kept readable, can/should address a lot more than can be covered, say, in an elementary school civics lesson. I say go more advanced, include scope and scale stuff and work on trying to make it understandable. doncram (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flytoget

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to FA standards, but I would like feedback. It passed the GA, but without much comments on the prose—I presume this may be where the most errors lay. Thanks, Arsenikk (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and enjoyable article. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

  • You are right in thinking that the article needs a copyedit. Nothing big leaps out as wrong, but I see many small things that need fixing. Examples are a missing conversion for 160 km/h in the "Construction" section; a missing hyphen in "14,580 metres (47,800 ft) ... railway tunnel" in the "Challenges" section; several words that are not quite right such as "trick" in "who found a trick to print two tickets" in the "Incidents" section; a link from "X2" to a disambiguation page, and typos such as "newly education train divers" in the "Operations" section. I see too many of these small errors to list them all here. My advice would be to find a good copyeditor to go over the article from top to bottom.
  • The lead could be improved by adding at least a mention of the material covered in each section of the article. The existing lead doesn't mention the "Incidents" section.
  • The lead should not cover material that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead tells us how many passengers used the service in 2007, that the service had a 34% market share of airport ground transport, and that the service is the only high-speed rail service in operation in Norway. These are interesting and important bits of information, but they need to be developed in the main text, probably in the "Operations" section.
  • Some of the citations such as #3 are missing their access date.
  • This is more difficult and probably not required for FA, but a route map might be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Oslo.
  • A lot of the source material is written in Norwegian rather than English. I don't see anything that is apt to be challenged, but if the source language becomes a verifiability issue, guidelines for what to do can be found at WP:NONENG.

If you have questions or comments, please post them here. I am putting a watch on this page. If you find my comments helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Shaw (actor)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added a significant amount of information about the actor, and wanted to see if it warranted a good/featured article nomination, and if not, what would be required to make it so. Although I have some experience with other wikis, this is my first time doing this in Wikipedia, so any suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks!

-- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

[edit]
  • On my display, there are some layout issues: Move the star wars image to the right so it doesn't clip the header below it.
  • "for the brief, but crucial role"- source?
    • The source for that is the Starlog article, same as the rest of the paragraph. Both the writer and Shaw himself in that article discuss how it is one of the climactic moments of the film, and thus why they wanted an experienced actor to pull it off. I felt that warranted the above wording, but if you disagree, I'm open to changing it. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under filming, only one citation- best repeat it for the quotations so it is clear that that's where they are coming from.
    • Added a citation after every direct quote. For the most part, I just threw the citation at the end of a paragraph if it's meant to apply for the entire paragraph. In the cases where there aren't direct quotes, is that acceptable? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more when I have time, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You addressed all my above complaints. One thing though: the lead image is blurry because it is expanded larger than the cropped size. Either scale down the image on the article, or find a larger image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kodster

[edit]
  • Firstly, it might be helpful to look at the Featured Article page for examples of actor articles that are Featured Articles. That way, you can compare/contrast your article to that of a Featured Article, and find out things you're missing.
  • The article could use a copyedit. I've noticed several mistakes while briefly looking through it.
    • In the lead: "Shaw knew no details of his part until he was guaranteed to play the role, and was forbidden from discussing it...under [emphasis added] after the theatrical release." Shouldn't it be "until", not "under"?
    • In the Early Film Career section: the first two sentences of this section is extremely confusing. I'm assuming that the end quotation marks are missing in the second sentence, and that there should be a space after the period (full stop). Also, there should not be a space between the comma and the quotation marks after "I'm not a conformed traditionalist".
    • At least one instance of number errors. According to the Manual of Style, number usage should be consistent. For numbers over nine, the article can use either numerals (64) or words (sixty-four), but it should use only one in the article. It can't use 64 (numerals) in one sentence and then thirty (words) in another. It must be consistent.
      • The error is in the lead: the article usually uses numerals for numbers over nine, but in the last sentence of the lead, it reads, "Ten years later...". It should be changed to 10 to keep consistency.
    • Visit the copyedit league page for a list of copyeditors who, upon request, can fix your article for errors such as these.
  • Citations (the little numbers in brackets within the article that link you to the "References" section) should go immediately after every quote. For example, in the Early Life section, the citation should go immediately after "a poor fat boy" (in the last sentence) AND after the sentence. It seems a bit redundant, but this makes sure that EVERY quote and fact gets cited.

I recommend fixing these problems, maybe getting another PR from someone else, then you're all set. Good luck Hunter! Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crane

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My goal is to bring this article to FAC in approximately a month's time, but there's no rush, trust me. :) My main concerns aside from the run of the mill prose/MOS issues is comprehensiveness, especially in regards to the last few sections: "Fiction and poetry", etc., and "Legacy". What doesn't make sense, what is missing, what needs clarification? BTW, I am more than willing to do additional research if needed. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks! María (habla conmigo) 02:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strawberry Fields Forever

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is now a Good Article, and I would like to make it Featured.


Thanks, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 19:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is good, but it needs a lot of polish to get through FAC problem free. Here are some suggestions - it is also a good idea to look at some recent FAs on songs and check that this follows them on MOS issues, and to watch FAC and see what articles are getting dinged for. Here are some specific suggestions:

  • Image captions need punctuation if they are complete sentences, so add a full stop to the Strawberry Fields gate image caption and check all the others (no full stop if not a sentnece either)
    • I don't believe that the caption is a full sentence. It says, "The gatepost to Strawberry Field, which is now a popular tourist attraction in Liverpool". If it said "The gatepost to Strawberry Field is now a popular tourist..." (which eliminates the which and makes the caption a complete sentence), then it would need a period. But now, it doesn't. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should be three paragraphs for an article of this length. I also think the lead needs to flow better - right now the first paragraph jumps around in topics.
  • Needs a copyedit - professional prose is a FA requirement, see WP:WIAFA but again a sentence from the lead Lennon wrote the song as a reflection of his childhood, and is named after a Salvation Army house, where Lennon used to play in the wooded garden as a child. The subject is Lennon, so the second clause means Lennon is named for a Slavation Army house. Watch tense too - he wrote the song (past) but it is named (present), and he used to play (past again). How about using "he" instead of Lennon a second time in one sentence? See WP:PRV for copyeditors
    • I fixed that example (that was very awkward, so I changed the wording), and I'll get a CE in too.
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - I would identify Liverpool as the site of the original Strawberry Fields in the leaqd (just as New York City is identified for Central Park and its Strawberry Fields).
    • done
  • Look carefully at the organization of the article - the last paragraph of Background is about the Composition of the song, so shouldn't it be in the Composition section? Or the same paragraph has a sentence ending with "the song was now complete." - this seems like it shiuld be the end of the paragraph, but it is followed by an explanation of nothing to get hung about.
    • That's what I was thinking! The sections used to be called "Background and composition" and "Musical structure", respectively. Someone changed it (it might have been me, but I doubt it) to the current names, which make less sense. I'll do what you say and change them back, because it simply makes more sense.
      • done
  • I would also pick a consistent way of refering to verses of the final version of the song - make clear which verse the first one he wrote became for example.
    • done

There's a start for you. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man (film series)

[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 check what is missing to become an FA.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical element name etymologies

[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 contains a very good amount of information and may possibly be listed as a featured list. I want to know what else it needs besides an intro and references. Also, if referencing the entire article with a few general sources is enough - for example, http://www.etymonline.com/ would be enough?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This has a lot of infromation, but it is a very long way from FL. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • There are so many good print references for Chemistry that I would definitely use them. The CRC Handbook has little histories of each element that include etymology, as does Greenwood and Earnshaw, there are whole books devoted to the History of the eleements that give etymologies and would be good sources. Perhaps the online source could be an external link, but definitely not the only source.
  • I think I would make the whole list just one table and make it sortable (take out the alphabetic subtables - if you keep the subtables make them all the same width please). I would also add a column for the Languages - then someone could sort and see all the Greek or Latin or Arabic names. Might even add the atomic number as a sortable column.
  • Article has NO lead and NO images. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article has NO images.
  • What text there is needs a copyedit
  • WHat refs there are a very fragmentary - Tin - The American Heritage Dictionary publisher, date, page, etc?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJH comments: I hope these are of some use:

  • The article needs a lead of some type.
  • I would like to see a citation for every single element, even if it is the same set of citations frequently reused.
  • The citations should not have a space in front of them; they should be snug against the punctuation and each other.
  • There is also some cleanup needed: Iridium has a dangling </ref>; Bohrium explanation has two periods; Cobalt and Lanthanum have empty double-quotes; Francium has double right parentheses.
  • Missing a period: Americium, Uranium, Carbon, Palladium, Samarium, Sodium, Strontium, Plutonium, Tellurium, ...
  • Neptunium has a red link.
  • Per the MoS, there is far too much bold text. I think italics would work in many cases; others just don't need any emphasis.
  • Some of the entries seem a little unpolished. E.g. why is (on mythology) attached at the end of Promethium?
  • Why so many single-sentence paragraphs when they can be merged. E.g. in Radon.
  • Why the italics in the last sentence of Seaborgium?
  • Can the text be reworked to remove most of the parentheses? I don't think that so many are needed.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

[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 has just become a WP:Good article. I would like to know what else needs to be done before I take it to WP:FAC, as I am all out of ideas.

I am also concerned about the length of the plot section. WP:MOSTV says "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words. Complicated plots may take more space to present than simpler plots." This is an article about two episodes so the plot has been split into two parts. The word count for Part 1 is 653, and the count for Part 2 is 453, making a total of 1106. If anyone has any suggestions of how to lower the word count, especially for Part 1, while still making it understandable, that'd be great.

Thank you, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "from a pop song – in this case" maybe an en or em dash here without the spaces I think.
  • The Episode number in the infobox currently says "Season 1 Episode 1 Episode 2" (with breaks) - I would prefer it to say Season 1, episodes 1 & 2 (or similar).
  • done
  • Also, while your lead starts with "the pilot episode" it soon transpires it's a two-part pilot with, therefore, two episodes.
  • done
  • "reunited some of those characters in a ten-year high school reunion" reunited + reunion is a little samey.
  • I couldn't find this sentence...
  • "soft-pedals though the " through?
  • done
  • "enters the room wanting to visit a website for her school reunion. They all look through the old photographs which have been uploaded to the website, and Christine tells the girls her ten-year high school reunion is approaching." this may have been the order in which it happened but it appears a little odd for her to start looking at the old photos together before explaining why.
  • done
  • "meet someone from the Internet she has never met" maybe "meet someone she has only met over the internet"? People, after all, don't "come from the internet"!
  • done
  • "Jordan is legitimate" sounds like questioning his parentage! I know what you mean but perhaps "Jordan's intentions are legitimate" (or something along those lines)
  • done
  • "Caitlin meets Mr. Simpson – or "Snake" as he was known in school – who greets her emphatically." - en or em dash and no spaces again I think. Double-check with WP:DASH for me? And check other instances of this?
  • done It allows either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes, at the editor's discretion.
  • "email " or "e-mail"?
  • done
  • Prefer to see director and producer image on the right-hand side.
  • done
  • "The exterior of Degrassi Community School is " or was (to be consistent perhaps)?
  • done
  • Maybe worth emphasising McDonald's previous efforts where actually films.
  • done
  • One quote box has quotation marks, the other quote box doesn't.
  • done
  • Ref 6 has "p. R.3.. " - not quite sure what that means?
  • It's the page number, but also because the newspaper is split into sections, much like the UK's Sunday Times is. R. is the section, 3 is the page number.
  • Ref 9 links Epitome Pictures twice.
  • done

Hope that helps a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. It's much appreciated! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scattered disc

[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 attempting to raise it to FA level and was wondering what else was needed.


Thanks, Serendipodous 22:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • Try to make sure that all your websites/etc have publisher and last access dates, at the very least. Authors/etc. when known should be listed also.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RJH (talk)

Here's a few notes that I hope are of some use:

  • The article needs a deep copy edit to polish it up, especially in the lead. Many parts are somewhat awkward reads, at least to me.
  • "capable of being gravitationally affected by the planet Neptune," is a little vague as there is no cut-off point to Neptune's gravity. If it instead said something about Neptune being the dominant gravitational influence, that may be clearer.
  • Shouldn't the "Observations" section be called "Discovery"? It mentions nothing beyond basic classification. Otherwise, perhaps that section could discuss the type of technology needed to spot these objects. It could also mention apparent magnitudes and compare this to observational limitations of current technology.
  • Seems like "process would be gradual" should be "process was gradual"
    • "One hypothesis is that this process took a few billion years;[15] a second hypothesis posits that the scattering took place on a shorter timescale." I'm not clear how this relates to the text that follows. There is only one model suggested, so why does it matter how long it took? Could this be clarified? Thanks.—RJH (talk)
    • I tweaked this sentence to say theory as GG suggested, but I think the time frame matters, because one theory says it took 15 billion years, and the other took a shorter period of time. I think we need a reference for the second one, if it is not already there. But that's just my spitballing. --Meldshal42? 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain plutinos and twotinos where they are used in the context, rather than relying on the user to drill down.
  • What are "highly eccentric and inclined orbits", "mildly-elliptical", "medium and high eccentricities" and "relatively dynamically stable"? They are vague, especially the last which is also jargon. Also, most readers won't recognize the meaning of "in the a > 30 AU region". It will just look like 'a' typo to many readers.
  • The question that was not quite answered for me by this article is: why are there separate categories for the scattered disk and kuiper belt? It seems a purely arbitrary distinction, but is there a good reason to use that terminology? Do they come from statistical clustering on inclination/eccentricity charts? Maybe I missed it in the article...
  • A little variation from "believed" would be good, just for variety.

Thank you. Hope I didn't offend; this was just intended as a constructive critique.—RJH (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more items I noticed after another go-through:

:* Please clarify what is meant by "relatively thick torus of space". I probably know what you intended, but the wording may be misleading to some.

  • "...knocked inwards from the Kuiper belt rather than outwards..." I assume this isn't meant literally? I.e. through collisions. Again I probably known what you meant, but I may be wrong.
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Geometry guy

I agree with the need for a deep copyedit, and will try to contribute myself to this. One other issue which struck me was the Formation section, where there is a brief paragraph on the prevailing view, and extensive discussion of one alternative view. That's not encyclopedic! Geometry guy 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure which is which. Serendipodous 05:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::It could be OR to say then. Maybe "one theory" and "another theory" would be better. Geometry guy 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Meldshal42? 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero: Metallica

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am trying to complete a WP:FTC for the Guitar Hero series, and per suggestions there, I need to have this article PR'd, which shouldn't be too hard, as it is just a stub.

Thanks, MASEM 12:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Guyinblack25

Same thing with the On Tour: Decades PR, I don't have that many comments as the article is so short. Here's what stood out to me.

  • Clarify for the less business savvy: Q1 --> First three months of the year.
  • The "History" section looks like the start of proseline.
  • It also relies on a lot of quotes. Could these be summarized more?
  • When was it announced? "Multiple news sources announced that in an SEC filing submitted by Activision..."

That's it, hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have reworked the text as suggested , and included a reference to the official announcement at this year's E3. --MASEM 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The article should have a section relating to content, at least something like the Aerosmith one included x, y, z and somebody said these might be included. Nergaal (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, all that's been said about the game is that it's coming. I expect that ultimately we'll have more bands to include and so forth, but this PR is to review the article at this state in order to make sure it's good for the FTC for Guitar Hero. --MASEM 23:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaranthus tuberculatus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to know how to improve it.

Thanks, Pruddle (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 17 FAs at Category:FA-Class plant articles, most of which are on plants and would be good models.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article needs more references, for example It is now found in 40 states. is uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Provide complete information for sources so others can look them up too. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Any chance of a photo of the plant?
  • Article needs to flow more smoothly - there are lots of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that need to be combined with others or exapnded. Also needs a copyedit - seconmd sentence has no period, for example.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium

[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 a former featured article that I would like to see get up to at least good, preferably back to featured, however in the past I have had trouble finding problems, so I'd like some assistance with that before I start working on it.

Thanks, L'Aquatique[talk] 19:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead section needs to be expanded. Remember, according to WP:LEAD, the lead section needs to be a "concise overview".
  • Overbolding in the lead: only the title of the article and alternate names of the subject of the article should be in bold.
  • Combine some of the one-sentence paragraphs; they interrupt flow. Alternatively, expand those sentence-paragraphs with relevant information.
  • "kreisel tank" and "virtual aquarium" needs to be unbolded.
  • Aquarium maintenance needs more references; here are some examples:
    • "Large volumes of water enable more stability in a tank by diluting effects from death or contamination."
    • "Biological loading is a measure of the burden placed on the aquarium ecosystem by its living inhabitants."
    • "In addition to bacteria, aquatic plants also eliminate nitrogen waste by metabolizing ammonia and nitrate."
  • The list in the section Aquarium#Calculating_aquarium_capacity needs to be converted to prose, if possible.
  • Overlinking-nitrogen cycle, nitrite (among others)
  • In general, more references needed throughout
  • A good copyedit is necessary, especially if you want FA.
  • The word aquaria seems to be used a bit excessively. Is there any other word that can replace it sometimes?

I hope these comments helped. If you want a more thorough rundown, contact me at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Rebellion

[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 believe the article is ready for Good Article consideration.

Thanks, Spy007au (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Epikleros

[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 take this to FAC and would appreciate anything that would improve the sourcing, prose or style of the article.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leonardo da Vinci

[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 feel there are some serious style issues here:

  • Although there is a lot of factual content here, it's often obscured by superfluous information about other events of the Renaissance, which I could find out about by following links instead.
  • There are several problems with peacock terms and weasel words
  • There are also several problematic statements like

    According to Vasari, Leonardo collaborated with Verrocchio on his Baptism of Christ, painting the young angel holding Jesus’ robe in a manner that was so far superior to his master's that Verrocchio put down his brush and never painted again.hello earthlings.[9] This is probably an exaggeration.

    "This is probably an exaggeration"... says who? If references can show that Vasari was probably exaggerating, then it means that undue weight is being put on a statement which is regarded as being inaccurate. If the claim of exaggeration is someone's original research then it must be removed.
  • I also have concerns about the use of Vasari as a reference (not an issue about his validity as a source - just the way he is presented) due to every reference being in the form "according to Vasari, <insert exaggerated claim>". This simply makes him seem unbelievable. If it's still regarded as fact today, condense it to the factual parts and remove the exaggeration, citing Vasari. If not, then it's only useful as an illustration of the folklore about Leonardo's legendary status.

Any assistance in reducing the redundancy and making the text sharper and more concise would be appreciated.

Thanks, Papa November (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some points from a quick review:
  • I don't agree about the use of Vasari. If you look at scholarly works on Renaissance painters, it is very typical that they quote Vasari, say he is probably overstating, or possibly just wrong, & leave it in the air like that. They have to; he is usually much the best source we have, accepted as prejudiced (pro-Florence etc) but essentially honest and conscientious. Nobody knows, or will ever know, the truth about thousands of statements in Vasari, but almost all art historians quote him with some kind of health warning where appropriate. He was 8 when Leonardo died, & is mainly collecting what people said & making his best judgement as to whether it is likely to be true.
  • From an FAC perspective, by far the biggest problem is that there are next to no page citations, which I think are required. Plus, looking at the last FAC, it is clear that much of the text was written long ago by a person or persons unknown with some problems with precise accuracy. So you can never quite be sure what mistakes may turn up.
  • The sourcing should be strengthened for an FAC, with more heavy-weight art historians. Probably this will not change anything much that is already there, but I think it would be expected, especially for a high-profile article. However the art history/criticism aspect of the article could be expanded (almost indefinitely of course ...) & I think more of that would help (perhaps showing my own prejudices).
  • I don't really agree there is too much background. Most biography articles here have too little. A different style could be used, but I don't think this one would count against it at FAC, rather the reverse. Some statements would need further referencing.
  • To my mind, a push to FAC would involve reading one or two heavyweight monographs of top quality - eg Martin Kemp (art historian), not yet used I think - & re-doing the refs with page numbers from them, changing the text when necessary, and adding further art-historical analysis. No doubt a load of minor MoS technical points also need doing. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabah Tshung Tsin Secondary School

[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 been working on this article and have seen it improved a lot since I have started it. Grammar & spelling mistakes have been fixed and the article is not too long and not too short. I am aware that it is quite impossible for a school article to achieve FA status, but I plan to bring this article to GA, or at least B. I want to know what are the things I have left out, and what can be done to improve this article, before I nominate it for GA.

Thanks, Kristalyamaki (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Five Years

[edit]

Here are some suggestions for the article:

  • The lead doesnt summarise the article, it makes no mention of the facilities, achievements etc.
  • The section entitled "school fees" should be changed to "fees".
  • The school fees section is unreferenced. The POV that students at Tshung Tsin are rich spiled brats needs to be removed.
  • There is little mention of Academics in the article, which is worth of a heading. The heading should contain information on academic achievements.
  • The "success & Achievements" section is unsightly and should be removed with information merged into other sections as appropriate.
  • The facilities section should be changed to Campus.
  • The campus section should include information on the size of the campus, any notable buildings, features or ovals located on it.
  • There is little information about Extracurricular activities at the school, eg. sports, debating, the arts, music. Each of these needs a sub-heading.
  • The Annual events section should be removed. Any salvageable information should be moved into the Extracurricular activities section.
  • The administration section should be removed. A list of former principals of the school would be a good replacement.
  • The annual events section should be removed, it is of little encyclopedic use to anyone outside the school. What information is salvageable

If you have any questions on this review, or need more feedback on the article, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. Five Years 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium

[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 before FAC to verify what MOS and c/e issues might exist, and weather the language used is accessible enough for the general audience. Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sjc196 comments:

  • I have gone through and done some minor copy editing to the language.
  • The citations need to be sorted out to conform to Wikipedia guidelines. There is a Wikipedia reference generator tool that can help with this. Also, when citing a reference for the second time you need the "/" in the syntax, e.g. ref name="XYZ"/.
  • Some citations are needed in the Lead (as per Wikipedia:LEAD), particularly where the lung disease claim is made.
  • I think the paragraph in the History section beginning "In 1987, a compound of Yttrium..." is superfluous, as it is covered (in more detail) in the "Medical and exotic" Applications section.
  • "It can appear to gain a slight pink luster on exposure to light" - vague. Either it does or it does not. NB As far as I can see, the citation you provide for this statement (Hammond) does not mention this.
  • "Lunar rock samples collected during the Apollo program have a relatively high yttrium content" - this is vague, "relatively high" should be quantified.
  • Why are the yttrium-halogen and yttrium sulfide, antimonide and arsenide compounds notable? Currently they are simply mentioned almost in passing.
  • "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" - this is a little vague ("a few"), and seems tacked-on. Some examples, and information about how/why they are interesting, could be useful.
  • "Yttrium complexes were the first examples of a d0 metallacarborane incorporating an η7-carboranyl ligand" - I don't know how accessible this will be for the layperson. It could perhaps benefit from a link to a relevant Wikipedia article about the chemistry involved, to give readers some background...?
  • I assume that your reference 33 (Audi) verifies all of the claims made in the first two paragraphs of the Isotopes section (e.g. numbers of artificial isotopes) - I can only see the abstract from the hyperlink.
  • The "Consumer" subheading in the Applications section sounds odd.
  • "Yttrium iron, aluminium, and gadolinium garnets (e.g. Y3Fe5O12 and Y3Al5O12) have important magnetic properties" - why are they important?
  • "This superconductor operated at 93 K, notable because this is above liquid nitrogen's boiling point (77.1 K)" - why is it notable that it operates above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen?
  • In general there is quite a lot of information that is simply provided as short, almost stand-alone sentences, e.g. "A few yttrium compunds have the oxidation state +2 and +1" and "YIG is also very efficient as an acoustic energy transmitter and transducer". I think these sentences would benefit - as would the article - from a little more context.

I hope that's helpful! If you need me to clarify any of the points I've made, just let me know via my talk page. Sjc196 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ready for FAC yet per above and per my comments at Talk:Yttrium#FAC. Stone also wants to put some finishing touches first as well. --mav (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared the neighbourhood

[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 it would need to be a part of a planned featured topic on Dwarf planets. So I would need to bring this article to GA-class. What is it missing?


Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Review by Ruslik:
1) The table is too overwhelming. I think the images of planets/dwarf planets should be removed from it—this will make the table more compact.
2) The lead does not summarize the article, it contains information that is mentioned nowhere in the main text. I suggest moving it into the main part of the article and writing a new lead, which, in addition, should be shorter.
3) Some paragraphs are uncited. As I remember, Jewitt and Brown wrote something about classification of the planets. Their works should be cited as well.

Ruslik (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
MIT just underwent a good-article review here with GA-status kept. A major overhaul of organization and content was done in connection with the GA/R and I would appreciate some more eyes on it before listing for FAC in the near future. Thanks, Madcoverboy (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would especially like attention paid to ensuring that the content and organization is in line with other university FAs, that academic boosterism and other prestige-cruft has been kept in check, and the article is readable and interesting. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Massachusetts Institute of Technology/archive2.

Nashville Sounds seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make it a Featured List. Please respond with any suggestions for the list concerning ease of use/understanding, clarity, format, etc.

Thanks, NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Killervogel5
Review by Killervogel5

I'll do this like a straight FL review.

I've done a baseball season FL myself, so if you have any questions, please ask. Hope I helped, and hope to see this list at FLC too! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now very impressed with this list. I really like the way it's laid out; the last concern I have is the affiliations being merged into the main tables. If you'd like me to do it (I usually set them up colored and abbreviated), I could take care of that. Let me know here or on my talk page. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a problem with the sorting; I can help you fix that as well if you need help. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the best way to integrate affiliations. I'd appreciate it if you'd do it. What is the sorting problem? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of the former problem after I get home today. As for the latter, the finishes sort 1, 12, 13, 14, 2, 3, 4... etc. It happens. There is a help section on sorting. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. There is also a problem with the GB columns. I looked at the help section, but it left me utterly confused. Your help here will be greatly appreciated. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out, it should work now. Affiliates have been included but I couldn't get them colored the way I wanted. No big deal. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good. Thanks for your help. What do you think about the references? Are the sources acceptable? The team article FAC ran into some problems with too may refs coming from the team's website or media guide and refs from The Baseball Cube. I still have a little work to do on them. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only 3 refs out of 19 from official sources is perfectly fine with me. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DONE - I reworded the lead prose. Thanks for the heads-up, your other comments, and help with the tables. I'll be sure to let you know when I nominate it. I want to wait for the end of the season and a pass/fail decision on the team article FAC first. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lincolnshire, Illinois

[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 put in a lot of work using this guideline here. It is still a work in progress, but I'd like you guys to review it as a whole and see how it can be improved.

Thanks, Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's looking good so far. These are some suggestions for improvement:
  • Comments by Dtbohrer
    • Agree with Epbr123, more sections like media, government, culture, sports, economy are needed.
    • More photos, the only images are a map and the photo of the high school.
  • Comment by maxsch I put these comments in the article talkpage, but I see it makes sense to put it here too.
    • About the intro. It seems to place too large an emphasis on the major businesses in the area. Is Van Vlissingen so important to the town that it deserves to be in the second sentence? Maybe "Local Businesses" could be a separate sub-section down with "Education" and "Demographics". And, could the stuff in the intro about the high school go in the Education section, it reads a little too much like an advertisement. I would also like to see earlier mention of the fact that it is basically a suburb of Chicago. Generally a pretty good article though.
      •  Done "Maybe "Local Businesses" could be a separate sub-section down with "Education" and "Demographics".
      •  Done "I would also like to see earlier mention of the fact that it is basically a suburb of Chicago."
      • Question: "And, could the stuff in the intro about the high school go in the Education section, it reads a little too much like an advertisement." I deleted it because most of the information is already located in the education section itself. I thought it for the best. If there are any disagreements, please voice here; the diff link can be accessed by clicking here.
  • Comment by maclean
    • There are cite templates that could be used in places: {{cite web}}.
    • Try to get a at least one citation in each paragraph to show where the information is coming from.
    • Consider looking at a local library for a book on local history.
    • Review the village's website to see what the village government does for the community, and how it sets itself up.
    • The history section could be expanded to tell how it came from its origins as a community association in 1957 to an affluent town.

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my comments. This is a good start, but needs some work to get to GA and FA.

  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and should be two or three paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. Article needs more references, for example Town of Half Day (1834–1955) has two uncited paragraphs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • History has big gaps - 1730, then skips to 1834, then 1855, then post WWII, then 1955-1957. Nothing has happened in the past 51 years? ;-)
  • Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined or perhaps expanded to improve flow.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party

[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 in the midst of major POV editing and very little constructive discussion takes place regarding the topic and there needs to be an independent look at the the whole article especially where POV and references are concerned.

Thanks, Lucy-marie (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You've listed it because you have repeatedly lost arguments in the talk page and are now seeking other ways to have your views supported. There is an ongoing "debate" in the talk page, but, since there has been no substantive editing to the article for months, how can you possibly say it is "in the midst major" (or any) "POV editing"?Emeraude (talk) 10:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at the Good article review of this article which recommends a peer review for this article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. As I recall, it was you who nominated the article for "good article" review as well, for no reason I can discern other than your continued campaign to have your views prevail over the majority of serious contributors to the article and its talk page. You knew it was not capable of achieving good article status, so one can only wonder at your motives. Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been referred to an administrator for violations of no personal attacks and for assume good faith.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another tactic that you frequently use. Where's the personal attack? As to "assume good faith", it is something you have been guilty of in the past. I have not said you are acting beyond the bounds of good faith. I am simply questioning your motives given your past history with theis article. Emeraude (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments I am archiving this per Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy: Peer review is not resolving ongoing edit wars / content disputes - please use the talk page.

I looked at just the lead and saw several problems that need to be fixed (I did not read past the lead)

the lead should be no more than four paragraphs long per WP:LEAD (now it is seven I think)
refs come after punctuation
several extraordinary claims needs refs (even in the lead I would think here), such as Historically, under John Tyndall's leadership, the BNP was overtly anti-Semitic;...
Fix the citation needed tags

Sorry and hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


LucyMarie seems not to differentiate between POV on the Talkpage and in the substantive article. There has been an incredible amount of POV and ad hominem attacks in Talk page - most of which has been directed against me. Registered users have largely kept within the parameters of normal debate, but most of the abuse and on occasion threats -including the prediction that I will be tried for treason when the BNP take power- have come from unregistered and anonymous users, although at least one of these appears to have the same IP number as User EBleisher. On one occasion this spilled over into a message being left on my User Talk page, which I resent. I hope now that this has been archived we can leave it behind and concentrate on the substantive article. Edits to this are restricted to registered users and this obviously disadvantages the pack of unregistered users who vociferously support the BNP. That they wish to remain anonymous and unregistered is their choice,although the content and style of their contributions on the Talk page would suggest they would have little to offer. The POV criticisms of the article are rarely if ever specific. There seems to be little disputation of facts as such, but possibly the selection of those facts. I can tell you now that no NPOV treatment of the BNP is going to make them appear in the flattering light they would like.--Streona (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly written and does though contain massive amounts of POV for example "cherry picking" three policies which are highly controversial and only portray the BNP in a negative light, is highly POV. A peer review was suggested after a failed GA review and POV and MOS were the basis for which it was requested.----Lucy-marie (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why those more favourably disposed towards the BNP do not add to the list of policies and then an allegedly more balanced view could be seen. I agree with the BNP stance on whaling and supporting Greenpeace - though I doubt that Greenpeace do- and have added this in. However we cannot ignore the defining policies of the BNP. If they are unpalatable they need not have them - nobody is forcing them. If their councillors have achieved anything notable then add this. I have found various claims by them regarding footpaths and street furniture, but this is not notable enough to add. As to it being poorly written- and I wrote very little of it- can we be more precise?--Streona (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently being peer reviewed lets wait for that to conclude before debating it to death here.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Streona (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Simpsons

[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 make it a Featured List. There is a June 2006 FLC but I think it is not actual anymore. Suggestions?

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This has a very long way to go to get to FL in my opinion. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Article has very few refs and needs many more references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself . My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, however the article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Deceased characters such as Dr. Nick Riviera and Waylon Smithers Sr. are not colorcoded as such. I think it would make sense to list their last episode too. Also explain what a retired character is (such as Lionel Hutz) and why and color code these too.
  • Why are most sections tables but some such as "Business owners" are not?
  • Would it make sense to list the air date of the first appearance of each charter too?
  • What are the criteria for inclusion in this list?
  • Why not list the official site under Extrnal links?
  • Prose needs a copyedit and more explanations - Patty and Selma are older than Marge, but it does not say this.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article and List of recurring characters in The Simpsons could be merged. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Anderson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is a mess, has been poorly written (with far too many lengthy direct quotes) and suffers from a lack of balance. I am attempting to edit it to improve it, but it badly needs fresh eyes and outside opinions on how best to improve it so it can reach Good Article status.

Thanks, Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I see you've been having a rough time with edit wars. You have my sympathy. Alas, you have already guessed at least part of what I have to say. Yes, the article needs a re-write, and, yes, it has way too many long quotes. I read quite a lot of the talk page before reading the article, and I see that instability has prevented progress for many months. This is too bad, because it's virtually impossible to write the final lead and to polish the prose while great chunks of material are being added and subtracted. I can't tell for sure that the article is stable yet, but I'll assume so. Here are some suggestions for starters:

  • Quotes shorter than four lines normally appear in the text set off in quotation marks but not block quotes. For example, "Grand Duchess Ernst Ludwig stated about Anderson that she was "an impostor, a lunatic, a shameless creature" is how the first quote should appear in "Ernst Ludwig and Franziska Schanzkowska" and not as a block quote. See MOS:QUOTE. Instead of the {{cquote}} template, which inserts decorative quotation marks, use an alternative. I generally prefer a pair of HTML blockquotes, but they have limitations. Again, see MOS:QUOTE for details.
  • Moving the short quotations into the main text would reduce the space occupied by the article, but I recommend that you paraphrase or compress as many of the others as you can. For example, I would seriously consider replacing the long quotation from the British Consul-General with something like "and the British Consul-General in Ekaterinburg, Thomas Hildebrand Preston, at the time of the murders cast doubt on the truth of Svoboda's testimony, saying, 'as British Consul, I was extremely well informed of what was going on and should almost certainly have heard of Svboda's alleged activities had they been true.' "
  • The lead of an article should be a fair summary of its most important points. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the content of each section of the main text and not to include things in the lead that are not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead violates both guidelines. Much of the first paragraph of the lead gives background about the Romanovs that I think might work better in a short section called "Background" that explains who the Romanovs were and what happened to them. I'd mention that content in the lead but devote only a sentence to it; the article is about Anderson, not the Romanovs. I'd keep her front and center all the way through. The new lead should include mention of the important biographical events covered in the other sections; essentially it should be a capsule biography.
  • The citations should include the author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL if a web source, and access date. Sometimes not all of this can be found, but it's good to include as much of it as possible. I see that some of the citations use cite web or others in this family of templates, and that's fine.
  • I'd unlink some of the names that are red-linked, especially ones that are red-linked multiple times.
  • Plain year dates should be unlinked.
  • After you work to compress the quotes and re-write the lead, I'd certainly ask someone to copyedit the whole article.

I hope you find these few suggestions helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog, which is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Politkovskaya

[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's better than wp:ga standards but could use some comments and minor cleanup. someone (preferably sb who has worked on it) shld nominate it for wp:fac eventually

Thanks, Solenodon (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I respectfully disagree that this is already at GA class. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • Biggest problem I see is that the article needs more references, for example there are many direct quotes that do not give a ref and some whole sections such as A Russian Diary. There are many citation needed tags. Fix them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • Article is oddly organized - I would give the basics of her biography first from birth to death, then go into more detail on specific topics. As it is the article skips around. FOr example her poisoning is referred to three times after the lead BEFORE we finally get to the section on it. Avoid needless repetition. There are many Biography FAs that would be useful models for ideas and examples to follow.
  • There a some one or two sentence paragraphs and (worse) sections - these should be combined with others or expanded if possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Adams discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, i want to see if its ready for FL. Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain comments
  • Attention is needed to linking. Remove links like "1984" that don't do anything for the reader, and link (or explain) things like "platinum" and "diamond" certification at first mention.
  • Terms like "breakthrough" album sound sensational and need sourcing.
  • A lot of basic punctuation errors are present in the lead.. missing commas and apostrophes (ex. "... would be Adams first singles to chart in mainland Europe.").
  • Footnotes should appear after commas if in mid-sentence for consistency with the rest of the article.
  • "The follow up to Waking Up the Neighbours was 18 til I Die which wasn't able to match the sales of Waking Up the Neighbours." The language here is too informal. Suggest "which did not match the sales".
  • I'm not sure how the text about his performances in Pakistan, etc is related to his discography. The lead is supposes to be a short bio
  • In the Studio albums table, why do the footnotes appear under the chart number in the CAN column? That is not an accepted format for footnotes and it is not clear what the note belongs to.To make it more specific, The Rambling Man likes links to be specific
  • In the Music videos table, you have a "Ref" column with an unclear purpose. Are those supposed to be citations? If so, what are they citing? If they are serving simply as links to where people can view the videos, that needs to be made clear. Readers have no idea why they are clicking those links.My other FL is like that --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois)

[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 believe this article is very close to receiving GA status. When I found it it was a Start/Mid article, but is now covered in references, and has been significantly expanded. There are now pictures and an expanded infobox. Two editors have gone through copyediting. There are not many school articles that are at the GA level, and I think this one has a chance to be the next one. I am especially keen to make sure our referencing is covered, and that the style meets the requirements for a high level article.

Many Thanks for your time and critique, LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • There are two high school FAs that may be useful models for ideas and examples to follow: Stuyvesant High School and Plano Senior High School
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase (so change The prep school was founded in 1929[2] as part of the Province of St. Albert the Great (Dominican Friars). )  Done
  • Article needs more references, for example the newspaper article and film are uncited. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • History section should come earlier in the article and be prose, not a bullet list by year.  Done
  • There are odd emphases throughout - three examples
    • Fenwick High School is a private university-preparatory school located in the Chicago, Illinois, USA, suburb of Oak Park. I would put the emphasis on Oak Park (where it actually is) not Chicago, so perhaps something like Fenwick High School is a private university-preparatory school located in Oak Park, Illinois, USA, a suburb of Chicago.  Done
    • Fenwick graduates its first class valedictorian, John J. Gearen. surely this was the graduation of many more than one student in its first graduating class? Perhaps something like Fenwick graduates its first class of 235 students, with valedictorian John J. Gearen. (unless the valedictorian is notable on his own, why include him?) Done
    • Something similar with Fenwick instates its last senior class officers of an all-male student body: Dan Austin (Class President); Vitus Barbaro (Class Vice President). who cares who the officers were - the improtant thing is that it went coed and this was the last all male class. Done
  • Odd choices of links - Catholic is linked, but not Roman Catholic - do you know you can type [[Roman Catholic|Catholic]] and that shows up as Catholic, but linked to Roman Catholic? Also why not link Dominican Order? Done
  • Alma mater is almost certainly a copyvio Done
  • What are the criteria for Notable alumni? Mine is usually that they are notable enough to have an article here already - see WP:NN. Most of the teachers seem much less notable (not that they are not nice people).  Done
  • Try for more independent third party sources. The Chicago Tribune article on going coed sounds like a great source - use, don't just refer to it.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm no expert on image licensing, but I'm focused today on trying to learn more about it. I see licensing problems with two of your images.

  • The logo in the infobox is licensed as "public domain, author died more than 100 years ago". This may be true, but you haven't included enough information in the image summary to make the claim verifiable. The school opened in 1929, less than 100 years ago. Where did the logo come from? Did someone at the school create it? Has the school licensed it or released it to the public domain? Was it digitized by the school, or was it scanned from a printed school document? You need to include enough information in the image summary to allow fact-checkers to corroborate the license claim.
  • Something similar can be said about the Kerwin photo. It's probably OK too, but the summary consists of only a link to a web page. When I clicked on the link, I got a 404 error. It would be good to fix this so that image reviewers can quickly corroborate the public domain-NASA license claim.
  • One more thought, not as important: It would be better to put the Bishop Fenwick image on the right side of the page looking into the article, where you want the reader to be looking. Finetooth (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactik Football

[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 has been tidyed up after being tagged for no references just want to know what else cna be done ot improve it, if it ok to have it reviewed for B class

Thanks, Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. *The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD

  • Article needs to be written from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U A lot of the information in the article seems almost too trivial / fan-cruft-y for inclusion. Do we really need tables of their win-loss records per season? Or what about tautologies like Main Base of Technoid - Technoid's base of operations [4]?
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs by combining them with others or perhaps expanding them. Ditto for many of the sections. I owuld also avoid see Main article when these are red links.
  • There are many missing sections - what about critical reception or DVD releases? See any FA animation article for ideas and examples to follow.
  • Several things need refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Also has almost no independent third-party sources. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland A.F.C. seasons

[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 receive a broad perspective on how it can be improved. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Quite a lot of spelling/grammar issues jump out upon first reading e.g.

  • no need for comma after 1879 in first sentence Done - removed.
  • "Sunderland won their first football league championship" - Football League should have capitals Done - Capitalised.
  • "seperated by a runners up spot" - "separated" is spelt wrong Done - Corrected.
  • "They came close to completing the "league and cup double" in 1912–13 season" - should be "in the 1912....." Done - Corrected
  • "but finished runners-up to Aston Villa since they were beaten 1–0 in the 1913 FA Cup Final." - reads very poorly, might be better to try simply "but were defeated by Aston Villa in the 1913 FA Cup final" Done - Changed.
  • "Since Sunderland entered The Football League in 1890, they were not relagated until the 1957–58 season;" - reads poorly and "relegated" is spelt wrong, maybe just try "Sunderland entered The Football League in 1890 and were not relegated from the top division until the 1957–58 season" Done - Changed.
  • "Their next trophy, came" - why is that comma there? Done - Changed typo.
  • "strong Leeds United team" - "strong" is POV Done - Removed POV.
  • "Their first appearance in the Premier League came in the 1999–2000 season after being promoted as champions from Division One, in that season, gaining 105 points, a record at the time." - horribly tangled sentence, should be split in two after "Division One". Try "Their first appearance in the Premier League came in the 1999–2000 season after being promoted as champions from Division One. In winning promotion the club gained 105 points, a record at the time." Done - Changed.
  • "(including the Sheriff of London Charity Shield." - bracket isn't closed Done - Closed bracket.
  • In the footnotes "paid", "relegated", "relegation", "relegated" (again) and "illegal" are all spelt wrong. Done - Corrected, eek, I gotta concentrate more on my spelling. ;)

Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

[edit]
  • Surely there is a picture you can use in the introduction? Done - Added Image:Stokoe statue.jpg.
  • "Sunderland Association Football Club was founded in 1879[1]" the ref needs a comma before it, as refs are only to be placed after punctuation Comment - I will move the ref to after the comma on "Sunderland & District Teachers Association Football Club by James Allan," because ChrisTheDude's comments said to remove the comma.
  • "because they won the league, but were defeated by Aston Villa in the 1913 FA Cup Final" re word this to "winning the league, but losing to Aston Villa in the 1913 FA Cup Final". Done
  • "Since Sunderland entered The Football League in 1890 and were not relegated from the top division until the 1957–58 season" remove since from the start of this sentence" Done
  • The G footnote when clicked on goes to the H footnote Done - Fixed
  • I think some of the notes are wrong as some when clcked don't go down to the correct note Done - Fixed

That's about it NapHit (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5

[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 receive suggestions on how to improve this article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]
  • Hmm... the lead should have a word in bold?
  • "on September 25, 2008[1] in the 2008–2009 television season" - might wanna mention the TV season before the specific date; it sounds weird at the moment.
  • Do you need the see also section since you have the navbox too?

Not much that can be said at the point... —Giggy 02:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold is not a requirement; many FLs don't have bolded terms. I copyedited the lead. I will leave See also there for now as the other season pages have it there. Gary King (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Change 28 in the infobox to 28 half hours.
  • I agree with User:Giggy, even if it's not needed, I, personally, think something in the lead should be bold for presentation and consistency.
  • "It will air on Thursdays at 9:00 p.m. EDT." - Needs a citation.
  • "Thursdays at 9:00 p.m. EDT" >> "Thursdays at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time"
  • "NBC has announced that one of the fifth season episodes will air after NBC's coverage of Super Bowl XLIII on February 1, 2009, prior to the The Office spin off premiere." Entertainment Weekly disagrees. [21]
  • Citations needed for the the title of S05E01 as well as the episodes writers and airdate.
  • In the references, link The New York Times in ref 2 and change "NBC Media Village" to "NBC Universal Media Village".

Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 20:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done several, will get to others later Gary King (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you, by any chance, please give 30 Rock a quick peer review in return? -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft II

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to receive feedback on how to improve the article. Thanks, Gary King (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy

[edit]

Yeah, generally seems a good coverage of what's known so far.

  • Are the fair use screenshots necessary?
    Logo is. Terran briefing system is, as it's discussed in the same paragraph. We've got one screenshot showing Terran and one showing Zerg, so one could argue that they both show two of the three major races of the game, which is pretty important. If we had a screenshot for Protoss units in action then we'd add that, too. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike the use of brackets in the second paragraph of Gameplay. Can you weave that stuff out of brackets and into sentences?
  • I suppose this can be done when the game is released... but the Gameplay section is currently just a comparison to the original (at least for the first part), where it really should just explain gameplay as if talking to a newbie.
  • "and its expansion, Brood War," - wlink? (and then delink next section?)

But yeah, generally looks good... I didn't find much! Good work. —Giggy 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rest is done, except for Gameplay comparisons. A lot of it is still "Blizzard says..." and then they draw comparisons themselves, so the article tries to quote them as accurately as possible on that. The entire article will change substantially once the game is actually released. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Yohhans (talk) - Overall things look really good. I just have a few things (mostly prose issues) I'd like to comment on.

  • Blizzard has also stated they are monitoring fan feedback to the game's revealed features and are taking such feedback into consideration, which has already led to some features being altered. - Any way this can be said better? As it stands, it reads awkwardly.
  • StarCraft II continues its predecessor's use of cinematic cut scenes—pre-rendered, high-quality CGI movies, between levels to advance the plot—while also improving the quality of in-game cut scenes—rendered on-the-fly using the same game engine as the graphics in the game proper—within the levels themselves. - This needs to be broken up into actual sentences rather than just using multiple mdashes. It is amazingly confusing as it stands right now.
  • Improvements included advanced scenery - should be "include"
  • Improvements included advanced scenery allocation and more detailed and involved space terrain, such as floating space platforms with planets and asteroids in the background. Small cliffs, extensions, and even advertising signs were shown to have been improved and refined. - Also needs to be broken up.
  • Vice president Rob Pardo has stressed that the Zerg and Protoss campaigns will function very differently from the Terran campaign. - Does he say how? If he does, it would be great to include this information. (mostly because I want to know and am too lazy to watch the video :))
  • "charge" - move rapidly when engaging in combat - while --> "charge"—move rapidly when engaging in combat—while
  • Among these are the inclusion of units that can traverse varying levels of terrain,[15] or with the capability to teleport short distances for pursuit or escape. --> Among these are the inclusion of units that can traverse varying levels of terrain,[15] or have the ability to teleport short distances.
  • using a specialized structure. --> using a specialized structure, the warp prism.
  • It has also been confirmed that the Xel'Naga, the ancient space-faring race responsible for creating the Protoss and the Zerg, will play a major role in the story. - It might be good to include a line about how this was hinted at with the secret mission included in Brood War. Although, that may fall under original research, I'm not sure.
  • Does the story section needs more sources. If nothing else, the statement involving Chris Metzen needs sourcing. Or is the entire section sourced by the gamestar source?
  • ... rebuild the Dominion, consolidating ... --> rebuild the Dominion, and is consolidating
  • It has been stated that development on the game began in 2003, shortly after Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne was released. - by whom? And we need a source on this.
  • allowing realistic interaction with the environment, such as "debris rolling down a ramp". --> which allows for more realistic environmental elements such as "debris rolling down a ramp".
  • In addition, there are --> Additionally, there are
  • Periodically, Blizzard Entertainment provides their fans with Q&A batches, web pages about the units, buildings, and lore, podcasts (titled "BlizzCast"), posts from Blizzard employees on forums (For example, "Cavez" (aka Dustin Browder), the lead designer for StarCraft II, periodically creates posts and threads in the official StarCraft II forum). -- ..... Yikes. Reword (and break up) please.
  • Refs all look good.
  • Random comment: only 1/3 complete? Curse you Blizzard! Work faster!
Thanks all done Gary King (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
  2. ^ example
  3. ^ another example
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/August_2008&oldid=704353703"