Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Oxford English Dictionary

[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 submitted it as a Featured Article Candidate and the consensus was that my nomination was premature — the article is good, but as-yet not Featured Article standard because of issues with copy, structure, and referencing (as regards the last, I’m fairly sure I can provide a citation for any claim in the article, and that the main thing that needs doing is adding the ref tags in appropriate places referring to existing sources). (Relisted after the bot closed the last one because the FAC was still technically ongoing, then waited 14 days to comply with the rules).

DavidPKendal (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

I enjoyed this article, but it isn't ready for FAC. There are, as you say above, too many statements that lack citations. The second para of "Entries and relative size" has statements about the Dutch, German, Italian, French and Spanish equivalents of the OED all five of which lack a source, and for FA every substantive statement must be verifiable. Other statements lacking an attribution:

  • "Many volunteer readers eventually lost interest in the project as Furnivall failed to keep them motivated. Furthermore, many of the slips had been misplaced."
  • "Minor, a Yale University trained surgeon and military officer in the U.S. Civil War, was confined to Broadmoor Asylum for the Criminally Insane after killing a man in London. Minor invented his own quotation-tracking system allowing him to submit slips on specific words in response to editors' requests. The story of Murray and Minor later served as the central focus of The Surgeon of Crowthorne (US title: The Professor and the Madman), a popular book about the creation of the OED.)"
  • "Most of the e-volume supplement in 1933"
  • Second supplement – most of this section
  • Second edition – paras two and three
  • Relationship to other Oxford dictionaries – last para

Other points:

  • The word "however" occurs eight times. It is almost always unnecessary, and weakens the prose.
  • An article about the OED should not perpetrate the singular "their" – "is able to use the service from their own home."
  • You seem to follow the OED's idiosyncratic usage for –ize endings, but then you have "optimise" rather than the OED's "optimize".
  • Avoid peacock or editorialising terms: its impressive size; a disappointing 4,000 copies etc.
  • "about one per year" – prefer good English to bad Latin: "about one a year".
  • "The revision is expected to roughly double" – it's asking for trouble to split an infinitive in an article that is sure to attract pedants. (I know it's an idiotic superstition that splitting an infinitive is wrong, but it's prudent to avoid the matter if possible.)
  • Duplicate links: you shouldn't have more than one link from the main text to Richard Chenevix Trench, Herbert Coleridge, Onions, John Simpson and XML.
  • References: all printed books should have either an ISBN or an OCLC number: WorldCat will oblige. For preference standardise on either the 10 digit or the 13 digit form of ISBN, rather than have a mixture.
  • Further reading: it is usual to list these in alphabetical order of author.
  • Further reading: Jonathan Cape, the publisher, was not a co-author of Chasing the Sun

Those apart, I suggest you seek a good copy-editing to bring the prose up to FA standard, removing such tabloidese tricks as starting a paragraph, "And so the New Oxford English Dictionary (NOED) project began."

Loyalty to Loyalty

[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 of being a GA. Like the previous PR for Mine Is Yours, the sections I'm worried about are Background and Inspiration. I'm wary if there should be more or if the latter section needs to be retitled. Other than that, I'm curious to see what I need to do if this article has a little ways to go before being a GA. I look forward to your comments on how I should tackle this article.

Thanks, ~~DepressedPer (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's very well-written, but there are a few very minor things that caught my eye on a cursory examination:
  • Yesteryear links to a disambig, but it shouldn't.
  • In the "Background" section it isn't clear enough that it's the band that's responding to the Pitchfork review as opposed to anyone/anything else.
  • Also, if I'm remembering correctly you shouldn't use contractions if they're not part of a quote.
  • The sentence "Amongst the thirteen tracks off the album, they deal with a variety of philosophies and politics that range from contemplating suicide, crisis of faith, anonymity, alienation, public security and job satisfaction." could be better worded, maybe to remove "amongst" and "they". Also, it should be cited because I'm not sure where these assertions come from. Jinkinson talk to me 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fit for an Autopsy

[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 cacaw

Thanks, TheWarOfArt (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This is an undeveloped stub, not an article. Completely unready for any form of review. Also, give a sensible reason for requesting the review, or don't expect any interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TheWarOfArt, please note only one peer review per person is allowed to be open at once. I see you have two others, so some will have to be closed. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (mind game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I spent roughly 2 hours making this edit to the article and I think it's as good as I can get it. Some sections may be a little too detailed or contain stuff that doesn't need a mention - I'd like a second opinion as to whether everything mentioned is relevant and notable. Following two quickly-failed good article nominations a few years ago, I'm trying to get this to GA status.

Thanks, Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Forbidden User

[edit]
  • This article needs expansion - even the shortest GA is more than one-third longer.
Define "long" - the second recently listed GAs I looked at, Volvopluteus michiganensis, is just 18 characters longer than The Game and is only 10,000 bytes. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "strategies" part should be expanded in particular.
Expanded - take a look Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reception" is another part that should be expanded.
Started to expand - probably could add a bit more Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: As it is not very notable, chances of making this GA is rather low. However, if you can do the expansion (and don't forget to request copyediting from WP:GOCE), you may actually work this out.Forbidden User (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:GOCE is only for articles that have serious prose issues and need cleaning up. I didn't think it would apply to articles like this with (I would hope) reasonably good prose. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Formby

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
George Formby was a music hall star, singer-songwriter, comedian and film star—and an unlikely one at that. While still trying to find his place on screen, one film producer thought him "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero". The producer reckoned without the ukulele, the cheeky grin and the ingrained need of the British to have double entendre and smut in its cultural output. This has undergone a major re-write recently and an FAC is hoped for in the near future. – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 22:12, 28 July 2014[reply]

Many thanks Crisco - much appreciated as always, and I hope to be able to replace the John Willie image with something suitable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Crisco's ukelele gently weeps

[edit]
  • exclusively from his father's act, including using the same songs, jokes and characters. - Is "using" necessary here?
  • He started his recording career in 1926 and, from 1934, he increasingly worked in film to become a major star by the late 1930s and 1940s, becoming the UK's highest-paid entertainer and most popular entertainer during those decades. - Become become become become *to the tune of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz*. (I'd split this while we're at it. It gives the impression he worked to become big, not he became big because of his work
  • (ENSA) - since you don't use this acronym in the lead, why have it in the lead?
  • win through against some form of villainy, winning - Again
  • Formby's biographer, Jeffrey Richards, considers that Formby - Perhaps the second mention can be "the actor" or "the entertainer"?
  • on people such as the Beatles, - technically the Beatles are a band... entertainers?
  • Since his death Formby has been the subject of five biographies, two television specials, and the subject of two works of public sculpture in England. - Such a subject-ive statement
  • After briefly attending school—at which he did not prosper, and had not learnt to read or write— - Not quite sure "and had not learnt to read or write" is the right tense
  • Why not merge the lone sentence about Formby Snr's death into the following section?
  • compere - link?
  • to mollify her Dean raised Formby's salary for the latter film to £25,000. - So Beryl, as manager, held on to Formby's cash. I can't really imagine how this would have mollified her otherwise. "My husband screwed that ninny you call a film star!" "Well, he's getting paid well enough for it, ain't he?"
  • In the spring of 1938, - Per WP:SEASONS, "early 1938" is probably better
  • performing Idle Jack in Dick Whittington. - can we say "performing" a character, or is "portraying" better?
  • the king - Link George VI, or replace with King George VI?
  • the Palestine - isn't it just Palestine?
  • Depends. I think—although I'm happy to be told otherwise—that "Palestine" is the common name for the State of Palestine, which has only been around since 1988, as opposed to the geographical region of "the Palestine"
  • I'm afraid I must tell you otherwise. "Palestine" has been around, under that name, since Greek and Roman times, although its boundaries have varied. Most recently, between 1922 and 1948 it was administered by Britain under a League of Nations mandate, after which it disappeared as a political, though not geographical, entity until the aspirational declaration of a Palestinian state in 1988 (a state still waiting to be born). "The Palestine" is incorrect. The whole region of Lebanon, Syria Jordan, Palestine and Cyprus is sometimes refered to as "The Levant", but Palestine alone should be just "Palestine". Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • travelling 25,000 miles in the process and returning to England in October. The couple travelled in a Ford Mercury that Formby had purchased from the racing driver Sir Malcolm Campbell, which had been converted to sleep two in the back. - Repeating travelling so close together... is there another way?
  • who he had met in North Africa, - whom, I presume
  • He did do on 17 August in a one day visit to the bridges, where he gave nine shows, all close to the front line, standing beside a sandbag wall, ready to jump into a slit trench in case of problems; much of the time his audience were in foxholes. - possible to cut back on the number of clauses?

Overall a pleasant read. Be back tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zimbabwe - Overlinking?
  • the summer of 1954 - WP:SEASONS again
  • Formby returned to South Africa for a tour, and then a ten-day tour of Canada. - Tour tour de force... could we nix a tour?
  • the run was cut short in May when the production was playing in Brighton to small audiences. - Doesn't feel like a particularly strong sentence. You go into more detail after this; I'd suggest letting the detail come first, then mention how the tour was cut short
  • in addition to Beside the Seaside, his only other work - if we use "in addition to", then isn't "other" unnecessary? In addition already includes an exception
  • forty-a-day smoking habit - might want to be clear that this is cigarettes/cigars and not packs (just in case)
  • Formby's final year of work was 1960. That May he recording his final session of songs, - can we finalize a final, nix it?
  • One of the acts in the show was Yana, - Yana who?
  • Harry Scott—George's valet and factotum—was to receive £5,000, while the rest was to go to Howson - why the shift to "George"?
  • Mr Justice Ormrod - This is obviously a BrE thing, but is "Mr Justic Omrod" necessary, rather than "Justice Roger Ormrod" or something with his given name?
  • I think that would be quite alien to British readers – it certainly jars with me. Unfortunately Bencherlite isn't around to check with, but I'll pop up the batsignal for @Brianboulton: to see if he has a view on how we should/could display the name. - SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • H.J. Igoe, writing in The Catholic Herald, thinks - you're shifting tenses between sentences. The paragraph afterwards is also present, whereas the preceding paragraph is past tense
  • and complicated musical syncopated style = would this be "and complicated syncopated musical style"?
  • although both those performers used pathos and innocence which Formby avoided - didn't your sources just finish saying that Formby got away with talking about sex because he had an innocent air? Also, should there be a comma after innocence?
  • There are two public statues of Formby. - as of?
  • The most recent work to be published - again, as of? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton

[edit]

I'm just starting my review. I noticed, however, the spelling "ukelele". As far as I know the only spelling is "ukulele", and I've altered to this throughout. If by some chance there is an accepted alternative spelling known amongst music hall historians, then I apologise and you can ask me to change it back.

Detailed comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, I'm afraid, although in my defence the OED lists both, but with ukulele being the more common standard. It could have been worse: Plum Wodehouse spells it "ukalele"... - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the encouragement of doubt, I see from the OED's list of sources that Dorothy Sayers used "ukelele", and Rupert Brooke spelled it "eukaleli". Hope this makes things less clear. – Tim riley talk 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First batch of comments
Lead
  • "In 1923 he made two career-changing decisions – he purchased a ukulele, and he married a fellow-performer, Beryl Ingham, who became his manager and transformed his act, insisting he dressed on stage in black tie and introducing the ukulele on stage." Repetition of "on stage" is a bit bumpy, also: "dressed in a black tie" – and nothing else? No wonder he was such a hit. Could be "formally dressed"? I think, however, the sentence would be best split at "his act", followed by (suggested wording): "She insisted that he appeared on stage formally dressed, and introduced the ukulele to his performance"
  • "On film the media historian Brian McFarlane writes that Formby portrayed..." Surely: "The media historian Brian McFarlane writes that on film, Formby portrayed..."
  • "After the war his career declined, and he toured the Commonwealth, and continued to appear in variety and pantomime." I'm not sure of the first "and"; it would perhaps read better as "although"
  • New paragraphs should not start with pronouns.
  • It's not necessary to describe Richards as "the academic". "Formby's biographer Jeffrey Richards" will do fine.
  • My view is that verbatim quotes should be used sparingly, if at all, in the lead. You have several, including the somewhat trite (sorry) ""his passing was genuinely and widely mourned". I'd be inclined to drop the last-mentioned, and briefly paraphrase the others – if you want the exact quotations thy should be in the main body of the article.
    • I've dropped the trite one and re-worked all but one, which I can't bring myself to lose the final one! I'm happy to be pushed to get rid of that one too, if you feel it doesn't fit properly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life: 1904–21
Beginning a stage career: 1921–34
  • "The performance prompted Formby decided to follow in his father's profession..." – something wrong there
  • "As he had never seen his father perform live, Formby found the imitation difficult and had to learn his father's act, songs and jokes". It would be interesting to know how he learned them, and who from?
  • "In the show he was billed as George Hoy—the surname was his mother's maiden name—explaining later that he did not want the Formby name to appear in small print". The sentence goes wrong after the probably unnecessary insertion. Suggested rephrase: "In the show he was billed as George Hoy, using his mother's maiden name—he explained later that he did not want the Formby name to appear in small print".
  • "his mother would support him financially" – conditional tense inappropriate: "his mother supported him financially"
  • "still is father's material" – that ain't right for sure.
  • "The second big event..." – I'm not sure you've defined what was the first; taking up the ukulele, adopting the Formby name, dropping the John Willie character? Perhaps replace "The second big event " with "Another significant event..."
  • I'd also be inclined to reconstruct the rest of the sentence: "...was his appearance in Castleford, West Yorkshire, on the same bill as Beryl Ingham, the Accrington-born champion clogdancer and actress who had won the All England Step Dancing title at the age of 11." (you should link Castleford)
  • "the ceremony was kept from Eliza" – no need for the passive voice. "...they kept the ceremony from Eliza"
  • "had to appear as witnesses" → "appeared as witnesses"
  • "Upon telling her the news" → "upon hearing the news"
  • "and to take lessons in how to play the banjo properly". This is the first mention of the banjo, which should be linked. Had he been playing it before, not properly, or was this his introduction to the instrument?

More will follow Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all the changes so far: I look forward to further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing

It's slow work (I tend to mull over every line) and I'm halfway through the war/Ensa section. Here are some further comments:

Burgeoning film career: 1934–40
  • I can't help feeling that quoting Dean's reply to Beryl verbatim is unnecessary, in an encylopaedia article, especially as this is a "reputed" comment rather than confirmed. A magazine biog might be a different matter, but it seems out of place here.
  • "and while it did not impress the critics" - the "and" doesn't seem right in view of what's gone before. Maybe delete the "and", & replace the preceding comma with a semicolon? Worth trying, anyhow.
  • We don't normally parade the credentials of biographers, thus "the cultural historian" can be safely deleted.
  • "because of her action" → "because of her actions"?
  • I'd replace the semicolon before "regarding the star of the film" with a full stop. It's really a separate sentence.
  • "Sill and all" is presumably a typo (but if I were an editor and one of my reviewers wrote "he doesn't do too bad" I'd sack him on the spot).
  • ""comparatively bland", but "with the exception..." The "but" is somewhat intrusive. Why not: "comparatively bland ... with the exception..." – although you may be averse to ellipses.
  • The problem is that I've reversed the text from the source: "a clutch of songs which—with the exception of the one which would become immortal—were comparatively bland", which is why we have the slightly awkward form here. - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who directed five of Formby's films" → "who went on to direct five of Formby's films"?
  • The sentence beginning "Although Beryl was furious..." has a colon followed by a semicolon, which is rather overdoing it. Personally I'd put a full stop after "fruitless", delete the unnecessary "to her", and begin a fresh sentence with "Dean informed her..."
  • "In early 1938, discussions with Dean over the next film, It's in the Air, were troubled when he informed the Formbys that Banks would return to direct and Walsh would again be the leading lady". A bit heavy footed: suggest "In early 1938, Dean informed the Formbys that in the next film, It's in the Air, Banks would return to direct and Walsh would again be the leading lady". This is a complete sentence, and should not end with a semicolon.
  • "Kimmins returned to directorial duties" - "continued his directorial duties" would be more accurate as he had directed Formby's two previous films
  • Shouldn't "Rolls-Royce" be hyphenated?
  • Just to clarify: Formby received £10 a week from ENSA, but "between 1938 and 1942 he was the highest-paid entertainer in Britain", so this was clearly not his sole source of income.
Second World War: service with ENSA
  • I've slightly altered the first sentence, but I'm still not altogether happy. Dean co-founded ENSA, rather than "took the position" of head. I also think the last sentence of the previous section ought to be absorbed into this paragraph, or else we are reading about Formby joining ENSA twice.
  • I imagine the success of Let George Do It! in Moscow and the US came a little later than 1940. The Soviet Union was Hitler's ally until June 1941, and the US was neutral until December 1941
  • trawlermen" is one word
  • "He and Beryl also set up their own, such the OK Club for Kids, whose aim was to provide cigarettes for Yorkshire soldiers" – word missing after "own"?
  • "Cinema-goers" requires hyphen
  • "Cinema-goers had begun to tire of war films, and his next film..." Avoid if possible the "film" repetition, e.g. "his next venture..."
  • It's not clear whether the gold cufflinks were a gift from the king.

More tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problem on the speed: there's absolutely no deadline on this at all and we're more than happy to wait for your comments. All covered, bar the one point. Thanks again, and we look forward to the next batch. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing

(Rest of War section)

  • The description "the academic" is fairly meaningless to readers. I realise you want to avoid readers (or reviewers) asking "who is Murphy?", but "the academic" still leaves that question open. As an alternative you could say: "Robert Murphy, in his study of wartime British cinema..." or similar words that leave no doubt as to who he was. Look for other examples in the article that could be similarly treated, e.g. Mundy in the next paragraph
  • "desire to parts" → "desire for parts" – and the words "to them" are unnecessary
  • "The reviewer for The Times was certainly critical, and wrote that the story was "confused" and they considered..." Delete the editorial "was certainly critical, and", and also the unwanted "they"
  • "Isle so Man"? Come, come – and should be linked
  • The 1667 law said that theatrical entertainment on Sundays was illegal, not "unethical" (ethics is not a matter of law)
  • References to "a strike" seem inappropriate. A strike is a withdrawal of labour until a demand or set of demands is met. The 60 were not striking, merely complying with the LDOS interpretation of the law, with whatever motive or motives. It took Formby to kick them out of their spineless attitude.
  • "Baz Kerhsaw" is actually Baz Kershaw – and another "academic". You should also make it clearer that Baz's comments were made 60+ years after the film's release.
  • "Bret" has been mentioned before; should have his full name at first mention, and a brief description, e.g. "Formby's biographer"
  • I'm curious about the DMPC episode. What made the committee think that the songs mentioned were "sympathetic to the enemy"? This seems extraordinary without further explanation.
  • Pipelink Normandy
  • What is meant by "his first official concert"?
  • "He did do on 17 August..."? Did do?? (maybe "did so")
  • "one day visit" → "one-day visit"
  • In 1945 "Sri Lanka" was called "Ceylon".
Post-war career
  • In the first line you refer to "one of Formby's live television programmes". We are out of chronology here, since BBC TV only resumed broadcasting on 7 June 1946. We could do with some context: when did Formby decide to appear on television, how often, etc? TV was then a very new medium, available to only a small proportion of the population. The fact that Formby adopted it is quite significant – more so, I venture, than the question of whether all or part of a particular song was banned by the BBC.
  • Sadly the sources don't cover that aspect, and the mention of the TV appearance (about which I can't find a record elsewhere) is only mentioned in the light of the song. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bret differs in his opinion, commenting that post-war cinema tastes changed, and audiences wanted intrigue, suspense and romance through the films of James Mason, Stewart Granger, David Niven and Laurence Olivier". I'd alter the wording slightly, as the respective views of Fisher and Bret are not mutually exclusive. Thus: "Bret believes that post-war audiences wanted intrigue, suspense and romance, through the films of such as James Mason, Stewart Granger, David Niven and Laurence Olivier."
  • "it was there that he leant of his OBE which he had been awarded in the 1946 King's Birthday Honours". Needs rephrasing (OBEs are not awarded, they are by appointments. Suggest: "while there, he learned of his appointment as OBE in the 1946 King's Birthday Honours". Note the complex linking of OBE
  • On Beryl's "piss off" remark, my earlier reservation about demotic quotes in encyclopaedia articles applies – but since she said it to Dr. Malan, I say leave it in! Let someone else object.
  • Emile Littler surely deserves a redlink
  • Give year 1951 after "September"
  • Did The Times actually say ""could not have conceivably have detected a spark of wit..." or have you inadvertently introduced a stray "have"? Also, did the Times quote say "either the lyrics of the dialogue"?

The rest by Sunday for sure. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And finally...
Health problems and intermittent work: 1952–60
  • "sufficiently enough" → "sufficiently"

"Between October and December 1953" – better as "From October to December 1953..." (unless he only appeared in November)

  • "It was not a success, and closed after 138 performances". Two things: 138 performances seems to indicate at least a degree of success, rather than the implied failure. But I more interested to know how they got 138 performances into 13 weeks (no Sundays, so two performances every day!)
  • "He again announced his retirement": in view of the fact that he didn't, it might be as well to add "but continued to work"
  • "...still allowed Formby time to appear in his annual Christmas pantomime Babes in the Wood at the Liverpool Empire Theatre." It reads as though he appeared in this pantomime, at that theatre, every year, yet it's not been mentioned before.
  • "Formby's Scottish accent" – probably "Formby's attempted Scottish accent"?
  • "Hull, Blackpool and Birmingham" – and brighton too, evidently
  • "the production played to small audiences Brighton, and the run was cut short as a result." Something missing?
  • I think "the singer Yana", rather than just "Yana" which could mean anything.
  • "Beryl's illness was worsening, and the strain "was wearing ... [Formby] down ... He needed distance and an escape",[184] and took the part of Mr Wu in Aladdin in Bristol, having turned down a more lucrative part in Blackpool." A very awkwardly punctuated sentence, with the double-ellipsis quote inserted. I'd try a little paraphrasing: "Beryl's illness was worsening; worn down by the strain, and feeling the need to escape, Formby took the part of Mr Wu in Aladdin in Bristol, having turned down a more lucrative part in Blackpool.
Final months: a new romance, death and subsequent family issues
  • "given the last rites on his arrival at hospital": there has been no previous mention of Formby's catholicism. apart from his father's burial place. I don't suggest you make an issue of this, but it may be helpful to say "given the last rites of the Catholic Church on his arrival at hospital."
  • "Formby impulsively moved the date up to 8 March, before word could leak out to Formby's family." Who/what constituted "the Formby family" at this point (this is made clearer later), and what was he afraid would "leak out"? The engagement had, after all, been announced publicly.
  • Hmmm. That whole sentence was an addition by a well-meaning but misguided IP. Back to previous version, including an additional semi colon, which I'll probably remove later anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Screen persona and technique
  • "the academic" (Geoff King)
  • On an edition of The South Bank Show about Formby, Richards comments..." Date the show, and say what it was, e.g. "On an edition of ITV's The South Bank Show in November 1992, Richards commented that Formby "embodied..." etc (in any case you need to use the past tense when quoting from a TV programme)
  • "Formby's screen and stage persona of innocence and simplicity was not seen as ignorance or stupidity, although Basil Dean thought that Formby "didn't act gormless as many successful Lancashire comedians have done, he was gormless". The second part of the sentence seems to contradict the first."
  • Another pair of "academics"
Legacy
  • "jamming" could be pipe-linked to Jam session, though really you should rephrase the sentence, which is dubiously grammatical (and what's that grocer's apostrophe doing in "ukulele's"?). I recommend: "The rest of the Beatles were also fans—they improvised with ukuleles during the recording breaks on Let It Be[217]—and Formby's influence can be heard in the song "Her Majesty".
  • Suggested reconstruction of third paragraph: "As of 2014 there are two public statues of Formby. The first, by the Manx artist Amanda Barton, is in Douglas, Isle of Man, and shows him leaning on a lamp-post and dressed in the motorcycle leathers of a TT racer. Barton was also commissioned to provide a second statue for the Lancashire town of Wigan, which was unveiled in September 2007 in the town's Grand Arcade shopping centre."
  • You say Formby has been the subject of five biographies, but mention only four. What was the fifth?
  • "and images of him were affixed..." If the tram is still operating, this should be "are affixed". Incidentally, what is a "trolley tower"?

I'm done and dusted, except for two general points:

  • Overuse of semicolon: I agree that there's an element of pot and kettle in this comment, but my counter indicates 67 semicolons in the article – and that's after I zapped a few during my review reading. That is way too many, and I strongly advise you to reduce these by about two-thirds. Many of them could be replaced by full stops, a few more by the use of conjunctions, others by light rephrasing.
  • I'm not certain that all the prose flows smoothly. I haven't time to read through again, but one thing you could do is to read it aloud – to your beloved or to yourself if no one wants to listen – and see how it "sounds". This is a tip passed to me in my early FAC days by the late, great Wadewitz, and I found it very useful.

I will continue to follow the article's fortunes with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Haven't found much to object to as yet (through Beginning) no doubt because it is well-trodden ground. It looks quite good.

Lede
  • "He sang light, comical songs, usually playing the ukulele or banjolele, on stage, screen and record, and became the UK's highest-paid entertainer." The "on stage, screen, and record" clause seems to leap out at me as out of place. Just my opinion, but what about "On stage, screen and record, he sang light, comical songs, usually playing the ukulele or banjolele, and became the UK's highest-paid entertainer."
  • You could probably get by with "he" instead of "Formby" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • I could, but I get growled at by Mssrs Boulton and Riley for having the first reference in a new paragraph as "he", rather than the subject's name! Happy to swap over if you think we can be a bit more flexible in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence in the second paragraph might be usefully split.
  • "became the UK's highest-paid entertainer" why tell us twice in identical language?
  • In the final sentence, why is the distinction drawn between "focus" and "subject"? It might be more effective just to say he was the subject of all those thing.
Beginning
  • All tweaked, per your suggestions, with the exception of the he/Formby comment, but happy to swap out if you still feel it appropraite. Many thanks for looking into this, and I look forward to further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More:

Burgeoning
  • I think you should split the second sentence at the semicolon. I should add that you may be using semicolons to excess. (that being said I like them too)
  • For those unfamiliar with the Manx event, I would throw in "motorcycle" somewhere
  • "Filming was troubled" Can one of the uses of "set" be changed?
  • "success in a relevant field (in horse racing, the TT Races, as a spy or a policeman)" perhaps "in a field unfamiliar to him" if the source will stretch. Are the TT Races the Tourist Trophy? Race or Races? And if so where does horse racing come into it?
  • "Come On George! was released to troops serving in France before being released in Britain.[67]" perhaps the first "released" could be "shown" or else change to "screened for troops .."
2nd WW
  • "performed to members" Perhaps a Britishism I'm unfamiliar with, but I would have expected "performed for members"
  • "that it brought about Formby's first international release," perhaps "that the film became Formby's ..."
  • " and of the film, "a box office certainty"." not sure what the "of" is doing.
  • Is there any known reaction of the Royals to "When I'm Cleaning Windows?" A pipe to Royal Command Performance might be useful. And I did read the footnote.
  • "Murphy, however, writes that the criticism "had more to do with the inadequate vehicles which he subsequently appeared in than in any diminution of his personal popularity."[100]" I'm not sure why the "however". The quote seems to agree with what is said immediately before.
  • "he greatly admired the seemingly tireless work they did" I would cut "seemingly". Even people who do tireless work get tired.
  • 25,000 miles. You should probably put a convert template here. Check for other distance mentions as well.
  • "The couple travelled in a Ford Mercury" They got to Malta that way? Shades of James Bond!
Postwar
  • It's unclear what problems "Blackpool Rock" was causing. I don't mean how it was suggestive, that's fairly obvious (I do know what it looks like, I've been to Blackpool and other English shore resorts) I mean, was he performing it over the air or not? What was the repercussion?
  • "unofficially recognised" perhaps "without official recognition"
  • "a coast-to-coast tour through 19 cities of Canada" perhaps "a 19 city coast-to-coast Canadian tour"
  • "where he announced his retirement" from home? Where was home by then? If it is Lytham St Annes, I must say that you introduce it rather late (not counting the caption)
Health problems
  • If he went to South Africa for a tour, by then Apartheid was in place and I imagine he would have had to play to segregated audiences. This seems a bit inconsistent with his prior stand.
  • " the pain—[167][168]" I think the dash follows the footnotes per MOS.
  • "Formby's Scottish accent " since he was not Scottish, perhaps "Formby's attempt at a Scottish accent". or similar
  • "the production played to small audiences Brighton," ?
  • "The Time of your Life" caps?
Final months
  • "further heart attack" used twice in close succession
Persona
  • "Much of the innocence in his performances was around sex, and the use double entendres within his songs" some tweaking here.
That's all I have. Most enjoyable and educational, and quite well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for all these: I think between us we have cleared up the more straightforward ones, and will go back to the sources on a couple of others. Thanks again: your time and effort are very much appreciated. Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt. I'm sorry that I have been vacant for much of this owing to real life, but your comments look spot on! Cassiantotalk 11:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I especially enjoyed the Beatles bit. Never been a huge fan, but presence at a Beatles trivia on board ship (we had a fanatic on our team who got us most of the 29 out of 30 we won with) has caused me to reconsider a bit. Just was playing "The Long and Winding Road".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be thankful it wasn't Yellow submarine! I love the Beatles (but dislike them all as solo performers). I wonder whether our resident Beatles expert knew of this link? Cassiantotalk 23:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
  • Beginning a stage career: 1921–34
    • "Whilst there, they visited" – the usual bleat from me about "whilst" – a fustian word, to which "while" is greatly superior
    • "at a registry office in Wigan" – there are some pedantic souls (probably the same ones who get in a lather about split infinitives) who insist that this should be "register" not "registry" office. "Register offices" is certainly what they are officially known as, and perhaps it would be prudent to follow the official line.
    • "Although he had a further recording session in October 1929, recording two songs for Dominion Records" – that's a lot of "record"s: perhaps make the second "recording" "performing"?
    • "with Beryl acting as compere" – if you think "register office" is pedantic just wait for this – a personess of the female persuasion is never a "compere" but is a "commère". Obsolete now, perhaps but applicable to 1932: the OED quotes Wodehouse: "He watched a revue... A snow-white commère and a compère in a mauve flannel suit looked on at the brawl", and as late as 1958, The Listener: "Commère was Margaret Lockwood".
    • The chronology of the last sentence of this para puzzles me. By "the winter 1932 season" do you mean winter 1932–33? If so, having finished the run of the panto circa Feb 1933 he went on tour afterwards – i.e. spring or later 1933. The six words after the semicolon are redundant, surely? Or should 1933 be 1934 before the full stop?
  • Burgeoning film career: 1934–40
    • "Jo Botting, writing for the British Film Institute, described it" – this reads as though you're quoting a contemporary review, and I think "describes" would make it clear that Botting's is a retrospective assessment.
    • "an odd and not particularly loveable character" – did Sir Michael (or Mr Sweet) really spell "lovable" with the redundant "e" in the middle?
    • "Formby's Lancashire character for the film; the scriptwriter employed for the film was" – repeated "for the film": suggest you might just blitz "employed for the film" completely.
    • "raised Formby's salary for the latter film to £25,000" – is "salary" quite the right word here? A salary suggests a regular payment, but if the £25,000 was just for this film, as the wording suggests, then it's a fee or some such.
  • Second World War: service with ENSA
    • "this time combatting fifth columnists" – I reckon "combating" has only one "t", and more to the point so do the OED and Chambers.
    • "Formby issued a statement" – two things here: first, you want a punctuation mark after "statement" – either a comma or colon according to personal taste; secondly, when you say he issued a statement – to whom? A public press statement in 1942 could not conceivably have contained the word "bloody" surely? (I like his style, though!)
  • Post-war career: 1946–52
  • Final months: a new romance, death and subsequent family issues
    • Subheading: See Plain Words – "Issue: This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute". I think the last of these is what you want here.
    • Senile reminiscence: I have – or think I have – a memory of an ageing Formby in an armchair talking straight to camera introducing a series of TV broadcasts of his old films. My memory tells me that he mentioned Beryl in the past tense, which if true (if mind you) narrows the time slot to early 1961. I cannot vouch for any of this: I would have been nine at the time, and 53 years have elapsed since then. In any case you may not think it of interest, but I just mention it. Later: Pray ignore this. I've had a good rummage in the archives and can find nothing that matches what my memory is telling me. Having read the full Guardian review I have a horrible suspicion that my poor old brain was trying to recall the very Friday Show you mention.
  • Legacy
  • Notes
    • d. – "the age of majority was 21, and Formby needed permission to marry" – but he was only 20. How did he get the necessary permission if his mother didn't know about the marriage? Were uncles and aunts able to give consent behind a parent's back?
    • q. – "Beryl called one group of extras "The Five Queens" – not extras, according to the WP article on the film, as each of the five is listed there as a character. Perhaps "supporting actors"?
    • i. – if I had been responsible for this whole marvellous re-write, I should have included this fact in the main text: it is very much to the point and shows the Georges VI and Formby more in touch with Britain than Auntie BBC was.

I extravagantly enjoyed this article. I think you have done Formby (and Beryl) full justice. On to FAC, and please let me know when it arrives there. – Tim riley talk 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Closing the PR, with huge thanks to one and all for your excellent thoughts, edits and suggestions. There are atill a few points from the reviews we need to address, as well as another copyedit or two for us to do. Thanks agains. - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 11:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocarbon dating

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured article level. I've done a fair amount of work on it, and have created two sub-articles, in addition: radiocarbon dating samples, and calculation of radiocarbon dates. These are linked, per summary style, from the appropriate sections of the article. I'd like feedback on anything that would be required for FA -- this means not the subarticles, but if there's anything in those articles that should be brought up to this article, I'd like to know. Conversely, if there are other sections where the article could be shortened by making another subarticle, I'd like to know that too.

Thanks for any feedback. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

I've looked at this article in past and I'm impressed with the recent improvements.

Physical and chemical background
  • You show the decay of carbon-14 in a figure but do not explain what the symbols represent. Consider including the breakdown inline as in the Carbon-14 article:

with an explanation of the symbols. Perhaps mention that beta particles are electrons.

I've added the equation, and an explanation; the symbols don't perfectly match the svg image, which predates my involvement with the article. Is the image useful now? I see a couple of problems that would need to be fixed if I were to keep it: the symbols are slightly different, e.g. for the electron and anti-neutrino; and the explanation of decay includes a reference to the ratio, 1012, and the fact that the decay reduces that ratio. This is not addressed in the text at this point. I have an svg editor and can change the image if necessary, or it could just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture can be removed as it doesn't add anything to the article - and could confuse. Why does the first equation have N+ rather than simply N? Aa77zz (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the picture. The plus was added in this edit; the edit summary was "balance the charge", and I see that it does that, but I'm not convinced it is any clearer this way. I left it on the assumption that this conforms to a standard in these kinds of equations, but perhaps that was wrong. Should I cut it again? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why the nitrogen has a plus in the C14 creation reaction. The symbols represent nuclei (not atoms). There are 7 protons and 8 neutrons on either side - ie in terms of charge +7 on each side. Perhaps there is some subtlety that I'm not aware of. Have you an authoritative source? Aa77zz (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source and removed the +; the source does not include it. I assume the reason the other editor added it is that 14N would have 7 electrons, and 14C would have six, so the electrons would not balance; they must have considered it as an atomic equation, rather than as a nuclear equation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Principles of the method
  • "The ratio of 14
    C     atoms in the original sample, N0," The article introduces the ratio here while N0 has been defined to be the actual number. I can't see an easy solution without adding complication.
    Good point; this was confused. I've had a go at fixing this; let me know if that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Invention
Errors and reliability
  • Counting statistics. The example is for counting beta particles. If, as I suspect, dating nowadays uses AMS exclusively, then perhaps it is not such a good example.
    I can't tell if beta counting is still in wide use. I suspect it is, because it's a lot cheaper to build a beta counting lab than an AMS lab. The most recent source I have that unequivocally talks about the continuing use of beta counting is Walker's Quaternary Dating Methods, which was published in 2005. I have noticed that Groningen and Belfast, two of the best known labs, have converted to AMS, which certainly implies that AMS has finally overtaken beta counting as the best way to get a precise radiocarbon age. I haven't been able to find a source that definitely states beta counting is on the way out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contamination
Measurement
  • Beta counting: If dating by counting beta particles is no longer used then perhaps this section could be shortened.
    See comments above. I am planning to ask an archaeologist I know to do a "subject-matter expert" review, and perhaps he'll be able to settle it, or will know someone who knows the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in looking for something else I noticed that beta counting is still discussed as a current method in Malainey's A Consumer's Guide to Arcaheological Science, which was published in 2011. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerator mass spectrometry: Are the details of a mass-spec device really necessary? Also you could point out that AMS but not beta counting can determine 12
    C    :13
    C     (and hence fractionation).
    I think the picture is helpful, mainly in showing the streams of 12
    C    , 13
    C    , and 14
    C     separated as the output of the device. I think readers who aren't clear on the text will immediately understand what AMS does when they see that picture, even if they don't quite understand how it does it. I cover the details of AMS internals partly because the need to add the accelerator component was a big deal; it added a huge amount of cost, and was the main reason why AMS did not spread more quickly once it was clear it worked well. Do you feel these details are a digression?
    Re fractionation: I found one source saying that some AMS facilities can also measure fractionation in the sample, so I'll add something to that effect. I'm a bit surprised that the source says only some facilities can do this; I can't see why all facilities wouldn't be able to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Calibration
  • I'm not convinced that you need to mention that uncorrelated errors are added in quadrature. This is more "How to" - which wiki is not. I don't think the "The output of CALIB" fig adds very much.
    The secondary sources spend a fair amount of time on the question of how to combine errors. I think a reader not familiar with statistical errors is going to naturally make the mistake in red in the "calibration error" graph; it would seem sensible to take the outside bound of both sigmas and treat that as the one sigma error on the result. So I think something should be said. I know when I first looked at the INTCAL graphs and saw the error bars, my reaction was "why don't they show those errors in the textbooks?" and the answer is because the error is added to the radiocarbon age reading before using the intercepts. I wouldn't mind simplifying the explanation -- perhaps if I take out the equation, and just use the text description?
    Maybe the CALIB figure doesn't add what I wanted it to. What I wanted readers to see from it was that it produces a probability distribution, not just a range. I picked that particular date range so readers could compare the output to the intercept method on the other graph. The intercept method gives the illusion, which several sources comment on, that the date is definitely within the range; the probability method makes it much clearer that sometimes the date is going to be well outside the given range. Do you feel this information is adequately conveyed by the text? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes/Footnotes/References
  • Using the both titles "Notes" and "Footnotes" is confusing. I suggest Notes/References/Sources
    I would like to keep "References" to refer to the list of works, since that seems to be the standard -- WP:FNNR says any heading can be used but says "References" is the most common here. I agree "Notes" and "Footnotes" isn't ideal, but I think there would be a similar confusion between "References" and "Sources". How about "Endnotes" for the text notes, and just "Notes" for the footnotes that simply give the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many little problems with consistency.
  • Do first names come before or after the last name?
  • Do initials have punctuation?
  • When there are two initials, is there a space between them?
  • Some References (Sources) use templates, others not. The are many tiny differences: "and" or "&" introduced, period after isbn etc. I suggest all use templates (editor1-last= etc)

That is all for now. I hope some of the above is useful. Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful; thank you very much. I've responded to most of your points above; I will work on the consistency issues and post here again when I think I've cleaned them up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done quite a bit of citation cleanup. Please let me know if you still see inconsistencies. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional comments

[edit]
  • There should be cite for the decay equation in the section "Physical and chemical background".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need both equations in the Fractionation section? Perhaps keep just the second?
    Agreed; I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some way that the time scale for carbon dating could be made more prominent in the lead? Currently, fifty thousand years is mentioned, but only in terms of the calibration.
    Done; this wasn't really covered in detail in the body either, so I added a note in the "Errors and reliability" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For my own curiosity I tried to check whether beta counting is still used by scanning the latest issue of Radiocarbon (vol 56, issue 2). Of the 21 articles that I looked at, 16 mentioned AMS. It was unclear which technique was used for the remaining 5 - but counting wasn't mentioned.
    I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, but I can't find a source that says this. The most recent source that mentions beta counting as current practice is Malainey (2011). I suspect I can get the answer by asking an archaeologist I know, but I don't know how to cite it. I suppose if it does turn out that beta counting is now rare, I could at least reverse the order of explanation in some sections -- though I also like keeping the historical sequence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across an article that might be useful for the "Reporting dates" section:
Millard, Andrew R. (2014). "Conventions for Reporting Radiocarbon Determinations". Radiocarbon. 56 (2): 555–559. doi:10.2458/56.17455.
Thanks; I added some material based on that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made small changes to formatting of the references - aiming for consistency. I find the referencing system used in the article very odd. I'm used to a system in which the short cites including the year rather than the title. The treatment of chapters in edited books is also not what I expect. For #32 the short cite in the Footnotes would be "Schoeninger (2010), p. 446." while the full details in the References would be:
Schoeninger, Margaret J. (2010). "Diet reconstruction and ecology using stable isotope ratios". In Larsen, Clark Spencer (ed.). A Companion to Biological Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 445–464. ISBN 978-1-4051-8900-2.
Notice that chapter titles and journal article titles are normally in sentence case, while book titles and journal titles are in title case.
I agree. I'm going to make this change throughout and come back to your other points when this is done. I think the style I used was simply inherited from when I first began editing Wikipedia, and had paid very little attention to the referencing system. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, how should journals be handled? Would you suggest they be listed in the references, and a short form used, or should I leave them as they are, cited directly from the footnotes and not listed in the references? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong view on this. FAs use both systems - Jimfbeak for example doesn't use the short form for journal article. When journal article are 10s of pages (unlike Science and Nature) then it helps the reader if one cites the actual page. In these cases it makes sense to use the short form- especially if one has several cites to different pages in the same journal article. The short form is not used for web sources.
In writing the above I noticed that you cite Bowman for the Libby's Nobel prize. I usually try to avoid web sources but in this case I would cite: "The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1960". Nobelprize.org. Retrieved 5 July 2014. This is unlikely to suffer from link-rot. Aa77zz (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with everything that was cited from a book; I'll hold off on the journals until you comment on how those should be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For edited books I think you've haven't realised that the template automatically does everything for you - and avoids having the year twice. I'll tweak them now. Aa77zz (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was going to ask about that duplicated year; thank you for those fixes (and the other tweaks I see you're doing). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited books

[edit]
  • In the References section I've now added the page numbers of the chapters in edited books. Previously only Post (2001) had the pages specified. I used google (I'm not near a library). I came across a couple of errors in the authors.
  • "Tunis, C.; Zoppi, U. (2004)" actual has 3 authors and a different spelling of the first author. I've changed it to "Tuniz, C.; Zoppi, U.; Barbetti, M. (2004)." Google preview available here.
  • "Šilar, Jan (2004)" actually has 3 authors, and Šilar is the middle author. It is now "Košler, Jan; Šilar, Jan; Jelìnek, Emil (2004)." Google preview available here.
  • This level of carelessness is worrying (I'm assuming I haven't made errors myself). I haven't checked whether the cited page actually supports the text.
  • On an unrelated issue, in the Calculations section is a sentence: "A common standard sample is HOxII, 1,000 lb of which was prepared by NIST in 1977 from French beet harvests.[55]" The cite is to a chapter published in 1984 available here. This is 30 years ago and the technology has changed enormously since. I suspect that this info is really only of historical interest. Aa77zz (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your comment about carelessness; I knew I wasn't the best at dotting every i, but when I saw the number of corrections you had to make, even before reading your comment above I was planning to apologize to you. I should have done a pass through to find these simple errors before bringing the article to PR. I am sorry you've had to spend your time on this sort of tedious work; next time I bring something to PR I'll do my best to make sure it's clear of these mistakes.

On the Tunis & Zoppi article, I have no explanation for what I did. As it happens, Google Books has two different versions of the book: ISBN 1-58603-424-3 comes up if you search for "Physics Methods in Archaeometry, Volume 154" in books.google.com. This is the one you cited, with authors Tuniz, Zoppi, and Barbetti. There is also one with ISBN 1-58603-385-9, which comes up if you search for "Physics Methods in Archaeometry edited by M. Martini, M. Piacentini". That one shows only Barbetti as the author of the article in the table of contents. However, Tuniz and Zoppi show up in the running head, so it seems to be just an error in that edition; and in any case, since I omitted Barbetti, it can't explain what I did.

For Šilar, the reason I put only one name down as author is that in the table of contents the subsections of that paper are attributed specifically to individual authors, and I assumed I should only give his name in that case. The overall section of the book does have the three authors, but perhaps the title I used should have been the more specific subsection, "Radiocarbon", with page range 150-179?

As for the HOxII, I believe it is still in use as a standard -- it was prepared a long time ago, but testing standard samples is a part of every lab's procedures, and the HOxII standard seems to be still the usual choice. I think I saw a more recent reference that stated this explicitly; if I can find that I will add the reference.

Thanks again for all your work on this. I'm really sorry about the work you've had to do to deal with my mistakes; and I really appreciate the help you've given me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added the additional HOxII reference; it appears it is still in use, as of 2007, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that I could make a small but hopefully useful contribution to the article. Aa77zz (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the Šilar reference to just the one author, with the title and page range constrained to just the part of the chapter that Šilar wrote alone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]
  • Very comprehensive, good work. My FAs tend to have less technical stuff to aid readability, and to me there is too much on, for example, calibration. However, the fact that you are more diligent than me is scarcely a reason for complaint Jimfbleak - talk to me?
    Should some of that material be moved to a subarticle? My feeling is that calibration is so important that I needed to cover it in quite a bit of detail -- a radiocarbon age simply doesn't tell you enough on its own, and calibration can give quite surprising results. On the other hand, it's still quite a long article, even with the two subarticles I've already created.
    Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the length to your judgement. Articles like this are more likely to be reviewed by people with a scientific background, so it's probably OK Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

[edit]

Hello, Mike -- Just one comment for now. I may add others later. Will work my way slowly through the article. In the second paragraph of the lead, you have:

"The most important of these was the need to determine what the proportion of 14 C in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the actual calendar age of that sample."

There's just a bit of disconnect between these two sentences. I know the sentence before this referred to "much work" that needed to be done (by scientists), and I believe the phrase "the resulting data" was intended to refer to the data resulting from work done to answer the question regarding the proportion of 14 C in the atmosphere, but there's a stretch between "the resulting data" and the "work" mentioned two sentences earlier. You never actually say that that proportion was determined. You also switch from past tense "was the need" to present tense "is used", with no assist to the reader. There is no hint of a connection between the time of Libby's work in the 1940s and actually using the technique today. I'd like to suggest the following wording:

"Research done to answer this question yielded data which, displayed in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert the amount of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's actual calendar age".

I would add "now" before "used" so that it reads "is now used", and, just to simplify the last sentence, instead of "used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon", I would say simply "used to convert the amount of radiocarbon". I hope you don't consider this nitpicking. I just think it would add clarity and improve cohesion of the paragraph. CorinneSD (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised those sentences to "The development of the technique required much additional work; including research to determine what the proportion of 14
C in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years. The resulting data, in the form of a calibration curve, is now used to convert a given measurement of radiocarbon in a sample into an estimate of the sample's actual calendar age." I think this reorganization solves some of the problems you identified. I would prefer to keep "a given measurement of radiocarbon", rather than "amount of radiocarbon", because it's not directly the amount that's measured -- what's measured is the ratio between the radiocarbon and the other carbon in the sample. I also took out "displayed", because it's not really the visible form of the curve that's relevant; it's the underlying data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the first paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Atmospheric variation is the following sentence:

"Carbon-dating the wood from the tree-rings themselves provided the check needed on the atmospheric 14C/12 C ratio: with a sample of known date, and a measurement of the value of N (the number of atoms of 14 C remaining in the sample), the carbon-dating equation allows the calculation of N0 (the number of atoms of 14 C in the original sample), and hence the original ratio."

It's not clear to me what is meant by "original sample" or "original ratio". I understood everything else in this section, but not this. Perhaps there is a more precise way to refer to the sample and the ratio. Also, in the phrase, "with a sample of known date", are you referring only to a sample of tree-rings or to a sample of any material? CorinneSD (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing, and I'd be glad of help in improving the phrasing here. The equation in question is the first one in the "Principles of the Method" section:
The number of 14
C atoms in any sample containing carbon is N0; after time t, some of the 14
C decays, and there are N atoms left, instead of N0. If a sample is taken from a given tree ring that we know was formed in, say, 1862, we can measure the amount of 14
C to be found in that sample now. We can then use the equation to determine N0, which is the amount of 14
C that would have been in that particular tree ring in 1862. Since we have a set of tree rings from consecutive years, this lets us measure how much 14
C was in the atmosphere in each of those years -- by measuring N, and calculating N0, for each year. So by "atoms of 14
C in the original sample" I meant "atoms of 14
C that would have been in that sample if it had been taken from the tree ring at the time that tree ring formed."
If you can make this clearer and easier to understand, that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: I took what you gave me, above, and re-worded the sentence. I think it's clearer now. What do you think? I keep looking at the next sentence, the one starting "Armed with...". I think it is a bit long and wordy. I also see your statement, above, that the calculation of N0 was done for each year. I'm wondering whether we can incorporate that. Something like this:
"After calculating N0 for each year using the tree rings, scientists used the results to construct a calibration curve that allows them to correct errors caused by the variation over time in the 14C/12C ratio."
I don't think this is quite right yet. One problem with this wording is that the values of N0 apply to the specific tree-ring sample, not to the year -- that is, N0 is a count of atoms in a given tree ring, not a piece of data about a given year. Hence I don't think we can say "after calculating N0 for each year". I'd also prefer to keep the passive voice, for consistency with the rest of the article, rather than say "scientists". I also think it's better to make "calibration curves" plural; I'll expand on that below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is this calibration curve the same as, or different from, the calibration curve mentioned in the lead? Are there two different calibration curves involved in radiocarbon dating, or just this one? CorinneSD (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really referring to any specific curve here -- that's why I phrased it as "possible to construct". If you have a set of data that tells you, for example, that in 1055 AD the ratio of 14
C in the atmosphere was 1.2 parts per million, and which includes similar information for other years in the 11th century, then if you measure the 14
C/12
C ratio in a sample of old wood you find, and discover that according to the radioactive decay equations it would have had only 0.6 parts per million of 14
C in 1055, you can be sure that that sample of old wood is a lot older than 1055. A lot of measurements have been done on tree rings and other things such as varves, and researchers have put together many different calibration curves using that data. There's a "consensus curve", called INTCAL, that has been around since the 1990s; it represents the collaborative efforts of many researchers in the field. Even that curve comes in multiple varieties, though; one for the northern hemisphere, one for the southern hemisphere, and one for marine samples. It's also been through many iterations: INTCAL13 is the current version, but the 2004 version (INTCAL04) had significant differences. Then there are the curves people assembled before INTCAL, and I believe there are still reasons why a researcher might use a different curve to address specific issues with their data -- for example, if it's known that the marine environment they're working with has different characteristics, the INTCAL curve might not give the best results.
I'm out of time for now (house guests) but will get back to the rest of your comments as soon as I can -- tonight or tomorrow, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) I noticed that you have "tree-ring(s)" hyphenated in Radiocarbon dating#Atmospheric variation but not hyphenated in "Variations in Carbon 14 production". Perhaps you should decide which form you want to use and make them consistent. I don't know whether you want to use the unhyphenated form (two separate words) when its a noun and the hyphenated form when it is used as an adjective. @Rothorpe: What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strictly hyphen for adjective, no hyphen for noun phrase. Rothorpe (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4) In the second paragraph in the section "Variations in 14C production", you have "polar excursion" (with a link). Later in the paragraph you have "polarity excursion". Is that an intended variation on the phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an error; it should be "polarity" in each case. Fixed. Thanks for your comments so far -- much appreciated. Readability is a real concern with a scientific article, and I hope we can make this as accessible as possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) In the third paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Physical and chemical background, you have a sentence that begins:

"If it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux has been constant over the last ~100,000 years,..."

This is the first time that the word "flux" is used in the article, and, I'm sorry to say, I don't know what "cosmic ray flux" means. I believe "flux" is related to the word "fluctuation", but that's just a guess. Is there any way to add a defining word or phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've wikilinked "flux"; basically it means the density, or intensity, of the cosmic rays. To say the flux has been constant means that there hasn't been any significant change in the amount of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere. Is there a better way to say this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6) If you're interested, you can see User talk:Rothorpe#Radiocarbon dating and User talk:Rothorpe#Radiocarbon dating 2, where I asked Rothorpe a few questions regarding punctuation, word order, etc. CorinneSD (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and I agree with the changes you and Rothorpe discussed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorinneSD: I think I've caught up with your comments now. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments from CorinneSD

[edit]

1) I've just started reading the rest of the article. The paragraph in the section "Impact of climactic cycles" is as follows:

Because the solubility of CO2 in water increases with lower temperatures, glacial periods would have led to the faster absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans. In addition, any carbon stored in the glaciers would be depleted in 14C over the life of the glacier; when the glacier melted as the climate warmed, the depleted carbon would be released, reducing the global 14C/12C ratio. The changes in climate would also cause changes in the biosphere, with warmer periods leading to more plant and animal life. The effect of these factors on radiocarbon dating is not known.
I don't know. Maybe because I took a break from reading the article, or maybe just because of my own ignorance of the subject, I don't understand some things here. I understand the first sentence fine. In the second sentence, I don't understand:
"would be depleted in 14C".
That means nothing to me. I know carbon 14 decays over time, so there's less of it as time passes. Is that what this means? Now, if I am correct in supposing that that's what it means, then I don't understand this phrase in the next sentence:
"the depleted carbon would be released". Does that mean that the carbon stored in the glacier, a combination of carbon 14 and carbon 12, would simply at that time have less carbon 14 than it did when the water froze? Does that mean that it would have more carbon 12 in it? Does carbon 14 just disappear, or does it become carbon 12 over time? I guess I'm not clear on what "reducing the global 14C/12C ratio" means. I guess I have to go back to the beginning of the article and read all the way through again. (Are you sure you want me to read to the end of the article? :) CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now see an explanation for "reducing the...14C/12C ratio" in Radiocarbon dating#Hard water effect. CorinneSD (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that phrase "depleted in 14C" again in the section Radiocarbon dating#Hemisphere effect. I'm wondering if it would be clearer if you used the preposition "of" instead of "in" for this particular phrase: "depleted of 14C". That "depleted in" doesn't make any sense to me. CorinneSD (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "depleted in 14C" I mean that the amount of 14C in the article has been reduced by some amount. To me, "depleted of 14C" would imply that there was no 14C left at all -- it would be short for "depleted of all 14C", whereas I read "depleted in 14C" as short for "depleted with respect to 14C". It looks like from your subsequent comments that you now understand the paragraph, but just to be sure, here's an explanation. The 14C in the glaciers (in dissolved carbon dioxide) decays over time, turning into nitrogen. After, say, 5,000 years, half the 14C in the glaciers is gone. Then when the glaciers melt, the carbon dioxide in them is released back into the atmosphere. The atmosphere still has the expected ratio of 14C to 12C, because cosmic rays were continuing to make 14C while the glaciers were frozen. The melting glaciers release carbon dioxide that has a lower ratio of 14C/12C back into the atmosphere; this lowers the 14C/12C ratio of the whole atmosphere. That would have an impact on the apparent age of something -- a piece of wood from that time might appear to be older than it really is, because it would have this "old carbon" from the glaciers in it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know I'm not a scientist, but I wonder about two things regarding the Radiocarbon dating#Island effect:
1) You have a separate section for "Island effect" but then discount it with one example. You don't mention whose idea the island effect was, or is, or whether any scientists think it does exist. Why mention it if your one example proves it not to exist? I think more than one example is needed.
I've been wondering whether to just delete that section, since the net result is that there is no island effect. Still, the sources mention it, so I think I need to. The sources I have, which are mostly survey works, don't give the originator of the idea. I'll add it if I'm able to find out who came up with it, but I don't think it's really necessary. I don't know if there are any other experimental refutations of the island effect -- the example given is the only one covered in the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2) I wonder whether the results of that experiment with Seattle and Ireland would have been different if the island were farther from England and the European mainland. What if they had chosen Iceland, or Hawaii -- another island in the northern hemisphere that was farther from any continent? CorinneSD (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, but not one I can answer in the article -- that really would be original research! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the section Radiocarbon dating#Sample material considerations, in the last bulleted item, would you consider changing "Other types of sample" to either "Other sample types" or "Other materials"? While "other types of sample" is not wrong, it's a little stilted, and the other phrases, because shorter, are more concise, and they are more common. CorinneSD (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I've changed it to "Other materials". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the section Radiocarbon dating#Preparation and sample size, I see several commas that I think are not necessary (again, it's a question of style and an individual choice, but I tend to use commas only when necessary):

"Particularly for older samples, it may be useful to enrich the amount of 14C in the sample before testing. This can be done with a thermal diffusion column. The process takes about a month, and requires a sample about ten times as large as would be needed otherwise, but it allows more precise measurement of the 14C/12C ratio in old material, and extends the maximum age that can be reliably reported."
In the third sentence, I would take out the comma after "take about a month" and the comma after "old material". These commas are unnecessary and slow down the flow of the sentence. The sentence would then look as follows:
"The process takes about a month and requires a sample about ten times as large as would be needed otherwise, but it allows more precise measurement of the 14C/12C ratio in old material and extends the maximum age that can be reliably reported." CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I saw some more unnecessary commas in the next paragraph, so I decided to go ahead and edit the entire section. Hope you don't mind. (Feel free to undo or change.) As you'll see, I really revised the last paragraph. I felt that the sentences did not flow well the way it was worded. The only problem I see is that at least one of the two testing technologies was mentioned in a paragraph just above this one. Usually, the first time a term appears in an article is when it is linked. Other than that minor issue, you may or may not mind the introduction of the two testing technologies here (rather than earlier). CorinneSD (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through your edits and agree with all of them; you're particularly good at spotting superfluous commas, which I have a weakness for. Thanks for the edits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break
[edit]

4) I have several questions regarding the section Radiocarbon dating#Beta counting. (I know that to you these things might seem obvious, but to me they are not. I thought you might like to know the places where I get confused or feel that something is not clear.):

1) In the first paragraph, it's not made clear where the sample is actually placed. Also, just for my own interest if not for the article, could you tell me the reason for the carbon coating on the inside of the cylinder?
I can see this isn't clear; that carbon is the sample. I've reworded to clarify this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's much clearer now. Good work! CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph mentions "bomb carbon". Is this related to the second paragraph in Radiocarbon dating#The Effects of human activity? If so, and the reader fails to make the connection, this might be confusing. Perhaps a little reminder of what it refers to would help. If not, then what is it?
Yes, that's what is meant. I use the phrase "bomb carbon" in that paragraph, but it's a long way back, so I've added a parenthetical explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) The fourth paragraph begins, "For both types of counter". Now I know you know this refers to gas proportional counters and liquid scintillation counters, but just before this, at the end of the third paragraph, you mentioned anticoincidence counters. I think for the sake of clarity, you should mention the names of the two types of counter:
"For both the gas proportional counter and liquid scintillation counter,...".
Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4) In the middle of the fourth paragraph you switch to future tense ("will also be used"). Since you have been using present tense throughout, I think you should stay in present tense. Present tense is appropriate for something that is done on a regular basis. It's part of the procedure. Also, although you didn't mention it, I assume the testing of a blank sample is normally done before the real testing begins. You could incorporate this order in your sentence. (And is the testing of a sample with standard activity also done before the real testing begins?) Regardless of whether you mention the order of these tests, I still think present tense is best.
Agreed; I changed this to present tense. The order isn't specified in the source I used, and I don't think it would matter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5) Toward the end of the fourth paragraph, you use the phrase "original sample" again (you will recall that we discussed this earlier). It's not completely clear what "original sample" means. Would you consider using a different phrase? CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's much better. I'm wondering whether the sentence would be even clearer if you added the adverb "solely" after "due":
"This provides a value for the background radiation, which must be subtracted from the measured activity of the sample which is being dated to get the activity due solely to that sample's 14C".
CorinneSD (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) I just started reading the section on Radiocarbon dating#Accelerator mass spectrometry and I found one issue in the first sentence:

1) The first sentence reads:
"AMS counts the atoms of 14C and 12C atoms in a given sample,..."
Do you really want the word "atoms" twice in this sentence?
No, that's debris from an earlier form of the sentence, I think. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2) In this phrase, "negatively charged C- ions", do you need to use the minus sign after "C" when you are saying that they are negatively charged? Could you write "negative charged carbon ions"?
I thought about this and would like to leave this as is. A positively charged C3+ ion isn't the same as a positively charged C+ ion, after all, so the minus sign does add information. I could drop "negatively" without loss of precision, but I think it helps the less technical reader confirm that they understand what they're reading. Do you have any suggestions for another way to phrase this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I was thinking before, but didn't write, was first use the phrase "negatively charged carbon ions" and then put "C-" in parentheses after it, or after "carbon". CorinneSD (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased this to include an explanation of "ion". How's that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) The last sentence in the first paragraph in this section reads:
"AMS is more sensitive than beta counting, and can date samples that contain only a few milligrams of carbon, such as individual seeds."
When I read this sentence, it sounded familiar. The last sentence in the section Radiocarbon dating#Preparation and sample size reads:
"AMS labs are much more sensitive and can deal with samples as small as 10 milligrams (for charcoal) and generally require less than a gram of most sample materials."

:While not exactly the same, these two sentences are quite similar. I wonder whether you care to choose the most appropriate place for the information and delete the other one. CorinneSD (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I removed the second occurrence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6) The second paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Accelerator mass spectrometry begins:

"The use of AMS, as opposed to simpler forms of mass spectrometer,..."
You have already made clear (in the middle of the section Radiocarbon dating#Measurement) that AMS stands for "accelerator mass spectrometry". So, actually, here you are saying:
"The use of accelerator mass spectometry, as opposed to simpler forms of mass spectrometer,..."
I think the two terms should be parallel. Since you can't change AMS, you should probably change "mass spectrometer" to "mass spectrometry".
I see you've already made this change, and I agree with it. I don't know if you noticed, but the first occurrence of "AMS" in the article (here) appears to refer to "accelerator mass spectrometer", rather than "accelerator mass spectrometry"; the form of that sentence makes it difficult to change. I'm inclined to leave it as it is, but if you can see a way to improve it that would be great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the third paragraph of the lead I found "accelerator mass spectrometry", with a link. Maybe you could put the initials "AMS" in parentheses after it. Then you wouldn't need "(AMS)" after "accelerator mass spectrometer" later. When scientists use the initials "AMS", aren't they usually referring to the method rather than the instrument? CorinneSD (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to put the abreviation in the lead, because it's not used till much later in the article. I tweaked the "Preparation and sample size" section to make AMS stand for the method, not the device; I think that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7) In the second paragraph in this section, you describe the necessary testing of two different kinds of blank sample. I also saw a brief mention of both tests just two paragraphs earlier -- the last paragraph in Radiocarbon dating#Beta counting. Do you really feel both are needed? If do you, perhaps the first mention of the tests could be briefer.

I just noticed that the second instance has "a blank sample and a standard sample"; in fact in AMS two kinds of blank are used, as the paragraph goes on to make clear, so I made these plural, which since it's a general discussion avoids the question of how many are used. To your point: I've cut part of the sentence and made an associated tweak. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8) In the middle of the second paragraph in this section, you have a sentence that reads:

"Two different kinds of blank may be measured: a sample of dead carbon that has undergone no chemical processing, in order to detect any machine background, and a sample known as a process blank made from dead carbon that is processed into target material in exactly the same way as the sample itself."
You have the word "sample" three times. The first two instances are clear. The third one is not. I believe the third one refers to the real sample of which one is trying to determine the age through radiocarbon testing, but it's not clear. It could refer to one or the other of the two samples just mentioned. Is there a way you could make this clear (without using "original sample")?
Changed to "sample being dated". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

9) In that same section, you have the following sentence:

"Any 14C signal from the machine background blank is likely to be caused either by beams of ions that have not followed the expected path inside the detector, or by carbon hydrides such as 12CH2 or 13CH."
Now, this will really show my ignorance, but here goes, anyway:
(a) Why are there any beams of ions passing through the detector if there is no 14C in this piece of dead carbon being tested? Why is there an "expected path" if there are no 14C ions in this sample?
The beams of ions are formed of whatever is in the sample. The C- ions are not just 14C -- they're 14C, 13C and 12C, in whatever proportion exist in the sample being dated. So even if there are no 14C atoms in the sample at all, there will still be a beam of ions formed of the 13C and 12C atoms. Is there a way to make this clearer in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Why would there by carbon hydrides in the detector? CorinneSD (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't specify. I believe it's because it's never possible to have the sample completely pure, and with AMS, counting individual atoms that may only constitute one part int 20 million of the sample, even the tiniest impurities would have a huge impact on the measurement if they happen to have the same atomic weight as 14C. I don't think I should add anything to that effect without an explicit source, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can do now. I just read the "Calculations" section. I need a little more time to get through the rest of the article. I'll get to it either later today or tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2
[edit]

1) The second-to-last paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Calibration begins:

"When several radiocarbon dates are obtained for samples which are known or suspected to be from the same object, they may be able to be combined."
There is some ambiguity in the pronoun "they". It could refer to "dates" or "samples". The sentence would be clearer if you used a noun instead of the pronoun: "the dates" or "the samples".
Also, even though "may be able to be combined" is not wrong, it is a little tortured. You might consider re-wording this so that the verb is simpler, something like "it is possible to combine the..." or "the...can be combined".
I made this "it may be possible to combine the measurements to get a more accurate date"; I think that addresses both of your points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that. Very good. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) In the first bulleted list in the section Radiocarbon dating#Reporting dates, in the third item is the phrase "at 1 σ confidence". (I don't know what that symbol/letter after the 1 is or what it's called.) In all other instances of this "1 σ" in the article, there is no space between the "1" and the "σ". Here, you have a space. I didn't know if this was deliberate or not. Just thought I'd point it out.

It's a mistake; I've cleaned it up. That symbol is a Greek letter, sigma; I've added a brief note to that effect when it first appears, in the "Errors and reliability" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, too. Good. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) In this same section, Radiocarbon dating#Reporting dates, last sentence, you have the word "pretreatment". It comes out with a red squiggly line under it in edit mode, indicating that the software does not recognize the word, or has some problem with the spelling. I don't know if it is accepted as one unhyphenated word or not (even the words "unhyphenated" and "bulleted" come out with a red squiggly line under them). Just thought I'd point it out.

I see it unhyphenated in the sources, so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4) That same last sentence begins:

"In addition, a recommendation for reporting calibrated dates published in 2014 suggests...."
"A recommendation...suggests..." is a little odd. To recommend and to suggest are almost synonyms, and a recommendation and a suggestion are almost synonyms. You might tighten up the language by saying who suggests/recommends something, or where the suggestion/recommendation comes from or is found:
  • X recommends that...
  • X suggests that...
  • It was recommended that... / It has been recommended that...
  • It was suggested that... / It has been suggested that...
(etc.) (I think "recommends" or "recommended" is best.)
I changed this to "In addition, an article in Radiocarbon in 2014 about radiocarbon date reporting conventions recommends that..." Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Much better. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the first paragraph of the section Radiocarbon dating#Interpretation, a sentence begins:

"In these cases a date for the coffin or charcoal is indicative of the date deposition of the grave goods...."
I had never seen the phrase "the date deposition". Shouldn't this be "the date of deposition"?
Oops. Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4) Also in the first paragraph is the following sentence:

"These improved field methods were sometimes motivated by an endeavour to prove that a 14C date was incorrect."
I would just like to suggest the substitution of the word "attempts" for "an endeavour". I think it conveys the actual events better, and I think it probably happened more than once, so the plural is probably preferable, but if you don't like the plural, then use "an attempt". Then the sentence would read:
"These improved field methods were sometimes motivated by attempts to prove that a 14C date was incorrect", or
"These improved field methods were sometimes motivated by an attempt to prove that a 14C date was incorrect."
"Attempts" works for me; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) In the second paragraph in this same section is the following sentence:

"It is not always possible to recognize re-use, if no such signs are present."
There is no mention of specific signs before this. I suppose it refers to whatever signs indicated that the wood of the trackway had been re-used, but that's a mental connection that the reader has to make. I'm wondering whether that clause, "if no such signs are present", is really necessary. Either delete it or add a few words to the clause to clarify "signs", something like,
  • if no obvious signs are present, or
  • if no clearly discernible signs are present, or
  • if there are no clearly discernible signs, or
  • if there are no obvious signs.
I deleted it; you're right that as it stands it requires a mental connection, and after thinking about it I feel it doesn't need any qualifying clause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6) In the second paragraph in the section Radiocarbon dating#Impact on archaeology is the following clause:

"it became apparent that these innovations must sometimes have arisen from local causes."
I'm just wondering whether "must sometimes have arisen from local causes" is the right phrase. You haven't been discussing causes of innovation, you've been discussing sources of innovation -- "diffusion through the continent, or by invasions of tribes" who brought new ideas with them. Causes and sources are a bit different. It's more about routes and places where innovations arose. Perhaps, instead of "must...have arisen from local causes", you could use "must...have arisen locally", or "must...have arisen from within the local culture".
Excellent point. I went with "must sometimes have arisen locally". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. I think your choice of the shorter option in both this and the previous item is excellent. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reached the end of the article, and I learned a lot. Thank you for your patience with my ignorance of the science.

I have two more thoughts:

1) In the section Radiocarbon dating#Calibration, in the paragraph right next to the CALIB output graph, there is the following clause:

"the vertical width of the curve corresponds to the width of the standard error in the calibration curve at that point."
You lost me here. I don't understand "the vertical width", and I don't understand which curve of all the curves in the graph is being referred to.
This is a complicated graph, and I'd like to make this explanation better. The fat grey line that descends from upper left to lower right is the INTCAL13 curve itself. That fat grey line is the same as the area between the two dotted lines in the graph above it -- it indicates that the "true" calibration curve has a 68% chance of being inside that line. If you draw a vertical line at any point on the graph, it will go through the fat grey line. The amount of the vertical line that's actually inside the fat grey line will depend on where you draw the vertical line. Near the middle of the graph, for example, it would go through the very thin downslope of the fat grey line, and not much of the vertical line would be inside the fat grey line. That's what I meant by "vertical width": the amount of a vertical line that would be within the fat grey line at any given point. Can you suggest a better way to phrase this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this explanation. (It's quite clear in itself.) I'll take a look at it again now in this new light, and get back to you.
1) Why would you draw a vertical line? Why would you need to draw a vertical line?
2) I think, instead of using the phrase "vertical width", you should just use the word "width" and explain what you just explained above: "The amount of the vertical line that is actually inside the fat grey line will depend on where you draw the vertical line. Near the middle of the graph, for example, it would go through the very thin downslope of the fat grey line, and not much of the vertical line would be inside the fat grey line. In contrast, if one draws a vertical line through the fat grey line near the right of the graph, more of the vertical line would be inside the fat grey line."
But I still don't see what that means or represents -- what the amount of the line that is inside the fat grey line tells us.
3) Is the "histogram" the entire graph (the one with the fat grey line), or is it just the "fat grey line"? I guess that "fat grey line" is not a calibration curve.
4) I don't understand why you have input data that is a calendar year. If you don't know the date of an object, how would you have a date to put into the calculations?
5) I also don't see the connection/relationship between the kind of bell-curve with an arrow in it at the left of the graph and the rest of the graph.
This is probably amusing your fellow science editors. It's clear that this type of graph is over my head. I understand, pretty much, all the variables that are discussed in the article. I just don't understand the graphs. But, I guess that's all right. Most of your readers will probably understand them. CorinneSD (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the confusion is probably just practice -- when you've read a lot of graphs you start to get a sense of how to read them, without needing much explanation. We can't explain everything as if a reader has never seen any graphs before, but I think if you understand all the variables, and don't follow the graph, it needs to be made clearer. Taking your questions in order:
1. There's no need for a user of the graph to draw a vertical line; I was using that as way to clarify what I meant by "vertical width". See the next answer for more. I can see that "vertical width" isn't a clear phrase, but let's defer that till you're clear on what the graph actually says.
2. The real point here is your last question -- what the amount of the line that is inside the fat grey line tells us. Here's an explanation that I hope will clarify this. A calibration curve is a graph showing the relationship between a radiocarbon age measured for some object, and the calendar age of that object. The way you use the curve is by plugging in a radiocarbon age (on the vertical axis), reading across, and then finding the corresponding calendar age. But the way that researchers actually construct the curve is the reverse of that -- they take an object of known age, and read across the horizontal axis to find that age, then they measure its radiocarbon age, and go up and put in that data directly above that point on the horizontal axis. So let's say they take an object they know dates from 770 AD. They measure the radiocarbon age, and they get 1260 BP. But their measurement is not perfect -- the result they get is really a bell curve, with 1260 BP in the middle. There's a 68% chance (this is the 1σ range, mentioned in the article) that the result is within 13 years of that date: in other words, there's a 68% chance that an object from 770 AD will give you a radiocarbon age between 1273 BP and 1247 BP. So they go to 770 AD on the horizontal axis, and draw a line from 1273 to 1247 BP. That's the "vertical width" of the fat grey line at that point. The fat grey line is the collection of all the vertical lines they draw by measuring radiocarbon for all the different ages on the horizontal axis. The fat grey line is the calibration curve; it's fat because it's drawn to have 68% confidence that it includes the true number.
3, 4 & 5 are best answered together. The input data (1270 BP in the text) is a radiocarbon age, not a calendar year. I don't think the text makes that clear enough. First, assume that you have a sample of old wood and you've taken it to a radiocarbon lab, and they've told you that the age is 1270 +/1 10 years BP, in radiocarbon years. Now you want to know what that means in calendar years. That's what the CALIB graph shows: how you put in a radiocarbon age and get out a calendar age. There are three parts to the graph. First, the bell curve that is sideways on at the left side is the input data. It represents the lab results. The centre of that bell curve is at 1270 BP; the dark grey section is 1260 BP to 1280 BP -- it corresponds to the +/- 10 years that the lab quoted. (The lab quotes the 68% confidence level.) So we have 68% confidence that the piece of wood is between 1280 and 1260 BP in radiocarbon years. The second part of the graph is the calibration curve -- the fat grey line. Read across from the dark grey section of the input data, and you'll see it intersects the calibration curve at three separate points. Those are three different points where the researchers who constructed the calibration curve found samples that would give a radiocarbon age in that range. Now run your eye straight down from each of those three points in turn to the bottom of the graph. On the horizontal axis you'll see another, irregular, graph. Each of the three parts of the calibration curve that the input data intersects with is directly above a dark grey part of the result curve at the bottom. That curve shows information about how old (in calendar years, since this is the horizontal axis) the sample of wood is. So the curve converts input data (left axis) to output data (bottom axis). In the output curve, dark grey means 68% confidence, just as before, so it is saying that with 68% confidence the wood dates from either 690-720 AD, 740-750 AD, or 760-765 AD. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) I saw the INTCAL13 curve in Radiocarbon dating#Calibration. I believe the one shown is for the northern hemisphere. ("The INTCAL13 data includes separate curves for the northern and southern hemispheres, as they differ systematically because of the hemisphere effect; there is also a separate marine calibration curve.") I thought it would be interesting to see the curves for the southern hemisphere and for marine samples for comparison. I think readers who live in the southern hemisphere would find that curve particularly interesting. Would it be possible to provide all three curves, and place them near each other? CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would, but I don't think it would be helpful to show the complete graphs -- at the scale of 50,000 years across the horizontal axis, I don't think it would be possible to distinguish them for most of their range. It might be possible to take a small range -- say, 1,000 to 2,000 before present -- and give the three graphs over that range, to illustrate that they differ. However, I'm also a bit concerned that the calibration section is a bit long and complex; Jim Bleak, above in this PR, suggested moving it to a subarticle. Hence I'm a bit loath to actually add to this section. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me look at the Calibration section again before I reply. CorinneSD (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 3
[edit]

Mike, I decided to go back to the beginning of the article on Radiocarbon dating and read it through once more. I was stopped by the very first line:

"Radiocarbon dating is a dating method that uses radiocarbon, or 14C, a radioactive isotope of carbon."

I feel that "Radiocarbon dating is a dating method" is not especially elegant writing. You've got "dating" twice, and "a dating method" without any hint of what is to be dated with this method is at one and the same time vague and ambiguous.

I'm wondering whether the sentence could be re-worded to give just a slight indication of what the method is applied to, something like this:

"Radiocarbon dating is a method that uses a radioactive isotope of carbon to assign a date to a man-made or natural object or material from the past".

Then you could introduce 14C, and "radiocarbon", in the next sentence. Or, if not that, then perhaps:

"Radiocarbon dating is a method for determining the date of a man-made or natural object or material from the past. The method uses radiocarbon, abbreviated 14C, a radioactive isotope of carbon.

I think with something like this, a reader would be more intrigued and want to continue reading. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My daughter (aged 19, studying physics) read the first part of the article this evening; she burst out laughing at the first sentence because of the repetition of "dating". So I think you're right to object to it! I looked at your version and worked with it some more; I've now changed it to "Radiocarbon dating is a method of determining the age of an object by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon", and tweaked the third sentence to introduce the 14C abbreviation. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) Mike, you're going to say, "Oh, no" with these additional comments. Tell me if you want me to leave off adding more comments.

Not at all! Your comments are very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in the lead begins,

"Although the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, it depends on many assumptions."

I have two points I want to make about this:

1) To a non-scientist, the word "assumptions" has very little meaning -- almost no meaning. 2) If you read the rest of the paragraph, you will see that you don't refer to assumptions again. This leaves the use of "assumptions" in the first sentence exactly what I told you: no meaning -- an empty word taking up space.

This is a good sentence. If you want to keep the sentence, I suggest the word "variables", and perhaps "variables that must be taken into consideration". Then you can mention some of the variables (in simple language). That might be a kind of overview that Johnbod was talking about (haven't decided whether you need a separate overview section or not). The rest of the paragraph -- with the exception of the very next (second) sentence -- kind of mention the variables.

There is a bit of a problem with this paragraph. In the first sentence you are getting into the very beginning of explaining the method. In the second sentence, you start to talk about the history of the development of the method. The juxtaposition of these two sentences creates a lack of cohesion. Then you begin to discuss the variables that must be considered. I think the history needs to be kept separate, or the order of sentences needs to be changed. Do you see what I mean? CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list of some of the variables in simple language would actually intrigue a reader.

The rest of the lead is pretty good. I wouldn't get into the history of the technique in the lead. I would remove this from the lead:

"The development of the technique required much additional work".
I've changed the first two sentences of this paragraph to "The idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, but the development of the technique required much additional work. Research has been going on since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years." I take your point about "assumptions", so I've cut that part. I left in "required much additional work", though I'm open to changing the phrase: I think it's worth letting the reader know that there was a long journey from the original idea to a workable dating method, including the discovery of problems such as fractionation and reservoir effects. Now that I've removed the mention of assumptions, does this work better? I also changed the start of the second sentence to make it a more direct reference to the work that had to be done. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the brief section on archaeology in the lead, can you avoid using "synchronization"? CorinneSD (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC) CorinneSD (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the article from beginning to end (quickly). It seems to me that the Radiocarbon dating#Invention section is quite short compared to all the other sections. Is there anything interesting you could add to this section?

Yes, there's a bit more in Taylor. I'll work on that tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems, just in terms of length, that the Radiocarbon dating#Calibration section is much longer than the other sections. I know this would be a difficult section to cut down, but, besides being long, it's also very technical. I'm wondering whether you would considering making just a short section for calibration and then creating a separate article. It's not absolutely necessary. There are other technical sections, like "Fractionation". It's really your choice.

I've been thinking for a while that calibration deserves its own article. I'll think about this some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

I think more examples of the use of radiocarbon dating in the section Radiocarbon dating#Impact on archaeology might be interesting for the reader. Would you consider changing the name of that section to "Use of the method in archaeology", or "Application to archaeology", or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, impact and use are different things -- I meant the section to be about the way radiocarbon dating has transformed archaeology, in many different ways. The "reporting dates" and "interpretation" sections were meant to be the ones about how the technique is used in practice. I do have more examples; Walker has several good ones, I believe. How about putting all three of these sections into a new section, "Application to archaeology", as lower level headings? Then I could add an "examples" section before the "impact" section. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before I answer your question about whether to move the "reporting dates" and "interpretation" sections to a new archaeology section, I need to ask you whether the radiocarbon dating method/ technique is used for anything other than archaeology. If it is, then maybe they don't belong in an archaeology section. Maybe the overarching section needs a different name such as "Practical uses of the radiocarbon dating method", with archaeology as a sub-heading under that. Then "reporting dates" and "interpretation" can go under "Practical uses", too.
If the radiocarbon dating method is used primarily in archaeology, then an archaeology section makes sense, with "reporting dates", "interpretation", and "impact on the field of archaeology" (or something) as sub-headings. Other uses of the method could be mentioned in a separate section. CorinneSD (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is used outside archaeology; I just did a quick search and found a reference talking about uses in hydrology, climatology, meteorology, ecology, geology and oceanography. I think archaeological radiocarbon testing is the vast majority of work at the labs -- I would guess 90 or 95%, but I don't know. I'll think about this some more; you're right that I can't have this information presented as if it is confined to archaeology.
I'm out of time again; I don't know how much time I'll have tomorrow, but I should have some over the weekend, so more replies then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you work just a little more on the lead section, you won't need an overview section. I think this subject is the kind of subject that you can't talk about half-way, in half measures. You either speak about it in general terms (the lead) or, once you get into it, you have to use the technical language and explain the details and how they all relate to each other (as you have done, quite well). It would be very difficult to write an overview that summarizes all the information you have in this article. I think you could refine the lead a little bit and that would suffice. (Are overviews after the lead common in science articles on WP?) CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen overviews after the lead section that I can recall, but I don't think that means much. If you can think of further ways to improve the lead, let's do that, then revisit the question of whether an overview is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 4
[edit]

(I started a new section just to make it easier. I will still add replies in the previous section.)

1) I read the revised first few sentences of the lead. I just wonder about the word "soon" in "soon became a standard tool for archaeologists". Radiocarbon dating was invented in the 1940s. In the section Radiocarbon dating#Impact on archaeology, there is no indication that the method was used in archaeology in the 1950s or 1960s. Will you be adding more information about those decades in "Impact on archaeology"?

I took a look at Taylor (1987) which has some detailed early history, and I think "soon" is justified. I agree this needs to be reflected in the main text; I'll add something to the "Impact on archaeology" section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regarding the first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead,

"The idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, but the development of the technique required much additional work",

I'd like to propose two changes:

(a) change "much additional work" to "years of additional work"; and
(b) re-word the sentence as follows:
"While the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, the development of the technique required years of additional work."
If you don't like "while", then "although" or "though" would be alternatives.
(c) I think the addition of a little more would fill out the sentence:
"While the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, the development of the technique to the point where accurate dates could be obtained required years of additional work", or,

alternatively,

"While the idea behind radiocarbon dating is straightforward, years of additional work were required to develop the technique to the point where accurate dates could be obtained".
I like the last version you give above and have switched to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3) In the next sentence:

"Research has been going on since the 1960s to determine what the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years",

you're using the past perfect progressive tense ("had been going on") where there is no need to. You haven't mentioned any other event or specific time in the past that the research preceded. I'm not sure why it is important to say "since the 1960s" -- I guess this particular research started in the 1960s. May I suggest something like this:

"Starting in the 1960s, researchers worked to determine what the proportion of 14C in the atmosphere had been over the past fifty thousand years".

If you could add to that sentence something that indicates why it was important to know that, or how that helped refine the radiocarbon dating method, I think it would be helpful. CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time for this morning, but I'll just mention here that I it wasn't till about 1960 that it became clear that radiocarbon ages were not the same as calendar ages, and a calibration curve would be needed. I thought there was something to this effect in the article -- I'll look tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look at this and I'm not quite sure what the problem is. I used "has been going on" in the first part of the sentence because the research is still going on, and isn't going to end -- it's an ongoing research project to improve the INTCAL curves. I didn't want to say "research began" or "started" in the 60s because I wanted to emphasize that it's still going on now. Can you explain again what the problem is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry. I guess my eyes are not as good as they used to be, or I was tired after doing a lot of reading, and I mis-read that sentence. I thought it said "had been going on", and I see now that it said "has been going on", which is fine. CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4) I have a few questions about the section Radiocarbon dating#Variations in 14C production, specifically these sentences:

"The known fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field strength match up quite well with this oscillation: cosmic rays are deflected by magnetic fields, so when there is a lower magnetic field, more 14C is produced, leading to a younger apparent age for samples from those periods. Conversely, a higher magnetic field leads to lower 14C production and an older apparent age".
(a) I think the phrase "in the earth's magnetic field strength" is a little long with three adjectives before the noun. I would change it to "in the strength of the earth's magnetic field".
Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(b) I thought that strength was normally described with adjectives like "weak" and "strong", with the comparative forms "weaker" and "stronger". Are these not normally used to describe the earth's magnetic field? You have used "lower" and "higher". I defer to your knowledge of standard language in your field, but I just wanted to point out that you also use "lower" later in the sentence to describe 14C production.
You're right; "stronger" and "weaker" are more usual. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5) In the second paragraph in Radiocarbon dating#Variations in 14C production are the following sentences:

"These global geomagnetic reversals, and shorter, often localized polarity excursions, would have had a significant impact on global 14C production, since the geomagnetic field falls to a low value for thousands of years".

Are you saying here that both the global geomagnetic reversals and the localized polarity excursions would have had significant impact on global 14C production because the [global] geomagnetic field falls to a low value for thousands of years?

I don't know, but I think something is wrong with this sentence.

Also, why is only the period of low value significant? Isn't it the fluctuation itself that is more significant?

This next thought is just something to think about. Perhaps a bit nitpicky. I'll let you decide. The phrase "falls to a low value" to describe the earth's magnetic field seems like an unnecessarily vague phrase when before you had used "lower magnetic field" and "higher magnetic field" (perhaps to be changed to "weaker" and "stronger"?). What does "falls to a low value" mean? Does it mean just "becomes weaker and stays weak for a period of time"? What's the "value"? I know you know what it means, but some readers might wonder. CorinneSD (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references I have don't go into a lot of detail on this, but here's my understanding. The term "geomagnetic reversals" is used for a complete and long-lasting flip of the earth's magnetic field. During the time when the flip is occurring, the magnetic field is a lot weaker, and this causes increased cosmic ray penetration and hence inreased 14C production. This is a global event with long duration. A polarity excursion can be local or global; the discussions of local events appear to refer to changes in magnetic field that only affect part of the globe. A global polarity excursion seems to refer to a "quick flip to and fro". (Aitken (1990), p. 69). Local excursions are thought to have little overall impact on the 14C levels in the atmosphere. Reversals and global excursions are both global events and do have an impact on the global production of 14C.
I agree with your suggested rewording and have made that change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this explanation and the longer explanation of the graph, above. Regarding this explanation, do you mind if I ask you one or two more questions? You write, "During the time when the flip is occurring, the magnetic field is a lot weaker..." Then you write, "This is a global event with longer duration". When the flip occurs, does the flip -- the actual change to the other direction -- take a long time? I should think that would not take a long time. I thought the period of time while the magnetic field is in the other direction lasts for quite a while ("long duration") before changing back. So I don't understand, "This is a global event with long duration". (What, exactly, is the global event "with long duration"? The flip, or the magnetic field actually in the other direction?
Thank you for explaining "a global polarity excursion". I didn't remember reading that in the article, though. Did you say in the article that "a polarity excursion can be local or global"? Do you think it would help clarify the topic to include some of what you just wrote, above?
I've rewritten that paragraph, and I hope it's now clearer; let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your long and careful explanation of the graph, I understand the graph much better now. I don't know if you think some of what you wrote could be included in the article, particularly the two points:
1) the way the graph is read and used is the opposite direction from the way it was created by scientists, and that the "fat grey line" is the calibration curve, and
2) that the input is radiocarbon years (which have come from a lab), and one reads the graph from left to right and then down, and the output is the calendar year(s). CorinneSD (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added these points, though the graph with the fat grey line is now in the subarticle, so I haven't addressed that directly. I hope this is now clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since I have enabled "WikEd" in the Editing section of the selections in Gadgets, I have a collection of tools (many of which I know nothing about) at the top of my edit window. To strike through text, all I have to do is to highlight the text (in edit mode) then click on the capital S with a short horizontal line through it at the top of the edit window, and click "Save". CorinneSD (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting you have WikEd; it's a good tool. Have you tried using the Visual Editor? I use it almost all the time; it definitely has some shortcomings, but it works for most things, and it means you don't have to remember wiki markup syntax at all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 5
[edit]

1) How do you access Visual Editor? Is that something I have to enable in Gadgets?

It's in your preferences, under the Beta tab, rather than the Gadgets tab. It will add another edit button (edit beta) to your edit choices; the existing "edit" becomes "edit source". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information. CorinneSD (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regarding the following sentences:

"Geomagnetic reversals, which changes the polarity of the earth's magnetic field, would have had a significant impact on global 14
C production, since during these the geomagnetic field becomes weaker, and stays weak for thousands of years while the reversal is occurring. Shorter lived (and sometimes localized) changes of polarity, known as polarity excursions, could also have affected 14
C production",
(a) The verb "changes" does not match the subject "Geomagnetic reversals". I don't know whether you want to use the plural or the general or the general singular.
(b) You have this phrase: "since during these..."
1) If you change the subject to singular, you'll have to change "these" to "this"; and
2) "these" (or "this") by itself is a little unclear. It would be better to add the noun: "these reversals".
(c) You have the following:
"and stays weak for thousands of years while the reversal is occurring".
I'm still not clear on this (and I asked you about it a few lines above this). The clause "while the reversal is occurring" is what confuses me. I know the earth's magnetic field reverses -- what? every few hundred or thousand years -- but is the actual flip, or change to the other direction, something that takes place quickly, and then it remains in that direction for thousands of years, or does the actual flip take a long time to complete before remaining in the new direction for a long time? I think it's a question of language, specifically the meaning of the word "reversal". Is the reversal the actual movement to the other direction, like the flip of a coin from one side to the other, or is the reversal a long period of time in which the earth's magnetic field is in the opposite direction from what it was before? I don't know if I am just being slow to grasp this, or whether the language needs to be more precise. CorinneSD (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't really answer this properly above. The source I have (Aitken 1990, pp. 68-69) says this, talking about geomagnetic reversals: "During the act of reversal the strength of the dipole field falls to a rather low value so that there is a strong enhancement of carbon-14 production; the duration is of the order of several thousand years and hence a substantial effect on atmospheric carbon-14 activity is to be expected." This is definite on the question you ask as far as geomagnetic reversals are concerned. For polarity excursions, he goes on to say: "During the millennia of radiocarbon applicability there is some evidence for one or two brief polarity excursions (a quick flip to and fro) but it is not established that these were worldwide rather than localized; only if world-wide would there have been an appreciable effect on radiocarbon activity". I don't think Aitken makes it clear here how long a global polarity excursion would spend in a state with a weak field. Given that both Aitken and Bowman say that there are no global polarity excursions in the last 50,000 years, and hence there's no impact on 14C production from polarity excursions, perhaps the sentences could be changed as follows (including your number fix, above):
Geomagnetic reversals, which change the polarity of the earth's magnetic field, would have had a significant impact on global 14
C production, since during these reversals the geomagnetic field becomes weaker, and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition. The field strengthens again as the reversal completes. Shorter lived changes of polarity, known as polarity excursions, could in theory have affected 14
C production, but no global excursions are known to have occurred within the last 50,000 years." Then a note, saying "Polarity excursions can be local but local excursions would have had no significant effect on 14C production".
How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's clearer than what was there. The first part of the text you quoted from Aitken does not make clear how long the "act of reversal" normally is. The second part of the sentence says, "the duration is of the order of several thousand years...". I suppose by "the duration" he meant "the duration of the act of reversal", but he didn't make that entirely clear. Your statement, though, is a little clearer when you write, "and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition". That phrase, "during the transition", makes it clear that the transition between the two directions of the magnetic field lasts for thousands of years. Also, the next sentence, "The field strengthens again as the reversal completes", adds additional information. (I wonder how long it takes for the reversal to complete.) I'm just curious, are you using "would have had" because you are describing the fluctuations in 14C that occurred over the millennia that are now represented in the calibration curve? ("Would have had" is conjecture about past events.) In actuality, these phenomena will continue to occur, right? I notice that in the sentences right after this you use present tense ("becomes", "stays", and "strengthens"), and then you go to "could have affected". Are you all right with these changes of tense? I'm not saying they necessarily need changing; I just wanted to point them out so you could check to be sure that's what you want. CorinneSD (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add, the rest of what you suggested sounds fine. Perhaps put the last sentence about polarity excursions in parentheses? CorinneSD (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, can I tell you again how much I enjoy working on text with someone who cares about precision in syntax? It's a pleasure working with you, and I really appreciate the effort you're putting in.
I used "would have had" because we have no direct evidence of the effects, and also because I'm not talking about a specific geomagnetic reversal (since there have been none in the time period of interest to radiocarbon dating (50,000 years)). So it's a combination of counterfactual and subjunctive. Counterfactual: if there had been a geomagnetic reversal, there would have been an effect on 14C production; and subjunctive: whenever such an event occurred, as we know they did, then there would have been an effect. I think that with that in mind the tenses are OK in the rest of the paragraph, since "whenever" isn't counterfactual so I don't think I'm forced into the subjunctive, but let me know if you still see a problem. Re the last sentence; yes, I plan to put it into a footnote -- the kind in this section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad I have been of help. I enjoy this kind of work, too. I understand what you are saying. I re-read the paragraph, and it makes sense (although I kind of wonder why geomagnetic reversal is even mentioned if it has had no effect on radiocarbon dating). In the following sentence:
"However, there are no well-established occurrences of either of these events in the recent enough past for there to have been an appreciable effect on present-day 14C measurements",
I don't understand the need for "present-day". Who else but humans in the 20th and 21st centuries would make radiocarbon dating measurements? CorinneSD (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes outlined above. I agree with your comment about "present-day", but it's moot now as the phrase isn't in the new version of that paragraph.
I think I'm caught up. Do you have any more comments on the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor copy-edits. I hope you don't mind.

I need to go back to this revised section:

"Geomagnetic reversals, which change the polarity of the earth's magnetic field, would have had a significant impact on global 14
C production, since during these reversals the geomagnetic field becomes weaker, and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition. The field strengthens again as the reversal completes. Shorter-lived changes of polarity, known as polarity excursions, could in theory have affected 14
C production, but no global excursions are known to have occurred within the last 50,000 years".

I like the fact that you've made the paragraph shorter, but there is still something not quite right with the last sentence. I believe, -- unless there is something I'm not understanding -- either global geomagnetic reversals or polarity excursions "could in theory have affected 14C production", so tacking on "but no global excursions are known to have occurred within the last 50,000 years" to a sentence that is only about polarity excursions does not make sense. There is more than one way to fix this. I would like to suggest that you

  • first explain what geomagnetic reversals are, and then mention the two or three types (I think Aitken mentions two types of global ones, but you could simplify to two -- global and polarity);
  • then say that either type of activity could in theory affect 14C production; and finally
  • say that no global or polarity excursions have occurred in the last 50,000 years.

If you cannot say with certainty that no polarity excursions have occurred in the last 50,000 years, then how can you be sure that there has been no effect on 14C production in the last 50,000 years?

If I'm not understanding something basic, I apologize. But I still think that last sentence is confusing. I also still think the jumping between tenses and moods in your verbs is confusing. CorinneSD (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at this, and I tried to fix the tense issue too. Here's the revised version:
There are two kinds of geophysical events which could have affected production in the past: geomagnetic reversals and polarity excursions. During a geomagnetic reversal the geomagnetic field becomes weaker, and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition to the opposite polarity. The field strengthens again as the reversal completes. A polarity excursion is a shorter-lived version of a geomagnetic reversal; polarity excursions can be either global or local. During a geomagnetic reversal or a global polarity excursion 14C production increases during the period when the geomagnetic field is weaker. In the last 50,000 years there have been no geomagnetic reversals, and no known global polarity excursions. (Local excursions would have had no significant effect on 14C production.)
Is that better?
To answer your other question, we can't be sure there's been no effect on 14C production, because there might have been a global polarity excursion that hasn't been detected yet. I think that's why Aitken mentions it; if it was certain this was all purely theoretical, it wouldn't be worth commenting on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better. May I suggest an alternate wording? Everything except the last sentence is definition and explanation, all in present tense. The last sentence is specifically about the past.
There are two kinds of geophysical event which can affect 14C production: geomagnetic reversals and polarity excursions. In a geomagnetic reversal, the Earth's geomagnetic field weakens and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition to the opposite magnetic polarity and then regains strength as the reversal completes. A polarity excursion, which can be either global or local, is a shorter-lived version of a geomagnetic reversal and does not significantly affect 14C production. During either a geomagnetic reversal or a global polarity excursion, 14C production increases during the period when the geomagnetic field is weak. It is fairly certain, though, that in the last 50,000 years there have been no geomagnetic reversals or global polarity excursions.
CorinneSD (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like this version, but there's one inaccuracy: global polarity excursions could affect 14C production. A local excursion would not. Here's an attempt to fix that, based on your version:
There are two kinds of geophysical event which can affect 14C production: geomagnetic reversals and polarity excursions. In a geomagnetic reversal, the Earth's geomagnetic field weakens and stays weak for thousands of years during the transition to the opposite magnetic polarity and then regains strength as the reversal completes. A polarity excursion, which can be either global or local, is a shorter-lived version of a geomagnetic reversal. A local excursion does not significantly affect 14C production. During either a geomagnetic reversal or a global polarity excursion, 14C production increases during the period when the geomagnetic field is weak. It is fairly certain, though, that in the last 50,000 years there have been no geomagnetic reversals or global polarity excursions.
Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry for that inaccuracy. Mike, this is really your article, so if you prefer your earlier version, above, I wouldn't mind at all. If you really do prefer the latest version, with your correction, that's fine, too. Your last version with the correction sounds fine. What would you think of changing
"A local excursion does not significantly affect 14C production" to
"A local excursion would not significantly affect 14C production"?
I have one more question. I might think an average reader upon reading this paragraph would ask, "If there have been no geomagnetic reversals or global polarity excursions in the last 50,000 years, why is this even being mentioned?" I think it is because it has to do with the measurements that have been taken, and calculations done, on data for the last 50,000 years, to come up with the calibration curves. Is this right? If I am right, I think an average reader might fail to make the connection. I'm wondering whether you think it would be a good idea to add one more sentence at the end of the paragraph to make the connection and explain the reason why all of this is important to know. Or do you think it is enough that it is in a series of sections, each having to do with things that scientists had to take into account when compiling the calibration curves? (I don't have the article open in a separate window; I'm going by memory here.) CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change, including your suggested revision above. I'll think about the additional sentence you suggest, but at the moment I don't think it's necessary -- the context is a list of things that could have affected 14C production, so I think the reader will follow when reading the article linearly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I went through the first 3 sections and tried to tighten the accuracy of the prose. I've added a couple of citation tags also. Two things that I've noticed:

  • radiocarbon years: what is it concretely?
    The article currently gives a short definition the first time the term is used: '"radiocarbon years", meaning that the dates are calculated using Libby's half-life value and have not been calibrated'. A full definition would be quite long, so I didn't include it. Taylor (1987) p.4 defines a conventional radiocarbon age (which is the same thing) as including the following conventions: (i) the use of the Libby half-life in calculations; (ii) the use of the oxalic acid standard to define the zero 14
    C     age of the terrestrial biosphere; (iii) the use of 1950 AD as the zero point when quoting the age in years; (iv) a fractionation correction; and (v) an assumption that 14
    C     has been constant in all reservoirs over the 14
    C     timescale. The two things in this definition which mean that the radiocarbon age is not the same as the calendar age are the use of the Libby half-life and the assumption that the 14
    C     level has been constant over time. That's why I give the shorter definition in the article: calibrating corrects for both of those things, since a correction for the incorrect half-life is incorporated in the calibration curve. Hence I think the shorter definition is accurate as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If something is tedious to explain in the article, the you should still add it as a footnote. See List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. Done; does that work? It refers to concepts not yet explained in the article; I tried to get around that with a couple of links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article doesn't seem to explain concretely that after n*half-life, the concentration is 2^-n. This would not be obvious to a laymen. Please discuss this, and say that for example, after 57,500 years, the amount of C14 in the sample is a thousanth of the original sample. 12:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    Done. The source includes a graph showing exponential decay; I didn't include a graph but let me know if you think one is necessary here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • added more clarifyme tags
    I'm not clear on the issue with the two clarifyme tags. One is on this sentence: "The time it takes for carbon from the atmosphere to mix with the surface ocean is only a few years, but the surface waters also receive water from the deep ocean, which has over 90% of the carbon[clarification needed] in the reservoir." The exact number (90.8%) is given in the diagram just to the right of that sentence. I'm not sure what's not clear here -- the deep ocean really does contain over 90% of the carbon in the reservoir, and the "carbon exchange reservoir" was defined higher up. The other tag is on "Using the calculation method given above to calculate the age of marine life[clarification needed] typically gives an age of about 400 years." Here I think you mean that "the calculation method given above" isn't very specific, since the "Principles" section doesn't go into all the calculations. I've changed this and the preceding sentence to say "Creatures living at the ocean surface have the same 14C ratios as the water they live in, and as a result of the reduced 14C/12C ratio, the radiocarbon age of marine life is typically about 400 years." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw your note on the second one: "you mean a living fish is radiocarbon dated at 400 years old?" Yes, though that's radiocarbon years. I hope the revised wording makes that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the svg image: add a 1.0 at the armosphere, remove citation and put it as a footnote in the caption
    Is that the standard way to do it? I added the citation information directly to the svg because I wanted it to be visible whenever anyone used the image. If that's not going to be the case, I think it might be better to remove it completely, and let the caption provide the citation. After all, putting a [1] there is going to conflict with the footnote numbering in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that including citations within the actual image is not the rule here. What you should do is to include in at File:Carbon_exchange_reservoir_2.svg#Summary. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that's the best answer. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing the dashes with parantheses and/or italics? Nergaal (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure which dashes you're referring to -- can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the same error term of 80 years could be obtained by doubling the counting time to 500 minutes" => something is missing here
    Can you tell me what you think is wrong here? I'm not seeing it. The error term was given as +/- 80 years, and the counting time as 250 minutes, in the previous sentence. What's missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine now but I had a hard time understanding it. I think in parts the text is a bit dense for non-experts. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to simplify this a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article is bit too detailed IMO. I think "dating considerations" can be split into a separate article, and then trimmed to 2/3 or 1/2 of the current size. For example the C3 and C4 pathways while interesting, are they really necessary to the scope of this article?
    I've already cut quite a bit out of the article and moved it to sub-articles, and was hoping this was about the right length now. I went back and compared it to the longest FAs, and it wouldn't be the longest article, but it would be close. So I think you're right, more cutting is probably a good idea. I'll move the dating considerations section to a subarticle and post a note here when that's done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is not to have a long article, but an informative one to the average reader. I consider myself an above-average reader and I have a hard time finishing reading the entire article. Add more figures and tables to simplify the text. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've split that section to a sub-article, radiocarbon dating considerations. I cut the text in the main article by about 25% -- I removed some discussion of details, and a couple of discussions of points that are not thought to have much or any effect, like geomagnetic reversals and the island effect. Do you see anything else that is excessive detail for this article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isotope fractionation" a neat section, but only at the end I realized it is mostly about C13. Could you at least remind at the end of the section that all this is for C13, and for C14 the effect is larger? Also usually by what factor larger? Otherwise it seems to be a bit out of context. Also, trim many of those values, and perhaps put them into a table.
    Good point about the 13C/12C ratio seeming to be off-topic. I've added a note at the start, rather than the end, since that will let the reader know why the discussion is about 13C. The article does say the fractionation for 14C is twice that of 13C -- it's the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph of that section. I'd rather not cut the values and put them in a table -- the text currently explains the reasons for the different values for marine organisms inline, and I think that's better for the reader than having to go back and forth from the table to the text to understand. I think a table could be added, without cutting the values, but with the image there I was afraid it would look a bit cluttered (and I really like that image and would rather not lose it). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is PDB? "ratio can be easily derived from it" how? Add a footnote. Yes the text explains it but IMO it only makes the article look intimidating. You could have a table, and either add footnotes, or explain only some of the entries from the table in the text. How would the Carbon exchange reservoir section be without the svg? Much more difficult to quickly understand. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added, and clarification of the relationship between delta 13C and delta 14C. I also added a small table. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A really nice and impressive article overall, but there is so much info that at some point I found it hard to continue reading it. Nergaal (talk)

A couple more points: you added a fact tag to "If it is assumed that the cosmic ray flux has been constant over the last ~100,000 years". That discussion is really about radiocarbon ages, so it's listing the assumptions that are made in calculating radiocarbon years. There's no assertion there that the flux really has been constant; it's just an if-then statement. However, Bowman does explicitly list constant 14C production in her coverage of this, so I added a citation anyway.
I tweaked a couple of your copyedits a bit; take a look and see if everything still looks OK. I also removed one citation needed tag (on the fact that 14C is known as "radiocarbon") because it was already cited; the whole paragraph is covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph.
Finally, thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes prefer repeating a citation when there is a strong statement made early in the paragraph. At least that way it is clear that the statement is from an actual referenced article. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do the same, e.g. for quotes, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, what I mean is merge sections as subsections within broader sections. Nergaal (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not entirely happy about "Origin" as the title for the new first section -- perhaps "Origin of the method"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: I think I've caught up with your comments now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment from Aa77zz

[edit]

Thermoluminescence dating can be used to date ceramic objects that are a few thousand years old and thus within the time scale of C14 dating. The technique is listed in the collapsible Chronology template at the bottom of the article, and is mentioned (without a link) in the "Reporting dates" section, but it may be worth adding a sentence to the article. Aa77zz (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nergaal, above, suggested something similar, I went ahead and added a paragraph at the end of the impact section listing various categories of dating method, including thermoluminescence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Sonic X is my last GA before I'm going on Wikibreak. It passed tonight, and I'm only sticking around for another day, maybe, while a discussion relating to a GAN I'm reviewing boils over. Anyway, I'm interested in making it only the fifth FA of WP:ANIME (not a value judgment; they just focus on GAs more), so I'd like comments to help with that goal. I have two main concerns, elaborated thus:

  • Plot. Obviously, it's a very long section, but then again, Sonic X is long for an anime and it includes copious original characters that aren't covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Does it need to be significantly cut down, and if so, how?
  • Is the screenshot appropriate? I don't feel that it adds much more than a slightly chubby incarnation of Cosmo and an abbreviated look at the main setting of season three; it doesn't show the Metarex, for example - yet I don't know what to replace it with. (If you've also seen the show, please try to recommend something better.) Full discussion is on the talk.

Otherwise, talk about whatever you think needs fixing, such as wording. Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why many anime/manga articles don't pursue FA status is due to the lack of high-quality sources that are made available to most editors of WP:ANIME. Some members rely on Amazon to show some release because certain sites have become expired. Its a good thing to remember that every article can become GA if the topic is notable and sources are there, but not all of them can be featured.
But with that said, the article is very short in various sections such as Creation and Development, Music, and Reception, it should really be extended further by getting the most coverage it can possibly get.For a series with a good reception, it usually has more extensive development section. The plot is indeed way too long, and it has to be captivating and as FA puts it "brilliant". So you could probably summarize it better. Probably make summarized versions and organize it by seasons. I'[m not sure if the DVD boxes count as quality sources, but if they do, then that's fine. Lucia Black (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black, what could I use the DVD boxes for? What do they typically include?
And there's very little on the show's Japanese production and writing (though there is an alright amount for the 4Kids dubbing specifically); I think anime studios are traditionally pretty opaque, and most development info in anime articles comes from the manga, which Sonic X doesn't have. Tezero (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There could be more, you never know. Like i said, not all articles can become FA. Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black, as it happens, I've found quite a lot more. I'll start adding it in soon. Took ages to find, though. Tezero (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Lucia Black, I've pretty much worked it all in. I'm a little worried about the reliability of Impulse Gamer, GamesFirst, NintendoLife, and The Next Level; do you have opinions on them? Either way, I think that I could expand Reception enough using what I know to be reliable, and Creation and development is probably long enough for FA as it is (it's as long as Shadow the Hedgehog's). Tezero (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black, since you have not yet responded, should I take it that I should investigate the reliability of these sources myself? Tezero (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero: I was away for a while. but I after taking a look, everything has been expanded appropriately. The only minor issue is that the lead mentions the edutainment but doesn't mention the other spin-off media. something minor that can be implemented rather easily. Lucia Black (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Black, thanks! I think I'll expand further with the sources I know are reliable while seeking more opinions on the others. And of course, the lead will be fixed. I have some time, of course, because my current FAC will be up awhile. Tezero (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occitan nationalism

[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 appears on an few of the other language wikis. I have been attempting to translate as best as I could, but I need help as my french is very rusty, and it could use English sources. If someone could come in and clean it up that'd be great.

The article on the french wiki

Thanks, Mnidjm (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Flash!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Interested in building this article up to a FA standard (I'll nominate once all comments have been addressed), any comments will be very helpful!

Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this to reach FA, it's going to need at least another paragraph in Development. I'd suggest that you begin by using more information from the sources you already have. For example, the preview in Next Generation mentions, "SCE hopes that Jumping Flash will be remembered as the first appearance of a new platform star with the same longevity as Sonic or Mario." The article, however, does not discuss Sony's ambitions for the game. Thibbs has a preview from GameFan as well. Also, the Reception section is so thin that I wouldn't have let it slide at GAN. You have a ton of reviews linked in it already; just include more information from them. It should have at least three paragraphs of review summaries, if not four. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments, I couldn't agree more on the development. It should definitely be expanded; I'll try and squeeze as much as I can out of those sources to produce a couple of more paragraphs. If it affects the FA criteria, do you think I should turn it into a 'development and release' section for more coverage? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 11:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. Go for it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rosario + Vampire characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am submitting this for peer review so I can get recommendations and feedback in preparation for nominating this for FLC. One of the main concerns that was brought up during the assessment to B-Class was the structure of the character list so I want to get ideas on how to make that better. The content in the article itself is fairly mature now that the series has concluded back in April. Thanks for your time! -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the list a thirty second look. Appearances in other media could be argued as OR or trivia since it is referencing another series as a joke with no impact on plot. I suggest finding a better lead picture. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will delete. It's a one-off mention, so yeah it can be taken out for trivia reasons. It would be different if someone did a full-on parody of the series for a cartoon segment. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do about pictures. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see some issues with the extent of the notes to verify certain terms or other issues. It appears mostly OR. What you have to do is use some of these episodes and notes more directly into the prose. Lucia Black (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have chopped down the footnotes and integrated some of the details into the character description where important. If you could tag which of the footnote and any OR-ish terms that need further integration, that would be great. The "Kapu chuu" and the Shuzen family drink names are sourced by the interview with the author; I removed the WP:SYNTH parts that were assumed related (aqua, gyokuro, issa, jasmine, earl grey). -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC), updated 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bread-Winners

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nom it at FAC and would be grateful for feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments
[edit]
I think that might be a bit excessive. Is anyone going to follow that link?
  • A couple, probably. Considering how central this is to the narrative, I'd give it greater priority than if this was, say, an article on some individual who spent a day with a workers union but quit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in figuring out who the author was - Would "determining the author's identity" or something similar be more formal?
  • some guessed right - is there a more formal term?
I'm inclined to let that one stand, as it parallels the Gilder comment later in the article. And the bottom line is, they really were guessing. They had evidence but no proof.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • is best remembered today - what does "today" add to the sentence? Since you're using the simple present tense, it's implied
  • (a city intended to be Cleveland) - unless Hay is explicit, this should be cited
  • the sop of chairman - the sop?
  • "Old Saul Matchin and me come to an agreement about time and pay, and both of us was suited. Ef he's got his heel into me, I don't feel it," - direct quote needs a citation. Mind, could be trimmed without hurting the article
  • being roughed up -- --> attacked?
  • Bott and Sleeny are captured by the force; the former is sent to prison but Farnham has pity on Sleeny as a good workman, and he serves only a few days. - Perhaps make it clearer that Sleeny gets a lighter sentence and not Farnham
  • ignores the law - link Jury nullification or Jury nullification in the United States?
  • are to be united - --> are to be wed?
  • Grant administration - rework to have Grant's full name included?
I think that it's more about his presidency than him. He avoided most of the scandal, personally. His first VP, Colfax, did not.
  • Tyler Dennett, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography - clarify that the biography was of Hay?
I tried that, and wound up with too much Hay in too short a period. "his subject" didn't seem to improve anything. I think it's clear from context.
  • analog of Cleveland's Euclid Avenue (where Hay lived), - if we're not using an article here, wouldn't "analog to" work better?
"of" feels better to me. I'll wait and see if other reviewers flag it. I may have spent too much time reading science fiction in my misspent youth.
  • it was published as a book - perhaps use "compiled"?
  • Transcript - Is that The Transcript?
Er, no, the Boston Evening Transcript, mentioned earlier. "Evening" added to second usage.
  • "inaccuracies in the depiction of the local scene" - Does he mention any?
No. "that though there were occasional inaccuracies which would show that it was not written in Cleveland, yet its general tone of faithfulness and reality were quite remarkable." My, reporters were credulous in that day.
Fixed.
I've moved it up some but am not going to follow that page rigidly as I think it doesn't suit the article's needs.
  • is, necessarily, a refined, cultivated hero, handsome, stylish, fascinating - seems to be missing a noun
Checked against source. Those adjectives are referring back to "hero" in my reading. A little dramatic, but I think it's OK.
  • even to the mustache - and what a brilliant mustache it is
That must have really stood out ... did you see the pic of him in his article from 1862 without it? The hair did make him look quite a bit older, and I guess he just kept it. Of course, it was far more common then to have facial hair. And practical.
  • According to Clifford A. Bender in his journal article on the Keenan book, - I'd nix "in ... book"
  • Any other examples of imitation worth mentioning?
I've added a bit, at the risk of overdoing it.
  • I thought, based on my reading of the article, that Hay himself wasn't born into that rich of a family. Upper-middle class, doctor father, etc. Or were they old money? Anybody comment on Hay's class allegiances?
Yeah, I had some material on that in the early version of the Hay article, I've gone back and retrieved it and put it in.
Second Sloane article. I've put in a cite to it, so that's fixed.

If I didn't respond, I just followed your recommendation. Thank you for your comments. I put this together rather piecemeal but I think it's turned out OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I figured I had most of the sources from my Hay research, so it would not be a difficult task. Thanks for the review. Yes, I'm pleased with how it turned out (I could use more relevant images dealing directly with the book, but I haven't been able to find much).--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]
Lead
  • I think in the first line I'd swop the positions of "book" and "novel". The title in no way indicates the book's true nature.
  • I'm not sure about "caused wide interest" - perhaps "created" is more appropriate?
  • "Hay's hostile view of organized labor was soon seen as outdated" – soon in relation to when? Is this a case of "by then" rather than "soon"?
Plot
  • "In Sleeny's discontent..." → "To Sleeny's discontent..."
  • "Offitt's treason" → perhaps "treachery", as "treason" is generally associated with betrayal of a country.
Background: John Hay
  • "worked for his campaign" → "worked for his presidential campaign"
  • Capitalisation of "President"? I'm never sure of the rules here
  • "but also achieved success with published works. In 1871, he published..." To avoid the repetition this could be: "and also achieved wider literary success. In 1871, he published..." (I believe that in any case "and" works better than "but")
I just changed "published" for "literary".
  • "where John managed Amasa Stone's investments": "he" would be unequivocal – "John" reads strangely
  • "Gale pointed out..." Who is Gale? And I think "records" rather than "pointed out"
Postwar labor troubles etc
  • "agrarian society of small towns and agriculture" - you can drop either "agrarian" or "of small towns..." etc, as they duplicate each other.
  • "great impetus to a transformation..." - you need to say in a few words what the transformation was to, e.g. "to an industrialized society"
  • "underway" (one word), although much used, is not recognised as such by OED, OD of E or (even) Collins.
  • "Rail bankruptcies in the Panic of 1873 led to loss of jobs, wage cuts, and business failures, and to the Railroad Strikes of 1877, when strike over wage cuts on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad spread to other lines, the Lake Shore, much to Hay's outrage." I got lost in this sentence, which seems to have a few missing parts. I think "strike" should be "strike" or "strikes", and the word "including" should go before "the Lake Shore".
  • "Though the Lake Shore dispute, unlike those elsewhere, was settled without violence, Hay blamed foreign agitators for the dispute". A non sequitur. Hay's placing of blame did not arise from the peaceful settlement at Lake Shore.
  • "The strike was ended by federal troops sent by President Rutherford B. Hayes, but at the cost of over 100 civilian deaths." I think this senetence fits better immediately after "to Hay's outrage".
  • "Those events..." – the strikes or the calls for armed suppression?
  • "The Bread-Winners is sometimes characterized as the first anti-labor novel..." By whom?
Themes
  • "Dalrymple argued..." As the style of the synopsis is the literary present, which is carried into this section, "argues" would read better.
  • "unions were dangerous as they may manipulate" – slight tense confusion, "were" and "may". Perhaps "tend to manipulate", or just "manipulated"?
  • "Jaher noted" → "Jaher notes"? Similar for Sloane later.
Writing
  • "Sometime during the winter or spring of 1881–82, Hay wrote The Bread-Winners". Odd to read this at this point. The sentence should be flipped: "Hay wrote The Bread-Winners sometime during the winter or spring of 1881–82."
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, he was spending much time writing..." Awkward repetition: perhaps "At the time he was busy writing..."
  • "to author William Dean Howells, a friend of his" - "to his friend, author William Dean Howells."?
  • "Pulitzer Prize-winning" – is this relevant?
Since it's an early biographer, I think the credentials should be puffed a bit, to justify the inclusion.
Serialization
  • "sent a postcard" → "issued a postcard"
  • "and giving some information about the plot" – this subordinate clause is wrongly positioned in the sentence. It would read more smoothly thus: "Under the heading "Literary Note from The Century Co.", and giving some information about the plot, it announced that an anonymous novel, "unusual in scene and subject, and powerful in treatment" would soon be serialized in the pages of the Century."
  • "ads" not encyclopedic
  • "(that Henry Adams had written it was not yet known) → (Henry Adams' authorship was not yet known)
  • "Hay friend" → "Hay's friend"
Publication and aftermath
  • "that included" – in this case, given the plural "leading bestsellers", "which" is more appropriate
Reaction
  • "than were American ones" – just "than Americans" would do
  • Is Harriet Boomer Barber worth a redlink?
  • "The most successful such book..." – not clear what "such book" refers to. The last paragraph mentions various types; parody, pastiche, rebuttal etc
  • "He woos Eleanor although she is not physically attractive to him, convincing himself he is not a fortune seeker." I cannot understand this sentence as written. Can you clarify?
  • Dalrymple has been introduced by full name before, and should be just "Dalrymple" here.
Historical view
  • Other cases of literary past (Lorenzo Sears, who wrote 100 years ago, can safely be regarded as in the past)
I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
  • The words "for example" should be repositioned to follow Sears's name

That's all my comments. A most interesting article, but I'm afraid that I find myself admiring Hay less than I did after reading the biographical article. (Benjamin and Ruth are probably my favourite biographical articles of this year). Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warts and all, I suppose. I'll work through these today or tomorrow, depending on time constraints. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've done these except as noted, though sometimes using my own phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noye's Fludde

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Britten's enduring, endearing opera (sort of) was written with children and amateur performers in mind, not for the professional theatre. Whoever has heard it won't forget the strains of "Eternal Father", rising from the ark at the height of the musical storm that represents the flood. Or the cheery bugle fanfares that accompany the animals, or the bells that mark the appearance of the rainbow. Or the strange instruments which Britten incorporated into his orchestra, to memorable effect. It's a feast of delights, to which Alfietucker and I hope this article does some justice. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Tim and Wehwalt for your feedback - very much appreciated. Just to alert you and other reviewers that, in the process of trying to find some info in response to a point by Tim, I discovered some information in John Bridcut's Britten's Children about the handbells which I thought too good to miss out: I've now made it the final footnote of the article (no. 13). Alfietucker (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]
  • Lead
    • I was going to suggest a link from "Kyrie eleison", but the link takes one to a strange page that may or may not be helpful. I just mention it, for your consideration.
      • I see your point about the strange page. My feeling, particularly as a translation is given in parenthesis in the main text, is that to link would be overkill. Brian? AT
  • Performance requirements
    • "However, having failed to make this work" – we all have our own prose styles, but to my way of thinking "however" should be scrutinised suspiciously. I think that nine times in ten you're better without it. I think the present sentence would be stronger if you blitzed it.
      • I've had a go at rewriting the start of that sentence without "However" - subject to approval/disapproval by Brian and other reviewers. AT
    • Refs 40, 41 and 42 – if you bundled them it would mean less blue on the page to smack the reader in the eye
    • "The relative scarcity" – relative to what? Probably an unneeded adj.
      • Both points taken and acted upon. AT
  • Premiere
    • "selected from widely-ranged auditions" – not sure what this means. Held round the country? Could be clearer
      • This is paraphrased from Colin Graham's "from wide-held auditions". My guess, given the appearance of Michael Crawford (albeit, he had appeared in previous Britten production in London), and the programme for the premiere performance, which identifies a number of child soloists as pupils at the Arts Educational School Ltd. London, is that auditions were held both in Suffolk and in London for any child performers able to be present. Would it be safe to say (without straying into WP:OR) something like "were selected from auditions held in Suffolk and in London", and reinforce the citation from Graham with one to the programme repro'd by the Britten-Pears Foundation? AT
    • "she withdrew her pupils" – a bit of a tease: who then provided the gossips?
      • Colin Graham again, and he doesn't say how they were replaced. FWIW, I read Imogen Holst's biography of Britten (aimed at young readers) many, many years ago, which included her version of the incident: but I seem to remember that, according to IH, the headmistress was somehow placated. Unfortunately I don't have that biography immediately to hand (I would need to dig around at my mother's in the hope of finding it, unless somebody can find it in a library?). AT
    • "(originally 150 players[n 8])" – I think the MoS bids us put refs after closing brackets
      • Done AT
  • Later performances
    • "The Santa Fe Opera, and the New Orleans Opera" – inconsistency of capitalisation: I say to Hell with the PR people and lower case all definite articles in the titles of organisations.
      • Done AT
  • Music
    • Refs 84 and 85 could also be bundled, reducing the blueness
      • I gave that a go, but then reverted: I think while bundling book references results in a easy to read/comprehend citation, the combination of a book reference with a web reference is a bit confusing to read, so perhaps better left as it is. Anyone feel strongly about this? AT
    • "leitmotif" – if taken to be an adopted English word it didn't oughter be in itals; contrariwise, if an 'orrid furrin word, it needs a capital L.
      • Fair point, and I don't think we can quite assume that Leitmotif is an adopted English word: so have gone for a capital L. AT
        • A hundred apologies: I ought to have looked it up in the OED before shooting from the hip. The OED lists it as a good English word, and so it should be "leitmotiv" with neither capital L nor italics. So sorry! Tim riley talk 21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, done (no problem). AT
    • "accompanied by a D sharp pedal" – so far you have, to my mind, just avoided getting too technical for the ordinary music lover who might read this article, but I really think you need a wikilink or a footnote for "pedal".
    • "The storm scene which forms the centre of the opera… when the Dove returns" – I have just listened to a recording (Hickox) and this para seems to me quite perfect in capturing what Britten wrote. I am not only impressed but peevishly envious.
    • But "an affinity with Beethoven's Pastoral"? You hide behind Roseberry, as well you might, given Britten's view of Lobby Ludwig. But really, gentlemen, do you think Roseberry has a point? I'm blest if I do, but I'd like at least a decorous hint of the co-authors' views on this point.
      • I understand what Roseberry is getting at: he talks of "a dewy, pastoral F major", and certainly that's the key of the final movement of the Beethoven after the storm; in any case, one can hear the lighter instrumental textures and the music turning from minor to major. Still, I take your point, which will probably strike a fair number of people who know the mature Britten's avowed dislike of Beethoven. Perhaps a detailed footnote noting the parallels might help justify the comparison? AT
      • It's not so much hiding behind Roseberry, as noting what he said. Ben B's dislike of L van B is irrelevant here; adding a footnote drawing attention to this is neither necessary nor appropriate – that is not the isue here. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't suggesting a footnote about Britten's feelings about Beethoven; I was thinking maybe a footnote giving a brief justification for the parallel with the Pastoral - i.e. the change from stormy (with "dark"/low instrumentation) minor to F major (as with the Beethoven) with lighter-toned instrumentation. Would that be useful? AT
    • "pentatonic B flat chimes" – pentatonic could do with a blue link, I feel
  • Publication
    • "then wrote to Britten urging" – I am quite willing to be told I'm wrong, but I don't think "then" is a conjunction, and I'd be happier if you put "and" in front of it.
      • Done AT
    • "under the pseudonym Ludwig Landgraf" – to borrow from the infant texting generation, ROTFL. What a discreet pen name! But I digress. Ignore this.
  • Notes
    • Note 6 – double quotes, perhaps, rather than single?
    • Note 9 – news to me that Britten married Joy Boughton. Just teasing, but it is theoretically ambiguous. The answer to this may be a two-word phrase ending in "off", but I just mention it.
    • Note 12 – a non-frivolous point this time: I don't much care for your "Yet". It's a bit WP:EDITORIAL. The sentence would work just as well without it. And I'm not mad about the "rather" later in the note, for the same reasons.
      • Footnotes all dealt with. AT

And that is my lot. This is a wonderful piece of work. I don't know how you divvied up the labour, but however you did it, you can't see the join. (All right, let me guess that Sir Brian did the history and Alfredo did the music. Do I win my five bob bet with myself?) I see that Gerda has looked in today, and this article has something of the same shining enthusiasm that jumps off the screen from her JSB articles, which is saying something! Bravi, gents both! Reviewing an article as fine as this is what makes working on Wikipedia so rewarding. Tim riley talk 19:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, thank you so much for your thorough and really helpful feedback. I'm afraid you don't quite win the bet, since effectively the initial drafts were new biographical stuff by me good self, and the sections on the original Chester plays and the music were by Brian: but we then both worked quite extensively on "each other's" sections. Even so, Brian really deserves all your praise for the paragraph on the depiction of the storm.
I hope Brian doesn't mind if I do the first "sweep through" of the article following your comments, or else return with thoughts of my own. Alfietucker (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim, for your comments and insights, to which I have added my soupçon of wisdom, while leaving Mr Tucker to take the heat. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Lede
  • "the mini-opera for children involving child performers," I think possibly this could be better phrased, but I don't have an ideal solution myself.
    • I've replaced "children" with "young audiences" - is that better? AT
  • "He had also used text from the Chester play cycle for his 1952 Canticle II, based on the story of Abraham and Isaac." is it the Canticle or the cycle that is based on the story of Abraham and Isaac. And perhaps a pipe to Binding of Isaac.
    • Agree that Binding of Isaac is much more to the point than individual links to Abraham and Isaac - have replaced accordingly. Also slight rewording to fix possible ambiguity. AT
Background
  • You may find some disagreement that the fall of Lucifer is truly biblical in nature. It seems more interpretive than narrative.
    • Would rewriting the sentence as "They covered the full range of Christian narratives, from the fall of Lucifer to the Last Judgement." fix that problem? AT
Yes, and I'm familiar with it, but my point was that version is hardly on stone tablets and other traditions don't hold with it, see for example here. Plainly Rashi took a different view of it. However, obviously BB was playing with that as playbook, so please consider this outside carping. I'm simply stating why I viewed it as "interpretive".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that has survived into the 20th century. " as we have moved on from same, should "has survived" be "survived" (I assume we're using said century as that was when BB was writing).
    • Absolutely - have now cut "has". AT
      • I've restored "has" and made it 21st century Brianboulton (talk)
        • (Quite correct, though isn't it more pertinent to Britten and his opera that the plays had survived into the 20th century? Only a small point, I know. AT)
  • "After the 16th century Reformation the Church grew less tolerant of mystery plays. A performance in Chester in 1575 is the last recorded from the city until the 20th century." hm, minor point but should "After" be "By the end of"? 1575 is a fair ways before the end of the century.
    • I'm not sure I understand your point: as you say, 1575 is some time before the end of the century, so "By the end of" would surely be rather like putting the cart before the horse. As I read the sentence, it refers to the Church's increasing lack of tolerance towards the mystery plays after the English Reformation (I have now added a comma which, I hope, makes this clearer). Let me know if I've misunderstood. AT
I guess I'm wondering if the intolerance occurred after the 16th century, why is a performance 25 years before the century ended the last on record?
  • "Nothing came of this project immediately; " this sentence might be usefully split, given the heavy demands on the semicolon key in it.
    • Have now replaced a semi-colon with a full stop. AT
  • You are not consistent in your capitalisation of "flood"
    • (Fixed by Brian)
Synopsis
  • " He sends out a Dove, who" just making sure you intend "who". (though it is consistent with a similar usage later)
    • I've no objection to "who", particularly as the role is played by a child dancer. AT
Roles
  • The role of Noah's wife is described as "Mrs. Noye" in the Roles and Recordings tables and as "Mrs Noye" in the text. This also applies to the other goodwives in the Roles section. I understand the latter is more customary in the UK.
    • Indeed, "Mrs" is more usually presented without an end point in the UK. The exceptions in the article follow what's in the score, though there's precedent for not following the format Britten uses (e.g. upper and lower caps in A Boy was Born - see A Boy Was Born); so it could be argued that we should iron this out in favour of the usual British practice. Your thoughts, Brian? AT
Creation
  • " Before he had finished the composition draft" Not sure you need the "had".
    • Agreed - removed. AT
Performance requirements
  • "The relative scarcity of the instrument tuned at several of the pitches" I think something is missing here. Possibly instrument should be plural?
    • I've replaced "the instrument" with "handbells", which is clearer. AT
  • I think that the description of the "Slung Mugs" should be better tied together. It wasn't apparent to me on first reading that what followed "Slung Mugs" was what Slung Mugs were. I assumed it was just part of BB's travails in putting on the opera.
    • I've made an attempt to reword this to make it clearer. AT
Music
  • "passacaglia" is not linked on first use. Although the first use is in a quote, it may make more sense to have it linked there, given the unfamiliarity of the term to many readers.
    • Fixed AT
  • Roseberry is mostly referred to in the present tense, but at least once you use the past tense for his views.
    • Where we are talking of critics commenting on the first performance in "Performance history and reception/Premiere", including Roseberry, it's all in the past tense since it's referring to an historic event; when Roseberry is quoted extensively talking about the work itself (as opposed to its performance) in "Music", that's all in the present tense since the subject is the music which hasn't changed since being performed and published. It makes sense to me, but is anyone else worried by this? AT
  • "Mears and Stainbank" I believe that is the Whitechapel Bell Foundry. They made some defective bell or other in Philadelphia. Cracked clean through, I've seen it myself. Wrote an article about it, I did. (that's in case anyone's wondering what I'm rambling on about).
    • I say, I say, I say! What's wrapped in clingfilm and rings bells? The Lunchpack of Notre-Dame. I don't wish to know that – kindly leave the stage! Do you seriously assert, Wehwalt, that the symbol of your temporarily successful colonial rebellion was cast by the same foundry under whose Big Ben I worked in the Hansard office, two floors lower down the clock tower, forty years ago? I'm off to read your article this very moment. Tim riley talk 22:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said. And the foundry still blames the Yanks for its defective work. Possibly an improved design will come out by 2253? Don't your authorities recall defective models? It's a shame, but we'll display the shoddy workmanship as a reason for independence and better government until they acknowledge their fault. Palming such work on colonials--how shameless. (they used to sell smaller models on their website, possibly your consumer authorities have finally gotten on the ball (bell?) and enjoined that. As I recall, they sold it without the crack, though no doubt that would come in use rather quickly.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellently done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your helpful and encouraging feedback. And I think you're spot on about the Whitechapel Bell Foundry (I'll link that now). I will call it a day when I've done Tim's comments, and either Brian or myself will resume later (probably tomorrow UK time). Alfietucker (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks, too. I think AT has picked up the necessary points, and I have commented sparsely. Brianboulton (talk) 13:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem and thank you both for an excellent article. On the "Mrs." bit, I simply suggest consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your excellent feedback. So, would anyone object if I go through and zap all end points to "Mrs"? (Er, that sounds rather rude - sorry.) (I see Brian has beaten me to this - bravo!) Alfietucker (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This 'n' that from Cassianto

[edit]

Inception

  • These would show Britten composing and rehearsing a work through to the final performance?
    • I've replaced "final" with "its" (rehearsing a work through to its performance). Thanks for catching that ambiguity (which probably derived from Ford's mentioning of a "final programme" resonating in this editor's head!). AT

Performance requirements

  • "The recorders should led by an accomplished soloist able to flutter-tongue" -- eh? Are we missing a "be" in there somewhere?
    • Quite right - now amended. AT
  • There are at least three occasions up until this point where we give "Colin Graham" his full name. Surely it should be given in its entirety on the first occasion, and then surname every time after that!
    • I see your point, but have been a touch conservative about this (bearing in mind that there's already a fair number of simply "Graham" after that point in the article). I've just removed one further instance of his first name in this section. Elsewhere - e.g. at the start of "Premiere" where he is listed with other people involved in the first production, all given their full names, such as Charles Mackerras and Ceri Richards - I have allowed him to retain his first name for now. I'll have another look with fresh eyes tomorrow. AT

Premiere

  • "The Chorus of Animals was provided by children from three local schools: Sir John Leman School, Beccles; the County Primary School, Bungay; and the Heath Primary School, Kesgrave." -- Is there a way of avoiding the four repetitions of "school"?
A lot smoother. Cassiantotalk 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later performances

  • organizer →organiser
  • "Looking for a suitable London church, Britten settled somewhat reluctantly on Southwark Cathedral." -- Why was he reluctant? What forced him to settle on this church if he wasn't entirely happy?
    • One for you, Alfie - I don't have this source. Brianboulton (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is based on a letter by Britten (to the Arts Council). Unfortunately he does not specify the reason (one can only guess - perhaps its location, then as now, in proximity of a very busy road and London Bridge Station?) for his being less than enthusiastic. Here is what is quoted in Letters from a Life Vol. V: "I am sorry too, in a way, that "Noye's Fludde" has to be done at Southwark [Cathedral]; although Gothic, it does not really compare with Orford. But there is scarcely a church in London which we did not consider, and from every other point of view Southwark seems to be the most suitable." Would it help to give that quotation as a footnote? Alfietucker (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the UK, Christopher Ede, producer of the landmark performances of the Chester mystery plays during the Festival of Britain, directed Britten's opera in Winchester Cathedral between 12–14 July 1960?
  • staged between 21–23 December at the Roundhouse Theatre?

Publication

  • Is there a reason why we repeat ref [103] in close succession?
    • No reason now - that was a hang-over from when the sentence ordered the info in a slightly different order. Now amended. AT

That's all I can see at the moment, but I will give it another read through later today. Looks great though! Cassiantotalk 01:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments and sharp-eyed proofing! This insomniac UK writer is working through at least some of them now (I will leave a few to look at more carefully in the morrow, unless Brian gets there first). Looking forward to your further comments. Alfietucker (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed! Brianboulton (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat

[edit]

Just starting on this rather interesting article. I am struck by the title of the work Noye's Fludde, which is obviously the Medieval English for Noah's Flood, but I can't see anything that confirms this (apart from Noye/Noah bracketed but unsourced in the lead). For those readers who come without the aid of having read Chaucer, would it be worth explaining this early in the Background section what the name refers to, and that it's from the Old English?

More to follow soonest. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We await your further comments with pleasure. With regard to the above point, the opening paragraph of the lead explains that the opera is based on a medieval "mystery" play that "recounts the biblical story of Noah, the flood and the ark". I am not quite certain where Chaucer comes in, but I would have thought our explanation adequately covers what the opera's name refers to, and will leave few readers confused. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your call, Brian, but I think that as we're writing for a global audience who may not have any idea that medieval English (or the language of Chaucer, which is the closest that most people come to it) is different to modern English, it may be worth a very brief addition. Readers (the global equivalents to the man on the Clapham omnibus) may quickly grasp that Noye's Fludde signifies Noah's Flood, but not actually understand why or what the difference is. Your call either way.
SchroCat and Brian: would a parenthesis immediately after Noye's Fludde such as this - "(Medieval English spelling of Noah's Flood)" - work for you? (And yes, you can see where a lot of hyphens instead of en-dashes originate! Wish I knew how to get them on my PC laptop without laborious copying and pasting.) Alfietucker (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly work for me!
For an en-dash on a PC, hold the Control key and type the minus sign on the numeric keypad on the right of the keyboard (not the one between the zero and equals); I only discovered this very recently and it's made life a lot easier! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great - I might go ahead with this. Sadly your tip on making en-dashes on a PC doesn't appear to work on my machine, but thank you anyway. Alfietucker (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on: I'm not convinced about the parentheses, which would tend to overcomplicate the first line. I wonder if we are trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist? My view is is that the title Noye's Fludde, followed immediately by an explanation that the opera is about Noah and the Flood, is sufficient; if other reviewers feel otherwise, then I'll be happy to comply (well, grumpy actually, but I'll comply). Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll hold off and see what others say about this. Alfietucker (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem either way, and if you think it's not needed, then I'm ahppy(ish) to go with that too! - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me complicate the issue: to my mind the mention of Noah (in his usual spelling) in the opening para suffices to make it plain to the casual reader who the flooded Noye is, but having a swift squinny at the libretto I see it stipulates that the name is pronounced in the modern way (which I don't think is actually mentioned in the present article) so what with that and SchroCat's concern, there may be a case for an explanatory footnote. I rather agree with BB that a parenthesis in the opening line is a bit too much. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote is in order. I will confess that when Brian mentioned to me that he was working on this article, what it was about escaped me until I clicked and read. Britten does not always get his due on this side of the Atlantic.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But from where did Britten obtain the spelling? Did he just invent it? The ME spelling for flood appears to have been flod. At the very least, a footnote is required. Aa77zz (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz - as I understand it, standard spelling is a relatively recent invention, and certainly did not exist even in Shakespeare's time, let alone earlier in medieval times when the play Noye's Fludde was first written. Britten would have adopted the spelling as it appears in the Andrew W. Pollard edition he was working from.

As for a footnote, my feeling is that a short footnote explaining the medieval spelling would work for the first mention of Noye's Fludde. As for pronunciation, I think it would make more sense to have a note or footnote appear in the "Synopsis" section, among other reasons because the matter of pronunciation in the opera was clearly Britten's choice rather than something that originated from the text he was working from; plus, I think it would be offering too much information at once to have this in addition to an explanation about the spelling in the first footnote. Does that make sense, or does anyone have any other thoughts about this? Alfietucker (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds just the job. Yes, the libretto specifically states that its text is from Pollard's Clarendon edition. Tim riley talk 11:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put in a footnote explaining the spelling of the title. What does everyone else think about a footnote within the "Synopsis" section explaining pronunciation? I'd suggest, perhaps following "addressed Noye," a footnote with something like: "Britten specifies that though the 16th century spelling of the original play has been retained, "modern pronunciation should be used throughout, except for the indicated sounding of the final e's: for example, shippë should be pronounced 'shippe(r)'; Noye should be pronounced in the familiar way as 'Noah'."[Source: Noye's Fludde pocket score, Boosey & Hawkes 1958] Alfietucker (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Way too much explanation; all that is necessary on pronunciation, I believe, is the few words I've added to the footnote. We state the fact, source it, and that's enough. Brianboulton (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second (1895) edition of Pollard's English Miracle Plays Moralities And Interludes has Noah's Flood rather than Noye's Fludde. I haven't checked whether Britten's spelling is mentioned in the long Introduction. Aa77zz (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But reading the play I see Noye and fludde (as well as flude) (confirming AT point above). Aa77zz (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, and for confirming that the opera title's spelling is sourced from the play as edited by Pollard (regardless of the modern English spelling he heads the play with). Alfietucker (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, stand by for a non-helpful, but ever-so neutral answer: I agree with Schrocat that something needs to be explained in regards to the title. Some people would not be able to link the olde-worlde title with the more modern, and let's be honest, more familiar one. For example I asked my wife today what she thought the title was and she assumed it was an old Welsh musical instrument if you please! Having said that, I do kind of disagree with the alt being immediately after the title; I think Tim and Wehwalt are both correct in thinking that a footnote could solve the problem without too much drama, but see Brian's desire of wanting to restrict the footnotes to a minimum. Out of the two, I would be more inclined to go with the latter (which I now see has been done), although it needs to be short and sharp without too much explanation. Cassiantotalk 18:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back tomorrow (or later today, given the hour) with any further comments I find, although it's slim pickings so far: a very well written piece that has already been given some excellent comments. – SchroCat (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my usual dots and dashes work, but I saw a couple of instances where there are no spaces either side of the ellipses: the first is in the Peter Evans quote at the start of the "Music" section, while the second is in note 8. Both are in quotes so I didn't change them, but can you check they exist in the original text, or whether you've forgotten to put the spaces in?

Now fixed with spaces put in. AT

Chester Mystery Plays

  • " "miracle" plays were dramatised Bible stories": did you know the OED doesn't carry the word "dramtise", even as an alternative spelling? It does show dramatize (the examples they give of its use where ~ise is used are all 19th C). I leave it to you to decide which form to use, as ~ize, while being more correct, seems more alien to me.
    • Decided it was probably best to be correct, so changed to "-ize". AT
      • Sorry, no, this is something that I had checked in view of the same argument some years back. The latest Oxford Dictionary of English allows "dramatise" as an alternative, which I think is sufficient authority to retain the "s" and avoid that ugly spelling. Brianboulton (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inception

  • "amanuensis": A great (and correct) word, but do we need to be driving people away from the article in search of their nearest dictionary to check they understood it correctly? (musical assistant would serve, or a link to the Wiktionary: [[wikt:amanuensis|amanuensis]])
    • Have linked to Wiktionary. AT
      • I think "musical assistant is better, thereby avoiding all links. (I changed this, before I saw your note - edit conflict!!!)
  • You give us "Associated Rediffusion (A-R)", helpfully providing the initials, but then only use those initials once, but giving the full name a further three times
    • I've now replaced all subsequent mentions with A-R, apart from one at the start of "Writing" since there are two whole sections between this and the earlier "Inception" where it is first mentioned. Hope that makes sense. AT

Premiere

  • "The Manchester Guardian": capitalised and linked is closely followed by "the Daily Telegraph" uncapitalised and unlinked; "The Sunday Times" is linked, while "The Times" isn’t.
  • Similarly, if you're going to link Opera magazine, then you should probably link Tempo.
    • All now linked. AT

Later performances

  • "In 1971, the Aldeburgh": I'm not sure the comma is needed.
    • Now removed. AT

Done to the start of "Music": more to follow later of this extremely enjoyable piece. - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your helpful feedback and also your kind comments - looking forward to the next instalment. Alfietucker (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having been through the final sections—and, as always, been mystified by the musicology—I can see nothing else to point out to you. A very nicely put together article, certainly worthy of a trip to FAC, and I'd be obliged if you could drop me a note when you start that process? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr Cat for your most useful comments, and for your tidying-up (ellipses etc) on which as I enter my dotage I am increasingly reliant. Maybe FAC early next week - we will keep you posted. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly take your turn behind your seniors for your dotage, young Boulton. Book now, after me. And as we have established beyond a peradventure that you are Sir Brian why do you suppose the Graf von SchroCat is a mere Mister? And that’s not to mention Alfredo, Conte di Tucchero. – Tim zu and von riley talk 19:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Bazy Tankersley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FAC but am in need of outside eyes to determine if it requires additional material or otherwise lacks comprehensiveness. Also, of course, comments on general improvements are welcome! Bazy was a fascinating lady with a great personal story, should be a fun read and review!

Thanks, Montanabw(talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Lede
  • Given that you mention she was raised among, etc., a mention that Mark Hanna was dead, say by preceding him with "late" would be good.
  • Done--MTBW
  • The second to last sentence in the first paragraph could probably be split
  • OK --MTBW
  • "Joseph McCormick died when Tankersley was a child. Her mother " I would reverse these and say "Her father ... Ruth McCormick" as I think the reader would be less likely to check on who was who.
  • Tweaked, if you can improve that wording further, go for it. --MTBW
  • Possibly it could be mentioned that her relationship with second husband to be during her publisher stint was extramarital.
  • Implied throughout, but I can't find a source that actually says so precisely, so am going to duck that one claiming WP:SYNTH. --MTBW
  • I think you could delete "Arabian horse" (i.e., the second mention of the breed) from the 1st sentence of the last paragraph.
    • Reworded to clarify Arabians versus horses she had owned/ridden in other contexts. Again, feel free to tweak the phrasing --MTBW
  • " foundation sire, a stallion named" isn't there redundancy here? Obviously a foundation sire is a stallion, right? Could "a stallion named" be deleted? A similar phrasing is in the body as well, same comment.
    • Chopped the first, reworded the second. As you are a non-horse person, feel free to tweak more if needed and if the nuance is messed up, I'll fix that. -MTBW
  • "in those years" seems redundant
  • Reworded--MTBW
Personal life
  • Both here and in the lede I question the capitalization of "Progressive". She was likely progressive, but there doesn't seem to have been a Progressive Republican Party at the time of her congressional service. Her article just says Republican. I would lower case it. Also "Congressman" should be lower case as it is being used as a descriptor, not a title.
  • Feel free to tweak any of those as you see fit. I know I do at times over-capitalize, but after the species/breed wars, I've kind of given up on capitalization issues. I'll just trust your judgement on that one --MTBW
  • The wealth of the McCormicks could be mentioned in the first paragraph
  • help: Cited to what source? I think I'd need a new one.--MTBW
Newspaper career
  • I don't think friend needs to be in quotes.
  • Her choice of words, but OK --MTBW
  • Did the Senate resolve that those quotes were true, or was it one senator (I don't have those downloads anymore)?
  • Need to check: Will have to dig into that. --MTBW
  • You asked about if the level of coverage here was appropriate. I think it is. She is not well known as a newsperson, but rather for her horse activities and given the limited patience of readers and reviewers, I think you do not have to dig as deeply.
  • help -do you mean it is long enough as is or that it's already too long? --MTBW
Horse breeding
  • Is the Fifi material really germane to a biography of Bazy?
  • For now, I think it is, yes. The Scottsdale Show is the biggest Arabian horse show in the world, and I can't find a source for the precise connection between the two women, but I know they were connected. If I had enough material to establish independent notability for an article on Fifi, I'd do it, but I don't. She founded the Scottsdale show and imported *Naborr, other than that, she's pretty obscure. --MTBW
Maryland
  • Looking from the vantage of the other side of the river, I would not deem "Potomac" to be "outside of Bethesda", they are several miles apart, which is no doubt trivial in Montana but not so in the Washington suburbs. I would delete the Bethesda reference. If you know the DC suburbs, you know where Potomac is, if you don't, mentioning Bethesda leaves you none the wiser, really.
  • help: The WAPO source said "Their property, initially in Bethesda and later in Barnesville..." The Ahneman source says "..a 1,500-acre farm in Potomac, MD" Given that you are on the ground there, so to speak, can you help me out with this? Would "Montgomery County" cover all locations? --MTBW
  • Yes.
  • " a Hanstead-bred horse whom she purchased outright by 1959" whom generally to me seems to indicate a person.
  • Reworded --MTBW
  • Could golden crosses be explained?
  • help: Existing article sources use the term without definition. I can define it if I have a source that will pass muster, which is actually difficult to find. Will this source pass muster for a definition? I'd probably say something like "..."golden crosse"—a combination of bloodlines that produce exceptional animals?" --MTBW
  • That sounds good.
Tucson AZ
  • "During her years in Arizona, " this seems redundant
  • Reworded --MTBW
Legacy
  • Her death seems out of place here. I would move it to the Arizona section, together with her support of Giffords and voting for Obama, and the other political matter. That really isn't "legacy". If you want to add to the legacy section, some mention of how many people went through her apprenticeship program over how long might be good.
  • help: Hmm. I see your point, though it also feels a little weird in the Arizona section, given that the focus there is on horse breeding. Maybe this section should be renamed? --MTBW
  • I would mention something the foundation has done since her death. That fits "legacy" a bit better.
  • She just died last year, so not much has happened yet other than what she has set up to swing into gear with her passing. The lady planned very, very well. About all I've noticed is that her son has gotten the ranch reorganized and seems to have his feet under him. --MTBW
  • All I know is what I read in those articles, but it seems comprehensive to me. Are there any areas that you're concerned about? I think it should do OK at FAC, though reviewers are always hard to come by.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt I think my first concern was if I'd done enough with the political stuff from the 50s and 60s. Also wondering how far to drill down with her charitable works and political 180 in Arizona. As with the Davenport piece, I am most familiar with her horse-breeding accomplishments. If you have the time, perhaps read this article (already used as a source) which covers more on her non-horse activities in Arizona, and see if in your opinion, I've left out something significant and should add more material. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will look over the unresolved matters and get back to you in the next couple of days. I will read the article but I really think you don't have to emphasize the politics.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like some objective feedback about the current state of the article; comments on its format and/or neutrality are welcomed. Any suggestions for improvements would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the lede is almost promotional. It's not lede-relevant to list each and every city where the firm has offices; it's something that belongs in a later section. I would argue the best structure for the first lede sentence is "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman is an American (or New York) law firm founded in 1993." A list of prominent clients is also not relevant for the lede and gives the impression of being advertising copy.
Why is the history broken up into subsections in such an odd way? What's so different about the firm prior to 2008 when compared with the history since? There should be some clear reason for that sectioning other than convenience.
"In December the firm was defrauded by a private investigator whom they had paid $6,000." This sentence is not neutrally worded and makes a serious criminal accusation. While I see from the sources that it evidently resulted in an indictment if not conviction, it should be phrased to address this.
More to the point, a lot of these historical things are little tidbits strung together. I've had that problem before when writing articles about businesses... it's hard to get past that with articles about companies, and I'm really not sure how to approach it. I think a lot of these detail items, like the hiring of Marcos Daniel Jimenez or the lawsuit of Missy Lapine, ought to be cut entirely. I mean, the motion in the Fairfax lawsuit... while serious in the lawsuit is unbelievably minor in the history of a major litigation firm.
When writing an article like this, I think the goal should be, much like with making an opening statement, to present a coherent story that the factfinder can follow, where factual tidbits flow from one to another (and unlike a closing argument, not drawing conclusions, which would be OR). Give the facts that the sources do, but in a way that a factfinder can connect understand why you juxtaposed them. For instance, why talk about Joe Liebmann, then talk about the Above the Law fake offer story, then talk about layoffs, then talk about the firm being ranked as large? I get it's chronological, but there's no connection other than it all being roughly about the same law firm.
The citations should be revamped. Try using standard citation templates, and where (for instance) you lack an author, just leave the field blank. "Unknown author" is not so great, and your newspaper citations (e.g., NYLJ) should have date information.
That's about all I have. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mac DeMarco discography

[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 nominate this discography for featured list status soon and would like to know what I could do to make the article better.

Thanks, Littlecarmen (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks mostly good, but the lead section seems to need some work; in particular, it should be a bit more detailed about what critics thought about his albums. Also, it should probably start with a sentence like "The discography of Mac DeMarco... consists of X albums, Y EPs, etc. ..." Jinkinson talk to me 13:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jinkinson: Thank you! I have added information about what critics thought about his albums released as Mac DeMarco. The work he released as Makeout Videotape wasn't reviewed, so I didn't add anything about that. WP:DISCOGSTYLE says "It is encouraged to avoid direct replication of the article's title in the lead—therefore, it is also recommended to avoid bolding of the title in the lead sentence." though, so I didn't change the first sentence. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corfu Channel case

[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 rapidly approaching the wall with expanding it. I've expanded the heck out of it over the last few weeks, extensively pulling on offline academic sources, and I think the legacy section is pretty well developed (though I've got another source to go through for that). My main concern is in better summarizing the case history itself. I'm prepping this article for a run at GA/FA and want to make sure the comprehensiveness component gets hit with both barrels.

Thanks, —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I would kill for more media related to this case. Especially of proceedings before the Security Council at Lake Success, or even a shot of the building where the Security Council met. Even external media is good. I've about tapped out the sources I can access. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Massenet

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been beavering away overhauling this article, and having pretty much finished I should now be grateful for colleagues' comments. In addition to the usual comments on prose, coverage, balance etc I'd be particularly glad of people's thoughts on whether the article has FAC potential, or should be aimed at GAN or indeed should be quietly shunted into a corner and forgotten. Tim riley talk 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m

[edit]

[First two sub-sections, on Opening sentence and List of singers, copied by Tim riley from the article talk page for convenience during this peer review]

A lot has happened here over the last week - I will have to re-read!

  • I will look at whether role creators left recordings of excerpts at all: To be a little more wide-ranging, you could say that role creators such as van Dyck (Werther), Calvé (Sapho), Dufranne (Grisélidis), Vanni-Marcoux (Panurge) recorded excerpts from his operas, while in the 1930s Elie Cohen conducted classic accounts of Manon and Werther should be mentioned (a CD reissue won a Gramophone award), unfortunately I cannot locate a single reference where both 30s recordings are noted together.
  • The other thing is the Méditation, which is probably his most famous 'bleeding chunk', and possibly should be elegantly mentioned, just to avoid a possible clumsy addition later.
    • An exceptionally good point. I've added a bit at the Orchestral sub-section of Works. I've also mentioned Le dernier sommeil de la vierge (a Beecham favourite), which reminds me that I'd be glad if you would consider whether "vierge" should or shouldn't be capitalised in the title of the opera. The practice seems to vary even on French sites. Tim riley talk 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The youtube link ought to be changed to a violin version...
    • I never link to youtube, being nervous about copyright. There may be some youtube videos that meet WP's strict copyright criteria but I am so inexpert in that arcane theology that I steer well clear. Tim riley talk 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual opera links in External Links should perhaps be in their article pages. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although he was an important professor at the Conservatoire there is only brief mention of his methods; p 8 of Koechlin's book on Fauré he has quite a nice sentence on Massenent the teacher "After Massenet, whose volubility dispensed a teaching active, living, vibrant, and moreover comprehensive, Fauré seemed to read the works of his pupils in silence."
    • Somewhere else in the sources, though I can't now lay hands on it, I have seen someone saying that though Massenet and Fauré were chalk and cheese they both successfully brought out the individuality of their students and did not impose their views. I've added the Koechlin quote – thank you very much. Tim riley talk 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • you may be thinking of Koechlin a couple of paragraphs down, where he says "But after all, in spite of the fact that his method seemed so different, Fauré continued in his own way the work of Massenet, directing his pupils towards a musicianship based on a serious technique" (I think Orrey could have been a bit more elegant in his translation) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly does! I am in your debt, not for the first, or I hope the last, time. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two other things I would mention are how he became the foremost French opera composer in the 1880s and 1890s through the premature death of Bizet, Chabrier's bad luck and the younger generation chasing after Wagner; I think it is Martin Cooper who offers this. Also why he offered all his final premieres to Monte Carlo – a slightly odd development which Harding or Irvine may explain. But I don't think these are major omissions.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • if it would be remotely of interest, his grandson was this man: http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82-157892/ Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just seen that in 1992 Éditions Plume of Paris published a new edition of the Souvenirs annotated by the eminent musicologist Gérard Condé. The complimentary review in L’Avant-Scène Opéra 148 (Sep/Oct 1992) considered it the foundation stone of reference for Massenet. I have not seen this book, but it may answer some of the outstanding questions. It also mentions work in progress by Patrick Gillis on a catalogue of works and correspondence by the composer. Or maybe it should be added as Other reading. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say! We certainly ought to mention this new(ish) edition, but M. Condé will need to have annotated very heavily to turn Massenet's endearing but wildly unreliable Souvenirs into a work of reference. As neither you nor I have seen it, I think all we can do for now is, as you say, list it under Further Reading, though that seems sadly dismissive if it is, as L'Avant-Scène Opéra says, so important as a work of reference. The British Library hasn't got a copy (though Condé is represented there by four commentaires on Massenet operas). I am delighted to see that the BL has "Mein Leben: Autobiographie – Jules Massenet; aus dem Französischen übertragen von Eva Zimmermann", but that doesn't help us much. Is there the slightest chance that you might lay hands on the Condé edition in the foreseeable future? Grateful for your thoughts on this. – Tim riley talk 19:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest I have never bothered to read the Souvenirs (because of their reputation) but I am tempted to track down this modern edition. It might be amusing. But I don't think the foreseeable future is possible, so probably Further Reading is all that can done for now. (PS I wonder if the British Library has Condé's 1974 article 'Faut-il brûler Massenet?', which sounds more like something by Boulez.) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does, but see also the caricature I have lately added to the article with Massenet in the Four Nationale de Musique, so crème Massenet brûlée would be on that menu. I am about to close this PR and I – and I hope you (see your talk page) – shall be at FAC later this week. Permit me to say that working with you is a very great pleasure. Tim riley talk 21:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alfietucker

[edit]

I know next to nothing about Massenet, but since you so kindly PR'd Noye's Fludde, I thought I would pop by and see if I could make any useful comments here. I really enjoyed the article - very engagingly written. Just a very few points:

  • Early years
    • "He gained some work as a piano accompanist, in the course of which he met Wagner" – this is interesting: do we know which year this happened?
      • We do. I have added a footnote. My opinion of Massenet rose considerably when I read his comment that Wagner played the piano "like a musician, not at all like a pianist". Give me Kempff, Curzon and Brendel rather than Horowitz, Cziffra or Cliburn! Tim riley talk 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excellent - and as you say, nice to read Massenet's comment. I recently came across what might be called a highly complimentary comment on Wagner's piano playing by Auguste Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, who reports that it was so overpowering his listeners finally had to beg him to stop: "at the end of two hours we are really ill. It's no longer a piano, or a voice, but a vision…" Alfietucker (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later years, 1896–1912
    • "a statement repeated by his biographers Macdonald and Irvine" – this is the first time Hugh Macdonald is mentioned in the main text (Irvine having been mentioned earlier with his full name): might we have his first name?
    • "His last major success was Don Quichotte" – perhaps worth mentioning that this was written with Feodor Chaliapin specifically in mind for the title role (though not one of Massenet's favourite singers, according to Opera Grove)?
      • Interesting. I'll ponder on that. As Donkey Shot has turned out to be one of Massenet's more revivable works (Van Allan brought a tear to the eye at the ENO) I am not sure I want to shift the focus from work to original star. I'll return to this after ruminating. Tim riley talk 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking maybe just a parenthetical note that it was originally written for Chaliapin; I find that quite interesting given how big a star Chaliapin was at the beginning of the 20th century and Massenet (I believe) tends to be thought of as a late 19th century figure. Still, it's only a small point and it's your baby - and a fine creation it is. Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Later: I've pondered, and I don't think we want to mention Chaliapin here. But what with WP:OWN and Roland Barthes' La mort de l'auteur it doesn't much matter what I think. Come one, come all! Tim riley talk 22:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tim, of course it matters what you think, as I'm sure you realise. Even if we don't always agree, I do think you are one of the most perceptive and intelligent, not to mention, one of the most collegial and sympathetic editors on WP. (Oh, and to hell with Barthes - he may have claimed to have liberated the text from its author, but his own approach to analysing narrative was itself restrictive and lacking in certain subtleties.) And of course it's possible that another editor *may* come up with the same point about Chaliapin; but until they do (and I certainly don't intend to "drum up support" for this really small point) I've no intention of pursuing this. :-) All best, Alfietucker (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Alfie, for these points. All very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jack of Oz

[edit]

Two comments:

  • ... she gave him his first piano lesson on ... the day on which the last French king, Louis-Philippe, abdicated. Why is this coincidence worthy of note? Was he in any way connected to Louis-Philippe?
    • Good point. This is how Massenet begins his memoirs, but there is no reason to believe it is true, or even very relevant. So blitzed.
  • "According to his memoirs" is twice used as a qualification. Is this meant to downplay his testimony as not being independent and therefore somewhat questionable? If that's the issue, can we not find independent sources for these items of information?
    • I think it important to say what he tells us in his wonderfully readable but highly imaginative memoirs: any statement of his purporting to be fact is, I hope, verified or balanced by other sources quoted at each point, cf. how long he was in Chambéry, reason for rejection of Hérodiade, why he left the Conservatoire in 1896 and so forth. I've added a bit in the text explaining that his memoirs are by no means gospel. Tim riley talk 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a lovely article. I made some small sp/pu/gr tweaks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions above, and eagle-eyed tweaks most gratefully received. Thank you, Jack! Tim riley talk 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

[edit]
  • Massenet was a popular and respected professor at the Paris Conservatoire from 1878 until 1896, when he resigned after the death of its director, Ambroise Thomas. Among his students were Gustave Charpentier, Ernest Chausson, Reynaldo Hahn and Gabriel Pierné. - This doesn't quite flow with the previous paragraph, in my opinion. Almost all of the lead (including the paragraph after this) is related to his composing career. The way his teaching is presented is rather jarring.
  • You seem to be to overuse the semi-colon a wee bit; I count fifty four in the article.
    • I'll have a ponder; I hate short, staccato sentences. – Tim riley talk 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • 54? Ha! That's in the amateur league, compared to my overuse: BB counted up a monumental 67 in George Formby. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • A lot of the semicolons are in bundled citations. In the main text and footnotes there are 34, of which four are the separators in the list of opera houses mentioned below, and four more are within quotations. I think 26 semicolons as against 249 full stops and 496 commas will probably pass muster. I've just gone through all 26, and I can't see any that I think would be better replaced by a full stop or a conjunction. – Tim riley talk 17:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prize brought a well-subsidised three-year period of study, with two of the years spent at the French Academy in Rome, based at the Villa Medici. - any way to avoid year - year? Perhaps "two of which were to be spent..."?
  • In October 1866 Massenet and Ninon were married; their only child, Juliette, was born in 1868. - what changed? Was he richer? Or did Ninon not care?
    • The sources don't say. He was no longer a student, and was earning a decent, if modest, living, so I suppose he seemed a likely enough breadwinner for her to say Yes. But this is speculation. – Tim riley talk 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, In October 1866 Massenet and Ninon were married; their only child, Juliette, was born in 1868. His ... - Might be confusing with Juliette as the most recently mentioned individual and the couple being the second most recent subject
  • the Hungarian State Opera House, the Bavarian State Opera, the Semperoper, Dresden, the Teatro Real, Madrid, and the Royal Opera House, London. - I'd standardise the linking and (I see the irony) separate with semi-colons and commas, rather than simply commas
  • Standardize whether your periods go before or after your quotation marks.
  • Other writers on French music have written - write / written
  • Other writers on French music have written that Massenet, intensely ambitious to succeed Thomas, resigned in pique, after three months of manoeuvring, once the authorities finally rejected his insistence on being appointed director for life, as Thomas had been. - perhaps we could reduce the number of commas/clauses?
  • Although the composer had been suffering from abdominal cancer for some months, his symptoms did not seem imminently life-threatening, but within a few days his condition deteriorated sharply. - Perhaps "Although the composer had been suffering from abdominal cancer for some months, his symptoms did not seem imminently life-threatening. However, within a few days his condition deteriorated sharply."
  • Although, when he chose, Massenet could write noisy and dissonant scenes - do we need the commas?
  • Un érotisme discret et quasi-réligieux - why does "quasi" become "semi"? My French is quite rusty, but I don't think quasi is a false friend.
    • The phrase is quoted several times in the various English sources I have consulted. "Semi" is more frequent, though there is the odd "quasi". I too prefer "semi" which seems more at home in English than "quasi", which people never know how to pronounce. – Tim riley talk 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A contemporary critic, not unsympathetic to Massenet, commented that Marie-Magdeleine and the later oratorio Ève (1875) were "the Bible doctored up in a manner suitable to the taste of impressionable Parisian ladies – utterly inadequate for the theme, at the same time very charming and effective." - worth naming him/her here?
  • Alfred de Musset, Guy de Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Théophile Gautier - Why do these gentlemen get their full names mentioned when the other authors you've named are last-name only? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thaïs was linked to the individual and not opera (I've fixed that). May want to double check your other links, especially the ones to Massenet's works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good grief! I had no idea there was a real Thaïs. Thank you for picking that up. Thank you, too, for all the excellent points, above, almost all of which I agree with. The one change you have made to the page that slightly bothers me is the increase in image size for the quadruple mug-shot in the Recordings section. It's fine in itself, but doesn't it make the picture of the elderly Massenet just below it look a bit cramped? – Tim riley talk 16:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What screen resolution are you at? There's a good two lines of white space under the quadruple image on my laptop (1366*768) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, they're not bumping into each other on either of my screens: I just mean that with the four-way mug-shot now that bit wider than it was, the pic of the elderly Massenet, originally the same width as the four-faces one, now looks a bit mean in size by comparison. Tim riley talk 16:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Partial image review by Adam Cuerden

[edit]

I love Massenet. I think anyone of taste does. Hence why I have so many featured content credits related to him. Now, I don't think it's necessary to stuff every one in, but I'll list the ones not in the article, for consideration: Images

Sounds

It's probably worth at least considering a sound file or two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Very pleased to see some such additions. You can probably slot them in more expertly than I can – pray go ahead. Tim riley talk 17:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I've added two of the sound files: the Manon and Le Cid ones. Tim riley talk 13:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Excellently done, not much to suggest:

Lede
  • "Showing early signs of musical talent, while still a schoolboy Massenet was admitted to France's principal music college, the Paris Conservatoire." is it unusual for a schoolboy to be admitted there? I'm wondering if the opening phrase is really needed as of course he would not have been admitted if tone deaf.
    • Concedo. Shall prune. (The libel laws make it imprudent for me to mention Sir Xxx Yyyy and Sir Zzz Aaaa from a certain British music college in the 1950s by way of disproving your concluding proposition.). Later: done. Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early
  • "south western France" should this be "southwestern"?
  • "Legion of Honour" you are so liberal with the French, I wonder why this in English?
    • I've tried to follow the titles of WP articles and (after a hell of a punch-up I seem to recall, to which I was not party) the Legion's title in our English WP is in English. For instance, I'd have put Berlioz's masterpiece in English, but (wrongly I feel) our WP article is Les troyens and so on... Tim riley talk 17:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Operas
  • "Moreover, his versatility means that there is no plot or locale that can be regarded as typical Massenet." possibly this would be better suited (maybe without "plot or") in the last paragraph of the preceding section.
  • "As well as his lyrical and passionate music," Is this bridge really necessary?
  • The word "popular" is used to excess in the final paragraph of this section.
Reputation
That's about it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, for these points – very much to the point. Some really rather careful reviewing is prompted, so if you'll be so kind as to look in a day or so hence I hope you'll find all adjusted to your satisfaction. Tim riley talk 17:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

With so great a cloud of witnesses on your behalf, you barely need my mutterings, but here they are for what they are worth. An excellent composer biography with which I can find little to criticise, but in nit-picking mode:

Lead
Early years
Early works
Operatic successes and failures, 1879–96
Later years, 1896–1912
Music
  • There is inconsistency in the article between "the conservatoire" and "the Conservatoire", the former being the most generally used, (as in this section, but lapses elsewhere).
  • The second paragraph of the "Opera" section seems somewhat assertive ("as many other composers do" and "Moreover...") It is not clear whose view is being summarised here.
    • I can't recall whom I was thinking of when I wrote this. Beethoven and Verdi are, I suppose, the two composers whom commentators most regularly chop into early, middle and late, but the same has been done to Brahms, Fauré, Elgar, Debussy, RVW, Walton, Britten and Cobbleigh. I've even seen the same distinction drawn in the excellent WP article on Mahler, here. But I've watered it down. – Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the roll of the Huntingdonshire cabmen in the Recording section really necessary? A lot of names, a lot of blue.
    • I know, but if I don't include a few you can bet your chemise that fans of Mme X and Signor Y will be shovelling names in by the cart-load. This way I can at least say "we've got enough already, and they were agreed at PR/FAC". There is the additional point that listing these A-list performers shows that Massenet attracts the top conductors and singers. – Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • I am slightly concerned about the two lengthy verbatim quotes, of 177 and 99 words respectively. Why should these anti-Massenet viewpoints be given such prominence, and at such length? The impression could be given that these judgements carry special authority, yet they are 100+ years old and, as you say later, there has been substantial reassessment of Massenet's work since that time. I think you should try to reduce these quotations considerably, retaining the saltier wording but otherwise relying on paraphrase.
    • I have boiled the odious Fuller Maitland's comments down hugely, leaving a few of his ipsissima verba for him to hang himself on. I've left more of the MT quote intact, after a few new cuts: I think it is now as condensed as it can usefully be, and I'd rather blitz it than try and prune any more. – Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was of course Strauss's comment on himself that he was a first-class second-rate composer, a piece of modesty or self-deprecation that Michael Steen calls "a pathetic understatement". I don't think Milnes understood this, and seems to accept it as a critical judgement. It still makes me smile, though.
    • I didn't know it was Strauss who said that of Strauss, and I shouldn't be in the least astonished to learn that Rodders missed the joke. The Strauss WP article is a dog's breakfast, and one of these days I'll do something about it, if I live long enough. – Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of nothing else to say, except a caveat on semicolons – 37 on my count, probably too many (I'll have to watch the same point on Noye's Fludde). I leave it to your judgement as to how many of my comments you take on board, and look forward to seeing it again further down the pipeline.

As this is the second time a reviewer has complained about the number of semicolons I have done something about it, though I don't think any of the changes is an improvement – quite the contrary.
Many thanks for this excellent review. Some splendid points, and except where I have fought back, above, all now effected. – Tim riley talk 13:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your entertaining responses is one of the things that makes reviewing worth while. One final sally: I don't think the "List of works" should be shown as the "Main article" in the Music Section hatnote – this is the main article, to which the list is an addendum. I would change this to "Further information". Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sally. Now changed. Your kind comments on the backchat are heartily reciprocated. Tim riley talk 16:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to all the contributors, above. I have greatly enjoyed and benefited from this peer review. I am now off to FAC in company with User:Cg2p0B0u8m Tim riley talk 21:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tales (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 am planning to nominate this article for GA review some time in the future, and wish to see what other major points need to be addressed before that time. I have been doing a major overhaul of this page over the past half-month and would appreciate comments from other users on what points can be expanded or tidied up.

Thanks, ProtoDrake (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the Bank (2011)

[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 (again) because I would like to nominate this article for FAC (again). I brought the article through a stringent GA review from an experienced editor in the professional wrestling field. Also, it's about time. The last professional wrestling-related Featured Article was passed in 2012, and the one before that was passed in 2009. I welcome any and all comments, even if you're not familiar with wrestling, I'd be interested on if it's understandable to you.

Thanks, starship.paint ~ regal 03:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from InedibleHulk

[edit]
I'm familiar with wrestling, unfamiliar with this process. The article looks alright to me, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for your evaluation! starship.paint ~ regal 11:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A question for you, InedibleHulk. Do you think that in the Aftermath section, "Punk later regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series by defeating Del Rio." that it would be relevant enough for this event (MITB 11) to mention Punk's 434 day reign? starship.paint ~ regal 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forget how those angles tied together, so can't say how relevant it seemed. Sorry. Like I say, I'm getting too old and the booking is getting too fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. I'm not really part of this system (man). I'll root for you, but I don't want to get that involved. I'm more Otto than Principal Skinner. This might be a job for Will. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Hopefully when the Featured Article nomination comes along? You're right, this is a job for WillC ... who's already done it, because he was reviewer that approved this as a Good Article. >_> starship.paint ~ regal 12:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from LM2000

[edit]
  • Is there a reason why The Canadian Online Explorer, The Sun, and Dave Meltzer aren't linked in the lede?
  • "On the following episode of Raw, McMahon attempted to sign Punk to a new contract to ensure that the WWE Championship would stay in WWE" Italicize Raw.
  • "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter later awarded the event the Best Major Show for 2011, while the main event won the Match of the Year" Italicize Wrestling Observer Newsletter
  • "However, Triple H interrupted and announced that the WWE Board of Directors" Would linking Board of directors (note lower case) be a good idea?
  • "Punk later regained the WWE Championship at Survivor Series by defeating Del Rio" Link to Survivor Series (2011)
All the previous are settled. Good catches!
  • Perhaps mention the historic length of Punk's second reign?
I did mention it originally, but WillC said it was more relevant to Punk's career than to the event (MITB '11) itself. Perhaps I will query Hulk.
Always good to seek another opinion. If it was there before Will suggested removal and I felt that it was missing after the fact then maybe it was just Will. Clearly it is not a major issue either way.LM2000 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bryan actually did manage to hold on to the World Heavyweight Championship until WrestleMania XXVIII, where he lost it to Sheamus" Something feels off about this sentence... perhaps a WP:NPOV vio underestimating Bryan. Also link WrestleMania XXVIII.
Wiki-linked and reworded. But the portion is referring to Bryan's original wishes to wrestle for the WHC at Mania when he first won MITB, which is mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
  • "During Laurinaitis' rule, he feuded with CM Punk and later John Cena,[57][58] until he was fired in June 2012 in the storyline.[59]" He was fired at No Way Out (2012), that's more precise than June 2012. "in the storyline" may be superfluous.
Added No Way Out. The storyline thingy is for uninformed readers unfamiliar with kayfabe, LM2000. starship.paint ~ regal 12:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It reads better now either way... too many "in"s for my taste in the previous version.LM2000 (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how thorough the check is supposed to be, but I do believe the article checks out alright and has no problem meeting the criteria.LM2000 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

[edit]
Settled!
  • "a briefcase hanging above the ring. The briefcases " singular or plural? Would it be more appropriate for the second sentence to start "Each briefcase..."?
Reworded the sentence, one briefcase can only challenge for one championship, not both.
  • "WWE Championship" redirects to "World Heavyweight Championship" yet in the second para of the lead you talk about both the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship as different entities.
It's a bit confusing, yes. In 2011 both championships existed separately under those names, but they were merged in 2013 with a new name.
  • "Alberto Del Rio won the Raw match while Daniel Bryan won the SmackDown match respectively." not convinced you need respectively here as its clear who won what.
Settled!
  • "numerous positive reviews" worthwhile stating in the lead that the event was a global broadcast as the two reviews you've picked out are from Canada and the UK.
Settled!
  • " "brands" - storyline " needs en-dash.
Settled!
  • Repetition of "title shot" in consecutive sentences is dull.
Settled!
  • Link names or don't link names... You don't relink Cena or Punk but you do Orton and Christian... be consistent.
Settled! Shouldn't have made this error. >_>
  • "win the contest. [4][23]" etc, avoid spaces between punctuation and refs.
Removed. So this applies even when the references support the whole paragraph instead of just the last sentence?
  • Be consistent with publication date formats and access date formats in the references.
Achieved with help!
  • Ensure ref titles comply with WP:DASH.
Er... should I be using the code – or just the (–)?
  • Be consistent with work/publisher usage, e.g. Ref 33 shows The Sun as a publisher, 34 shows it as a work.
Settled, I hope.

Overall I found the prose a little clunky, it could use a decent copyedit from someone more familiar with wrestling than me... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, The Rambling Man. I will work on them! starship.paint ~ regal 11:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on most of them, The Rambling Man. However, the purple replies require a reply from you. starship.paint ~ regal 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Conrad Weiser, Sr.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I started this article back in 2009, and have monitored the article, ensuring high quality, and searched for new information to include. I need some feedback into how I could bring the article above the C-class rating, and possibly achieve good article status in the future. I am currently out of ideas on improving the article, so any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, — AMK152 (t • c) 16:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead is far too short to give a good summary of the article. I would go (briefly) into such points as who the Palatines were, why they fled Germany, where Hunter was governor of (presumably New York) what the dispute was about and how it led to his downfall.
  • Is it known when he married?
  • " He fought during the Nine Years' War and served as a Corporal in the military." This seems the wrong way round. Perhaps something like "He served as a corporal in the army of the Holy Roman Empire, and fought in the Nine Years' War of 1688 to 1697 between a coalition of European powers and France."
  • "Soon after the birth of Conrad Jr" I would give the year. Is it known whether he was the eldest son?
  • "The Germans were to produce tar from the trees, but they were unsuitable." I do not understand this. The wrong sort of trees?
  • "to governor Robert Hunter." Governor of New York?
  • "But, despite the fact that Hunter had let the Germans go free, he threatened the Germans not to move to Schoharie, or he would see it as rebellion" I do not understand this. Go free from what? "he threatened the Germans not to move to Schoharie" is ungrammatical and seems out of place they had already been there for some time at this point.
  • "The government of New York was displeased with the Germans, despite having left New York." Why despite?
  • "to make deeds for the Palatines" What deeds?
  • "The German deputies" What deputies?
  • Who is Vrooman.
  • Walrath grew tired - tired of waiting?
  • "By this time, Hunter had resigned as governor" This appears to say that Hunter had decided to move but in the lead it says that the representatives contributed to his downfall. This needs explaining.
  • This is an interesting article but I found some of the language unclear and hard to follow.
  • The family association publication would not generally considered a reliable Wikipedia source as it is self-published. I would use alternative sources where possible. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Moon

[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 is one of the high-importance articles for the WP:ANIME project and I think it would deserve to be developed to at least GA status.

It was once promoted to GA back in 2007. However, it was soon delisted due to failing the GAC and relisted in 2009 and then delisted yet again for sourcing problems in 2013. Despite being subjected to some disputes in the past the article has been stable for the past few weeks. At this point, I think it would be best to get some consensus from experienced editors as to what should be concentrated on, what could (or should) be removed, and so on, so that we can prioritize on what aspects of the article should be developed, and in what ways they should be developed.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Nauru

[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 nominate it for GA. However, I want it to go though a peer review to get some feedback on how to improve it. I have made the page according to Demographics of Croatia (another GA), and I think I have done a good job thus far. Thank you in advance for any comments.

Thanks, —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the name conforms with the Croatia article, but Demogaphy appears to be preferred to Demographics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#"Demography" being changed to "Demographics" as a section heading. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to change the article name, but 1) how would that affect the peer review and 2) I see that UK is the only country (from what I've found) to have demography instead of demographics. Demography of Australia, for example, redirects to Demographics of Australia.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you raise this at the Talk page above. If you mention that the article is at PR you might get someone expert reviewing it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turboliner

[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 over the past two years I've put the article through a major revamp. Major changes include the use of reliable sources (instead of forums and such), a clearer split between the two different types of Turboliners, and a more thorough discussion of their use in the Midwest. I'm interested in taking the article to GA status but I believe the article would benefit from a thorough examination by a third party. At least to my mind the history of the Turboliners is complicated and not always well-documented.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdwardH

[edit]
  • {{rp}} is intended for references which are used many times in an article, instead of those used only once. Use shortened footnotes instead.
  • The Background section is unreferenced. The section also doesn't cover their much of their background and focuses more on the scale of their use.
  • In the RTG Design subsection, information on maintenance and retirement would be better in the Service subsection.
  • WP:Accessibility forbids the use of bold psuedo-headings (as used in the Service subsection). Instead use the === ... === syntax.
  • "US$" is unnecessary considering that these trains served only in the US.
  • The manual of style forbids the mixing of en-dashes and "between".
  • Some of the sources have all-caps titles; normalising the capitalisation makes them easier to read.
  • ISBN's are inconsistently formatted.
  • "miles per hour" can be shortened to "mph".
  • Why where the trains where ordered? What role(s) were they meant to fulfil?
  • Perhaps a brief note on their replacements?
  • Citation 22 is rather short.

It's a good article and I think you'll be able to get it to good article status. EdwardH (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alkali metal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The first article I started rewriting in 2011. It is one of the most important periodic table groups (the others being noble gas, FA, and halogen, C) and I intend to make it an FA, as it deserves no less.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parcly Taxel

[edit]

Right, let's get started, eh?

  • Media are completely fine, appropiately licenced, no worry about them.
  • I'd object to the serial comma (as can be seen in the first sentence) – British English is used here. For example: characterized -> characterised in the third sentence.
  • The sections should be arranged like in fluorine now.

I could give more comments later but I am stuck up with fluorine's FAC… I need promotion now. Parcly Taxel 01:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the sections. A thorough check for British English will be done later. Double sharp (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
British English:done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alkali_metal&oldid=620108016 Bogger (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bogger! Double sharp (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch the resectioning: it's kind of hard to follow F because this article has extra sections (this is because it's a group). Double sharp (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Corvinus

[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 gone through a major restructuring and expansion and it clearly needs some improvement before GAN.

Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "He began reigning under his uncle's guardianship, but he took the reins": reigning -> his rule
  • "Matthias strengthened his rule after a 5-year-long period of struggle.": I'd delete this topic sentence, since I didn't know what "strengthened his rule" meant until I read the paragraph.
  • "In order to increase royal revenues, Matthias introduced new taxes and regularly collected extraordinary taxes.": Delete "In order to increase royal revenues"; that's implied.
  • "Matthias overcome their rebellion": ... overcame ...
  • "an important Ottoman border fort on in 1476.": ... fort, in 1476.
  • "one of the largest collection": ... collections
  • "the first country which adopted": the first country to adopt
  • "the monarch wandering among his subjects": the monarch who wandered among his subjects
  • I got down to the end of the lead. The prose is engaging. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dank}, thank you for your time and comments. I modified the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Brewing Company

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just did a major rewrite of the article and I would like some feedback on things that I can do better. I've never had an article go through peer review, GA, or FA before. I didn't really have anything specific about it that I wanted to have reviewed. I've listed it under history because the company no longer exists. Its recent history, but history still.

Thanks, Zell Faze (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holmgrenanthe

[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…

User:Peter coxhead did a lot of good work on this article about a pretty obscure plant few are likely to ever see, and an article few are likely to ever read. I am starting the WP:GAN process, and the instructions say to first ask for a peer review, so here it is. This is my first time doing this, so please correct any errors I make in doing this.

Thanks, FloraWilde (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A compact, well-written article about an obscure topic. The taxonomy section should explain what genera Pennell and Rothmaler assigned this taxon to, since those synonyms are in the taxobox. I would hyphenate more of the compound adjectives (e.g., low-growing, globe-shaped) but that may be my personal quirk of style. The article is set up in conformity with the WikiProject Plants template and has the sections that are appropriate for this rather esoteric plant. I haven't made a close check against Jepson's Manual to confirm the details of the description, but I presume it's in order. (Arguably, Jepson is more standard and might be a better source than MacKay for morphology; nothing against MacKay for reliability, just that Jepson is a more likely source for people to pick up in general when looking at plant descriptions.)

A few suggestions for improvement above and beyond the call of duty:

  • this webpage suggests the largest population is in an unnamed canyon north of Fall Canyon. I'm not sure Mr. Ellis can still be tracked down, but he might be able to shed light on the matter, and whether his findings were ever published in a reliable source, maybe by a California native plant society or something of that sort.
  • Are there any publications describing desert limestone cliff communities? Holmgrenanthe isn't the only endemic of this habitat, and some general ecological background on it would fill out the distribution and habitat section a bit.
  • There are a number of pictures of this plant online, under both the current and original names. Maybe write to one of the photographers and see if they'll release a photo to Commons? That's probably the single biggest improvement that can be made here; the description was good, but I couldn't quite grasp just what it looked like until I saw a photo. Choess (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelstan A

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get this article at least to GA and I would like feedback on getting it to that level.

Thanks, Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus videography

[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 whether it can be nominated for featured list or it isn't up to the mark as of now.

Thanks, CyrockingSmiler (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
My FAC is still waiting so I may as well get any comments I can in the meantime; it had one previous peer review that closed from inactivity. Truly, anything helps. Thanks in advance. This isn't a topic that'd normally be taken too seriously (though I contend it should be; it has some seriously dark and touching episodes and, while not exactly brilliant in this way, more satire of the U.S. than you'd expect from a kids' anime), but I really want to get it to FA.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage

[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it go to FL status.

Thank you, LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

Hi Lady, I didn't see this was one of yours when I edited previously, or that was at PR. There are a few things that jump to my eye, and I'll comment on them fully very shortly for you. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Four paras max only. (You could merge paras 3, 4 and 5 quite happily).  Done I combined 3 and 4 together, figured 5 was about her theatre so it could stay separate. That ok?
  • You'll need to add cites to anything in the lead that isn’t mentioned in the tables  Done

Tables

  • You need to add column and row headers to pass WP:access. Have a look at a terrible FL by some pain of an editor ;) You'll see here how you'll need to put scope="col" on each of the columns, and scope="row" at the beginning of each row.  Done Schro, usually it's just the title of a film that gets the "row" right? Or do I need to literally put it on every row? See what I've done already and tell me if I need more.
  • It goes at the start of the row (so computer readers for the partially sighted know when a row of new information will start). I've tweaked the films list, not the others tho... - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is going wrong with your sort on the films, TV programmes, and stage shows column. {{sort|Big Sleep|''[[The Big Sleep (1946 film)|The Big Sleep]]''}} should work OK for you, with the same format throughout.  Done Should be anyway
  • Still a couple out of sync here: A Conversation with Gregory Peck and A Star for Two sort on A.  Done
  • You'll need to sort the roles column by surname  Done - with your help :)
  • No probs: I've done it for the first two (Rose Cullen & Vivian Sternwood Rutledge), so the same format runs through.
  • You don't need to sort the ref column.  Done

Non-FL requirements to think about

  • Your call (not an FL requirement), but I tend to heads the refs column as {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}}, which explains the term on a hovering mouse.  Done
  • Another non-FL requirement to consider is to centre the refs by having | style="text-align: center;" | at the start of the refs line. I find it looks better on the screen, but you may think otherwise and it's your call.  Done

Refs

  • You need to sort the caps in the refs (some are, some aren't). What do you mean?
  • Sorry - that wasn't clear at all and I confused myself when I looked at it again! If you look at use of caps in FNS 1-3 "Lauren Bacall Has Died at Age 89" uses caps differently from the sentance use on FNs 4, 15, 18, 29, 39 and 41 "Legendary Hollywood actress Lauren Bacall, sultry star of screen and stage, dies at age 89 from stroke". I think the MOS has the first one right. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Lol it's ok It should be  Done if this is what you meant.[reply]
  • FN21 Doesn't need shouty caps  Done
  • You need to change the publisher field to work like this ("publisher" is the company behind the works, and italicises the works properly).  Done

Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two further areas for you to look at:

  • Firstly, we no longer open the leads of lists with the words "This is a list" (or similar), as it's fairly obvious what it is. "Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress of film, television and stage." is the more common format - or a variation along those lines, at least. You also mention Hawks changing her name: I would leave that out, partly because you don't mention what her name was originally, and partly because it's not really needed in the filmography - much better that stays in the biography of the main article. If you would rather keep it in there, add a footnote to tell people what the name was, so they don't flick over the main article and don't come back!  Done
  • The only other thing you may want to do (again, your call) is to add one or two images from WikiCommons oppostite the TV and stage tables.  Done

You'll need to do something about the first point for FLC; the second is your choice. If you're happy with the content, then I think it's strong enough to go to FLC as it is. As a delegate I rarely support things that go through (except to nudge them over the line), but I think I'll certianly make an exception with this one! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much for all your input and help! I really appreciate it! This is the first article I've ever tried to get to FL so we'll see what happens. I think with what I had and your help plus anything else someone wants to throw in would be a great FL! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! It should be good to put through: if it was one of "my" lists, I'd be pitching it in there about now as it's certainly strong enough as it stands. There may be a couple of minor things people pick up on, but not too much, I shouldn't imagine. How could anyone not like a page that has that image at the top?! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know right?! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • I'm thinking this article could be retitled "Lauren Bacall filmography"  Done
@SchroCat:, what are your thoughts on the title? @Cassianto: what "bad move" are you referring to? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the ill-judged move by SNUGGUMS which resulted in this article being given an inaccurate title. I would have also expected such a move to have been discussed first, but that's a different matter. I agree with it being given SchroCat's suggested title below. Cassiantotalk 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lady, I missed the change on this. I'm not sure it's an improvement and yes, someone is bound to oppose on the basis of the title: it's not a filmography as you've got more than just films listed. As it includes stage and TV work too then I think the Lauren Bacall on screen and stage format is probably your best bet—unless you can come up with a better format of title! – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Cassiantotalk 20:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply using "filmography" as a basis of other pages listing film/television appearances. The page came across as one of those when I read it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a fan of the columns, the way it looks with the colors being too much and it doesn't give a whole lot of info. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the main Lauren Bacall page, I see that the infobox photo indicates the photo was taken in the 1940s. That should be noted here since it is the same photo used.
I never changed it because of the reason Schro gave. It doesn't say anything about being in the 40s and to say so would be a guess, I didn't want to give an inaccurate guess so I just left it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the infobox. Don't worry, I was joking ;) Cassiantotalk 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences could be merged to something like "Lauren Bacall (1924 – 2014) was an American actress who was from The Golden Age of Hollywood, along with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth".
  • That works too
What is linked now "Golden Age of Hollywood" redirects to "Classical Hollywood cinema". I did combine the first two sentences together though. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize what "She was also trained to make her voice lower, deeper, and sexier" is trying to say, but "sexier" is POV. Some detail on what she did with vocal training would be useful.
  •  Done sort of. I couldn't find a whole lot about HOW she lowered it, just that she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Lotus (talk • contribs)
 Done
  • If available, I would include detail on any roles that won her major awards such as Golden Globes or Academy Awards.  Done
  • Since the "radio" section is so short, I wonder how much it really merits to be on this article if it can't be converted to tables like the other sections aside from lead.  Done since being removed
  • To clarify what SchroCat was trying to say on italics, the "work" field automatically italicizes terms while the "publisher" field does not:
I knew about these since I had asked you about them previously. Do you see any that are or aren't italicized when they should be? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The following need to be italicized: FN1, FN2, FN3, FN9, FN10, FN12, FN18, FN24, FN28, FN32, FN48, and FN49. The following should NOT be italicized: FN8, FN19, FN22, FN27, FN29, FN33, FN36, FN37, FN44, and FN45. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)  Done I switched the non-italicized titles to "publisher" and left the ones that needed to be italicized as "work" since that parameter automatically italicizes them[reply]
  • New York Post is not a reliable source, and I'm not too sure about "LemonWade" or "Bold Venture". I removed LemonWade and Bold Venture was removed when the Radio section was deleted. But I can't find anything saying the NY Post is unreliable. Was there a discussion about it not being reliable?
  • Remove "Online" from "Hamptons Online"- we don't need to know that this is the online edition of a print publication  Done
  • As a general note, observe the linking of terms within refs. I recommend linking all when they have pages or only first instances (i.e. linking the first Los Angeles Times ref when there are multiple articles used from that source)  Done I think, I've tried to remove all the duplicate links when I found them
  • Include roles in all fields, I see some missing.  Done to the best of my ability, some of her roles she didn't have a name.

Hope this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @SNUGGUMS:, I always appreciate your feedback. After this discussion, is there anything else you can see that needs improving or you think I could go to FLC with it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, happy to help :). I'll make some tweaks later and let you know when it's ready for FLC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]
  • "Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress who was among the actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood..." Two things:
    • The article starts by talking about the actress and not the subject in hand, her career.
      • How would you start it? Most articles even about their work starts out by saying what they did.
        • I would say "The American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in many mediums of entertainment, including film, theatre and radio. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, she was one of the most prolific performers during the Golden Age of Hollywood" or something like that. This isn't an essential fix, but I think starting out in a different way would separate this article from all of the others which all start off in the same, boring way. Cassiantotalk 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about "American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in film, television and theatre. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Being English I prefer the use of the definite article, but I appreciate that this is not used in AmEng articles such as this. Now, saying "Together with Monroe and Hayworth, Bacall was one of the leading ladies..." is, I feel, inaccurate as there were many more leading ladies during that time; your wording suggests that there were just three only, Bacall, Hayworth and Monroe. If you choose to go ahead and use this, then I feel some sort of extended adverb should be added between "the" and "leading": For example, "Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the most prominent leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" or "Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the most popular leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" etc. That would be my only stipulation if you were to use your preferred opening. However, you will need to cite the claim that she was "prominent" or "most popular" as that is quite a claim and without a cite, you could be accused of POV. Cassiantotalk 22:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    • Repetitive use of "actress" and "actresses"  Done
  • "She started her career..." Who? Bacall, Monroe or Hayworth?  Done
  • "She started her career as a teenage fashion model, when she appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and was discovered by Howard Hawks' wife Nancy..." I don't think the comma adds much.  Done
  • "She was also trained to make her voice lower, and deeper due to Hawks' suggestion since she naturally had a high-pitched, nasal voice." Two things:
    • Again, the comma is misplaced and would work better by using just the conjunction.  Done
    • The sentence feels a bit awkward. I would say "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper as Hawks' disliked her naturally high-pitched, nasal voice."
Kinda done because I didn't find anything about him NOT liking it, just that he though it would be better deeper. I think to say he disliked it would be OR. I just took the part out about him completely and reworded it to "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper by shouting Shakespeare for hours every day as she naturally had a high-pitched and nasal voice". Better?
The Shakespeare claim is an interesting one, thanks. I fiddled with the prose somewhat, but yes this is a lot better. Cassiantotalk 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her first film appearance was with Humphrey Bogart in the 1944 film To Have and Have Not." -- New para requires a new noun and not a pronoun continuation.  Done
  • "She later married Bogart in 1945..." -- We don't need "later" and the year; one or the other should suffice. In fact, I would just say "the following year" seeing as we are only in 1944 in the previous sentence.  Done
  • "She also appeared in Murder on the Orient Express (1976) and The Shootist (1976)." -- who did, Bacall or Wood?  Done
  • "In later years, she appeared in the films..." -- New para, new noun.  Done
  • Bafta Award, Academy Award I repetitive. I would delete the first "award".  Done
  • "Her television work included appearances in episodes..." -- "in episodes" is redundant.  Done
  • Is it really necessary to say "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", in the image captions? The second one even has hare picture and name in the screen shot!  Done
  • Amália Traïda and 1955 Motion Picture Theatre Celebration in the tables are missing a reference, why?  Done added ref to Amália Traïda, removed Motion Picture Theatre because I couldn't find a RS for it.
  • The image caption in the TV section needs to be looked at. There are three people in that image with Bacall being the obvious, and Bogart correctly described as being in the middle. Do we need "right" for Fonda's location within the picture seeing as he is the only person left?  Done
  • Compare this to the next image in the stage section and we have no locations for persons depicted.  Done

I just saw your question to SNUGGUMS asking if this is ready for FLC. I'm sorry, but I don't think it is, hence my review here. I think after this then it will be ready though. I will go through this again later today to make sure everything has been caught. Cassiantotalk 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, please go through it again, I just made the changes you suggested, so check again :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mississauga

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I want to run this article for GA sometime, but I first want some more tips to improve the article. Mistakes are easier to identify by another person. I want suggestions mostly on the references, and the coverage. Any other info is welcome too.

Thanks, TheQ Editor (Talk) 21:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber

[edit]
  • Am not a fan of "most xxx city" rankings listed by various magazines and chambers of commerce etc. Not sure whether the lead warrants 1 or 3 paras devoted to these..surely there are some other factoids...?
  • Be worth pointing out in the lead (and body I guess) where it is in relation to Toronto (East, West etc.)checkY
  • Paras 3, 4 and beyond in the History section need inline citations.checkY
  • To make the prose flow smoothly, the two isolated sentences after para 5 in the History section should be expanded or merged into another para. Look at the content and see what you can come up with.checkY
  • were amalgamated by a somewhat unpopular provincial decree in 1968 to form the Town of Mississauga. - more info here...curious....
  • More uncited paras need citing in geography
  • Is it flat or hilly? Soil type?
  • There is an expand tag in the economy section. Not sure what else should go here. If you feel nothing then remove the tag..
  • Politics...is itr mainly conservative or left-wing...

Prose is fair overall and is good enough for GA at first impressions. The size indicates you have some room for expansion if need be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Last Vow

[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 the GA review, and a bit of feedback from J and the Dr (J Milburn and Dr. Blofeld), both seemed positive. J advised taking it to peer review to see what needed doing before hopefully the next step is taken.

Thanks, Matty.007 09:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the article is absolutely stellar, and couldn't find any real errors. I thought in the lead, it could read "The episode received a positive reception from critics, and Mikkelsen's performance as Magnussen, in particular, was praised." Also, the line spacing after the Moftiss interview in "Critical Recpetion" section is a little wonky, almost like there are two spaces there. Beyond that, it's a very strong article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not nominating for FA now as going off wiki for a few months, but if I return, who knows? I think you meant Gatiss rather than the Moftiss (imagine them blended!), and changed both issues per the suggestions. Thanks for the help, Matty.007 19:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, I meant Moftiss (which is the online name to refer to them as a team, but I guess that is less known that I realized). Glad to have helped. Best wishes.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Nadeem

[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 bring this article to GAC sometimes in the future. As no-one ever review it before and it's out of regular editing so I'd like feedback regarding everything like grammar, prose, inline citations, etc.

Thanks, Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overall it needs a good copyedit, but only once you're sure you've exhausted every reliable source you can (always difficult with peopl ein mid-career, I know, but newspaper searches are often good grounds in which to hunt. A few comments below for you to mull over:

Career

  • "Gen.": don't abbreviate on the first use: use the full title so people understand what it is.
  • "Shahid" It took me a moment to realise we were talking about Nadeem. Use the family name throughout, without exception
  • Zia...Zia: Should be avoided. Consider re-drafting to "During the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, Shahid was imprisoned for his political activism in 1969, 1970 and 1979."
  • "he was forced to live out abroad": Firstly you don't need "out"; secondly a few more details would be good, if available in the sources: "forced" by who, and how? Threatened by gangsters; nationality revoked by the government; economic migrancy; or did he just think Pakistan was becoming too risky for him? I'm also not sure about the dates (1991-93): was that when he was in HK, or when he was working for Amnesty? Depending on what you can find from the sources, perhaps think about re-framing as:
  • "Because his political activity was leading Nadeem into increasing problems with the government, he moved to London in 1980., where he worked for Amnesty International until 1988. (Add information about his writing work in here—see below for my chronology point). He moved to Hong Kong between 1991 and 1993, and then to Los Angeles.[4]"
  • An idea of when he returned to Pakistan would be good, if available
  • Try and run through events chronologically. The second and third paragraphs (Nadeem has directed and written several plays for theatres, also directed and written television serials mostly for PTV.[6][7] His mostly plays are originally written in Urdu and Punjabi languages while others are adaption of English plays.[4] / He also worked for some newspapers like The Express Tribune.[8]) are summaries of his life, rather than a read through of his career. We jump from Los Angeles to him writing television work in Pakistan. There's no reference to any thoughts of him writing before, so it jars a bit.
  • His plays date back to his time in London, so you should make reference of his burgeoning writing career
  • The Express Tribune stories all seem to be from 2011, so can be dropped chronologically into the right section
  • You need to watch your formatting for italics: neither Naseem Abbas nor Akshara Theatre
  • Saadat Hassan Manto should be linked on the first reference, not lower down

Filmography and Awards

  • Nothing in these two sections carries a citation
  • "Films" & "Television": You don't need notes columns if there are no notes

Footnotes

  • Does Pakistan use the American date format (April 12, 2013)? I thought they adopted for themselves the British system (12 April 2013)? (A few Pakistan-related FAs & FLs I glanced at also use the DMY format).
  • FN4 should be formatted as The Columbia Encyclopedia of Modern Drama
  • Why is FN8, 14 and 18 tribune.com.pk, but FN 19 The Express Tribune? Be consistent throughout
  • Ditto FN16 (The Hindu) and FN 17 (thehindu.com)

Hope these help! - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few suggestions. I agree with what SchroCat says above:

  • Consider separating out different aspects of his career into different sections.
  • How do you know it was British India rather than part of an independent nation if he was born in 1947 but you can't tell any more specific?
  • Avoid short, one paragraph sections.
  • I agree with the need for a copyedit. Once that is done, come back to me and I'll review again.
  • Much potential here but needs some work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and Praise music

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is my first time writing a Wikipedia article. I need to know if I've listed adequate citations and references. I'd like to know if I had made an easy transition from one paragraph to another paragraph, or from one section to another.

Thanks, Kindlerashod (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiko

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm seeking to bring this article to Featured Article status. I believe it is on its way there, but need some additional feedback on the writing style, whether it is comprehensive, the current referencing system, and the "additional sources" section on whether it is appropriate to keep it (it had been there since I started working on the article). Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell (video game)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i wanted to know if it meets any of the requirements of FA status. I noticed the article is made up of high-quality sources, but i know there are other issues to consider. Let me know what needs to be done to become FA.

Thanks, Lucia Black (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 84.127.80.114

[edit]

The nominator is currently under a topic ban. Until my own peer review starts or another editor takes care of this article, I will take her place. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endometrial cancer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this one for awhile and am looking for a mid-development/pre-GAN review. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well done for tackling this topic, Keilana. Some general advice and pointers. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expand all technical terms (e.g. pyometra) on first use. (The pyometra article is mostly about veterinary medicine, by the way!)
      •  Done
    • I would move lifetime risk from "Risk factors" to "Epidemiology".
      •  Done
    • The "Pathophysiology" section is exclusively about molecular biology but doesn't say a lot about how this leads to proliferation, invasion, metastasis. For the lay leader this may be confusing. I am not sure how much there is to say about the tumour microenvironment, but it might need covering.
      •  Done, I think.
    • The term "evaluate" is rarely used in British English and perhaps an Atlantically neutral term might work better.
      •  Done
    • Would the "classification" section be more effective if it was presented in the form of a table?
    • The same applies to the FIGO staging.
      •  Done
    • In the "surgery" section, the reason for performing mastectomy in type II cancers is not explained. Presumably this is prophylactic?
      • Yes it is.  Done
    • In "add on therapy", which tumor marker is associated with endometrial cancer? Is this a reference to Ca125?
      • Yes it is but that information got shuffled elsewhere and makes much more sense now.
    • I would integrate "Complications of treatment" with discussions about the respective treatments.
      •  Done
    • "Treatment of recurrences" is technically palliation rather than cure, and perhaps this should be emphasised.
      •  Done
    • Some of the references are not secondary sources (e.g. much of the "Quality of life" subsection).
      • I think I got them all.

Thank you so very much for this review! It was incredibly helpful. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA World Cup top goalscorers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked on this list quite a bit and I think it is complete. I would appreciate any feedback about its contents, and what would miss to be a FL.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through.

  • The first sentence starts "Over 20 goals were scored": shouldn't this be "have been scored"? Also, I'd suggest "penalties converted during shootouts" rather than "converted penalties during shootouts".
  • Just Fontaine holds the record for goals scored in a single finals tournament. I think you should state that somewhere. It's apparent that that's the case from the data, but it is such a remarkable feat that I think it deserves to be specifically mentioned.
  • As far as I can tell, the timeline section sorts the players by the actual time in the game that each goal was scored, which is a nice touch. I think this should be mentioned, perhaps in the text above the table, as it's not clear to the reader otherwise.
  • "Since the first goal of the tournaments was scored by French player Lucien Laurent at the 1930 FIFA World Cup, over 1200 players have scored goals at the final tournaments": this is "tournaments" three times and "final tournaments" twice in the first two sentences. How about "Since the first goal, scored by French player Lucien Laurent at the 1930 World Cup, over 1,200 players have scored goals at these tournaments." I'd also suggest changing "at the initial tournament" to "in 1930" in the following sentence.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and suggestions. For #3 I am not sure how to fix that. The caption already says "Progressive list of". Nergaal (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fixes look good; I copyedited a little. For #3, how about adding a sentence to [nb 5]: "The order in which these players are listed reflects the actual elapsed time in the games when their goals were scored", or something along those lines? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, tx! Nergaal (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Drogba

[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 at the suggestion of Oldelpaso, after I nominated it as a featured article candidate (see the discussion here). Apparently there's a few issues in some parts of the article, including the lead which is too long according to the peer review tool, and I'd like some help to take it up to FA-class. Thanks. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick comments - I was asked to stop by and say a few words...

  • Avoid using the same item to link to different things, e.g. you have Ligue 1 blue-linked twice in a paragraph, but leading to different targets, very confusing.
  • Avoid overlinking in general, e.g. you have Chelsea linked in the opening para of the lead and third para of the lead.
  • " He made his last appearance for Chelsea..." is this still relevant since he's re-"signed?
  • "Drogba's personal life was also becoming more serious" I get it but it reads oddly to me.
  • "making 21 appearances and scoring five times" vs "eleven appearances and score three goals" inconsistent approach to MOSNUM here.
  • "outfit" sounds very tabloid newspaper to me.
  • "at OM is also " OM?
  • "Drogba remains a club legend in Marseille, despite playing only one season for the club." no reference, looks like OR to me.
  • "10 in the Premier League, five in the Champions League and one in " more MOSNUM issues.
  • Beginning of 2006–07 section is bereft of references.
  • " giving superb performances in all." no ref, looks like OR.
  • Second para of 2007–08 section is unreferenced.
  • Check image captions, if they aren't complete sentences they shouldn't have full stops.
  • "joining Chinese Super League side Shanghai Shenhua, also joining ...." repetitive.
  • " a 1 and a half-year " do you mean "one-and-a-half-year"?
  • You linked £ but I didn't see if you linked the Euro.
  • "Mohamed Salah, who wore the number during the 2013–14 season, took over the number 17 shirt vacated by Eden Hazard." no ref.
  • Lots of the begninning of "international career" section unreferenced.
  • Honours section unreferenced.
  • Works in references (e.g. LA Times) should be in italics.
  • Avoid tabloids, they're not considered RS mostly (e.g. Daily Mirror, The Sun etc)
  • Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • Fix dead links.
  • Be consistent with scoreline formats in refs.
  • BBC or BBC Sport? Be consistent.
  • Make sure refs are filled out correctly, e.g. refs 126 and 127 have no information.

The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed all the issues you've pointed out here, except for the point on the Honours section. The manual of style for players on WP:FOOTY doesn't contain references in its Honours section, and they wouldn't be necessary since often they'd already have been mentioned in the body or the respective articles of these tournaments would show that the player's teams did win these honours at the time the player was a part of these teams. I think refs would only be necessary if the honour doesn't have an article of its own or if it hasn't been mentioned in the article yet.
Aside from all that, I also included a "Style of play" section at Oldelpaso's suggestion in the initial FAC nomination, and it would be helpful if you looked at the article again and told me whether or not it's ready for another FAC nomination. Thanks, Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 18:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with relying on sourcing in linked articles is that you can't guarantee that what you believe is sourced is actually sourced. Even if it is sourced in the target article, it may not continue to be sourced. It'd be best if you sourced all claims in this article without relying on other articles whose quality is currently uncertain and certainly unknown in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: That's a good point, although I think it's more relevant to individual honours. Looking at other articles of footballers like Cristiano Ronaldo, or Thierry Henry (a former featured article) I can see (some of) those are referenced. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 13:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect finding individual inline references for his honours would take about as long as trying to argue a counterposition whereby other articles do it a different way or it's ok, it'll be referenced in the target article etc. Drogba is modern enough a player to have all his sources online, the honours are all just a Google away. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Yeah I'll be working on that as soon as I can. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 16:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've referenced all his individual honours and records, except for the Chelsea Players' Player of the Year award for 2007. Couldn't find a source for that one. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

@Oldelpaso and The Rambling Man: I think all the issues with the article are sorted now. Is it ready for another FAC? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 14:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taliesin (studio)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am looking for some feedback on Taliesin, the longtime home and studio of American architect Frank Lloyd Wright. I hope to take it to GAC and perhaps even FAC in the future, but its been a loooong time (six years) since I have been through either process. This is also an entirely different topic than what I am used to working on. I am interested in content additions that could push this article over the top.

Cheers, Teemu08 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've done a major copy-edit to the list and I want to take this to a featured list status. Constructive comments and suggestions from reviewers at peer review will polish the list.

Thanks, —Zia Khan 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If you were to take this to FL, List of Pakistan Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut (currently an FLC), clearly overlaps with that. —Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – From a brief scan, I see that there is no large traditional list here. I understand that this mainly is a summary of other lists, but comprehensiveness is a challenge when we're not even mentioning most of the relevant players. One avenue that you could pursue is the creation of a summary table, as in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster. That would at least provide a tabluar element, while providing a convenient place to put links to the various subarticles. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You might want to explain/link/expand "permanent Test status" as to the non-initiated, this is jargon.
  • "comprises forty-five of them being taken" just "comprises forty-five taken" etc.
  • When I finally get the list, I'm disappointed, the list doesn't really exist. I'd like to see all 141 here. Otherwise this is a directory of links to other articles. And some don't even exist.
  • "Six, thirteen and thirty-six bowlers from four, five and nine different nations respectively, have taken eight, seven and six wickets in a Test innings on debut." bizarre phrasing. Virtually impossible to follow.

I think I'll stop here, I don't think I like the structure and my penultimate point means that if unresolved, I wouldn't be able to support this at FLC. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Pierce

[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… Designate and I intend to take it to FAC and we'd like to do as much of the heavy lifting in advance as possible.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The lead is great. I did some copyediting on it per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you use Template:Refbegin and Template:Refend to reduce the text size in the Bibliography
  • there is a fair bit of WP:OVERLINKing, "slavery in the US" in the lead, the 1928 election, Whig Party, Isaac Hill, Representative, temperance, war against Mexico, dark horse, TB, AG, internal improvements, Navy Secretary, Dobbin, Portsmouth, Andover, Grant, civil war and manifest destiny
  • the article is at the limit of readable proze size (at nearly 10,000 words), but that is probably ok for a POTUS
  • checklinks identified one link that needs attention per this
  • a couple of images need alt text per this
  • I converted a bare ref
  • I ran a dash script and fixed a couple
  • I'll do another read through later on today for obvious grammatical errors, feel free to revert anything I do
  • you are obviously familiar with this system of referencing, but I suggest switching it to sfn for simplicity and to avoid bare and uncombined refs cropping up, and to compact the citations
  • the older books have oclc numbers which should be added, they available via Worldcat
  • I haven't looked at image licensing
  • the use of intersectional in the lead is confusing, as it is known more for its use in feminist works than in this sense. I suggest "sectarian"
  • the need to establish the construction of the schoolhouse is unclear, I think you could dispense with it
  • I'm surprised it hasn't been nom'd for GA yet

Well done, IMO it has an appropriate level of coverage for a much-maligned POTUS. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I will work though these later today unless Designate gets to them first. "Sectarian" I really understand to mean inter-religious battles. We plan to bypass GA and go straight to FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Sectarianism can include differences of almost all types, including regional or political. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's sectionalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a peculiarly American idea around slavery in particular, and that appears far more appropriate than what is there now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with the over linking. I'm up to Mexican-American War, and I'm inclined to let that one stand as the first link occurs in an unexpected spot. A couple of others similar logic, the rest are done. Still looking at the other concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the OCLC's. I'll leave the alt text for Designate as people always complain about mine. Not sure what is meant by the schoolhouse.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the significance is of mentioning that he "put him in a brick schoolhouse". Is there a significance in it being brick? Does that have a meaning in terms of the quality of the schooling, otherwise "brick" could be dispensed with. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so. I've shortened it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Brick schoolhouse" might be an Americanism—I'm not sure. It's a construct like "log cabin" that carries more than the explicit meaning. It's a tad symbolic without being unencyclopedic or flowery. —Designate (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
[edit]

To the end of Election of 1852:

  • Childhood and education
    • "rambunctious" – I had to look that up in the dictionary and I think most non-American readers will too.
    • "He was admitted to the bar in the fall of 1827" – the MoS bids us avoid the seasons if poss, to avoid confusing or annoying readers in the opposite hemisphere.
  • State politics
    • "had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough" – ambiguous – his first house, which was in Hillsborough, or his first house that was in Hillsborough?
  • U.S. Senate
    • "chronic health issues" – perhaps just "chronic ill health"? See Gowers on issue: "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute"
    • "continued to roil Congress" – another word I had to look up. ("Now Brit. regional and U.S.", says the OED.)
  • Lawyer and politician
    • "As he would as president" – not sure of your policy on capitalising job labels. Lower case for "president" here, but earlier "The young Speaker used his platform".
I think we're pretty much going lower case except when direct titles are used, but Speaker is an exception, because it is prone to misconstruction if lower case is used. I had a discussion with Eric Corbett about this point some time back and he seemed to agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken: clarity over consistency every time – quite right! Tim riley talk 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to New Hampshire
    • "accusations of abuse" – a bit vague: do we know what the alleged abuse was?
  • Election of 1852
    • "it was "one of the least exciting campaigns in presidential history" – I think this might perhaps be attributed inline.

More soonest. Enjoying this. Tim riley talk 10:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the review. I am glad you are enjoying it. I hope to get to them later in the day, unless Designate picks them up first. I'm not sure on the Shakers thing, Designate, I think you inserted it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done or responded to all these things except the Shaker. I've taken that book back to the library, but can go get it if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will track that down. —Designate (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding batch from Tim
  • Tragedy and transition
    • "Avoiding the word slavery" – I think perhaps I'd put this in inverted commas rather than itals. Just a thought.
  • Administration and political strife
    • "Hards and Softs" – God save us! This is a horrifying pre-echo of la vache Thatcher with her "toughs and wets". (Ignore this: Thatcher's dark legacy causes pain and shame here even now, and it bubbles up now and again.)
    • "selecting the Cabinet" – again, a question – not very important – of whether and when to capitalize
I tend to capitalize "Cabinet" as an ongoing institution. Personal view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "gave it to states'-rights advocate" – this is comprehensible but not very pretty English
  • Economic policy and internal improvements
    • "reforming the Treasury, which he found to be inefficiently managed" – who found: Pierce or Guthrie?
  • Foreign and military affairs
    • "instead of the ostentatious diplomatic uniforms" – POV, you puritanical Yankees! The adjective you are looking for is "elegant" or at most "elaborate"
I am very tempted to stand on WP:ENGVAR. I'm sure Hay looked good in one. I think "elaborate" will do.
    • "Relations with Great Britain were tense" – Great Britain is not the term you want here and later in the para. After 1801 "Britain" is acceptable shorthand, but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland – the UK for short – is what you need here.
  • Bleeding Kansas
    • "a link from Chicago, Illinois" – as opposed to which other Chicago?
    • "The administrations' opponents" – really plural rather than singular?
  • 1856 election
    • "his chances were slim, to say nothing of his chances of winning the general election" – a touch of WP:EDITORIAL here. Perhaps "as were", rather than "to say nothing of"?
    • "Pierce expected a plurality, if not a supermajority" – neither term is familiar in this neck of the woods (offshire island north of France) and neither is possible to guess from the context.
    • "Douglas' managers" – consistency of ess-apostrophe and ess-apostrophe-ess: see above, in Bleeding Kansas: "a crucial part of Douglas's plans"
  • Post-presidency
    • "travelling" – but it was "traveling" in the lead
  • Civil War
    • "Pierce, who was with the author when he died unexpectedly" – needs reading twice to check who died – perhaps rephrase to avoid even this momentary ambiguity?
  • Final years and death
    • First para – this is nine sentences, 181 words, and covers booze, spirituality, sexual goings-on, doings with J Davis, J Hawthorne, defection to the Episcopalians, and half a dozen political points. All with one citation. Are we sure it covers the lot?
I am, as I own the book and just checked. I'm going to split it into two cites because the "old farmer" (located on page 366) should probably be cited at the end of the sentence. It pretty much covers everything from 1865 until his final illness.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • "Pierce, who saw slavery as a question of property, rather than morality" – I don't see how that squares with his words quoted earlier in the article, "I consider slavery a social and political evil, and most sincerely wish that it had no existence upon the face of the earth."
I've changed it to "the slavery question". His personal views were not implicated.--Wehwalt (talk)
    • "The historian David Potter" – but in this and the next para you use the false title for Messrs Nivison and Gara.
    • "who authored a book" – he did what? Didn't he just write it?
He most certainly did (versatile man, that) but as the word "wrote" is used later in the sentence, it seems ill-advised to use it twice.

That's all from me. I knew nothing of Pierce till reading this excellent article. From this side of the Atlantic he seems less culpable in domestic affairs and more reprehensible for his imperialist policies, but it all happened a long time ago. Pray give me the nod when you have him up for FAC. – Tim riley talk 21:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shall indeed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

First batch: I think I am benefitting from my role as tail-end reviewer, as much has been done already, leaving me to quibble over minor matters:

Lead
  • Is there a distinction between "Cuba" (3rd para) and "Spanish Cuba" (4th para)?
Despanished.
  • "after the war" tends to imply immediately or shortly after; in this case , 4+ years after – maybe adjust the prose?
Done.
Childhood and education
  • Do we know the year he graduated from Bowdoin College? Likewise, can we have year indicators for his semester at Northampton and his period of study under Judge Parker?
I'll have to consult Vol 1 of Wallner, which I only borrowed and have returned. I will likely go over to GMU on Wednesday.
State politics
  • "By 1824, the state..." As it's a new section, the state should be named
Named and so forth.
  • Could a footnote advise us of the nature of a "town moderator"'s office?
I've piped to an appropriate article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pierce's father, meanwhile, won a second term as governor, after which he retired." This sounds as though he retired after winning the election, rather than after completing his term, so I'd clarify here. (Were governors' terms for just 1 year, at this time?)
They were. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The younger Pierce was appointed as chairman of the House Education Committee and re-elected the following year": we had "the following year" in the previous line. Could we have the actual year here, to avoid chronological confusion?
  • You could also mention when Pierce joined the state militia
I will have to check Wallner on these when I go to GMU library later in the week, unless Designate gets to it first.
U.S. senate
  • "Pierce was a reliable party-line vote..." – can a person be a "vote"? Perhaps "voter", or rephrase, e.g. "Pierce voted the party line on most issues..."
Per your suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Whigs were growing in strength" → "the Whigs were growing in Congressional strength", thus linking to the "small majority" mentioned later in the sentence.
Ditto, but with lower case
  • "He took interest in military pensions" → "He took an interest in military pensions
Done that.
  • "he urged a modernization and expansion of the Army" – "he urged the modernization..." etc
Fair enough.
  • "New Hampshire Democrats felt that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be re-elected." This seems a little loose, particularly the "felt that" wording. Would it be right to say: "The policy of the New Hampshire Democrats was that no one should hold one of the state's Senate seats for longer than one six-year term, meaning he would not be eligible for re-election."?
Well, he was eligible as he met the constitutional requirements (age 30 or over, resident of the state, etc.). It's just they wouldn't do it. Or so we're told. State legislatures did odd things in Senate elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased, though it does not seem to me to be ideal.
Lawyer and politician
  • "supported the use of government charters to support..." – avoidable repetition
  • What is meant by "eminent domain"? (there is a link article)
Both done above.
  • "Pierce was closer to the radicals philosophically, and reluctantly served as attorney in a publisher's dispute against Hill, which made tensions worse." It's not clear for whom he was acting as attorney, or why he was reluctant.
Tweaked. I'll look at this at the library too. Designate, you might want to look this over for factual accuracy.
  • Three "ands" in the section's final sentence, which should be tweaked.

Continuing....

Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I don't think I will get to these tonight, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's more
Mexican–American War
  • "He then returned to command and led his brigade throughout the rest of the campaign..." I think "returned to his command", or perhaps "to command and lead his brigade..."
Return to New Hampshire
  • Link Shakers
  • "while others wanted it barred" – need to clarify "it", not obvious at present.
  • "the majority nominating former Michigan senator Lewis Cass for president..." You should mention the context, i.e. the 1848 elections, which will also help understanding of the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Senator Clay, a Whig..." He hasn't been mentioned for a while, so I'd probably slip in a Henry, for identification
Last two sections' stuff is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Election of 1852
  • "Delegates selected Alabama Senator William R. King, a Buchanan supporter, as Pierce's running mate, adopting a party platform that rejected further "agitation" over the slavery issue..." This wording conflates the selection of King and the adoption of the slavery platform, which are separate issues: "and adopted" would serve better.
  • Since the Free Soil party's candidate was Hale of New Hampshire, who has been mentioned before in the article, I think he should be named here. (I see he is named at the end of the section, but I think this should be brought forward)
Administration and political strife
  • "His Cabinet members coordinated on an early system..." Can you co-ordinate "on" something? The meaning is unclear anyway, and I suggest you reword.
  • "...gave it to states'-rights advocate John Archibald Campbell, an advocate of states' rights" Er, ahem, er...
he felt very strongly about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed.

I'm over half-way through, now, and should finish on Monday or Tuesday (depending on the weather). Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm in the midst of writing, so will catch up on these as I can. Thank you for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the few issues I need to go to the library on, most likely Wednesday, we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and finally
Economic policy and internal improvements
  • "...reforming the Treasury, which was be inefficiently managed..." – some typo here?
  • "overwrought" = "in a state of nervous excitement or anxiety". Are you sure this is the word you want here?
Foreign and military affairs
  • "foreign operations" – again, a peculiar choice of word. Basically you're talking about American consular establishments, rather than "operations" in the broader sense.
  • "Davis, advocate of..." → "Davis, an advocate of..."?
  • "Negotiations were nearly derailed by William Walker's filibuster into Mexico..." Most Brits, including this one, are unaware of the secondary meaning of "filibuster", as an unauthorised military attack. We know the word means an interminable speech, and may be confused to find it in this context. Suggest link here
  • "Congress reduced the Gadsden Purchase to the region comprising southern Arizona and part of southern New Mexico" – maybe insert "now" before "comprising"?
  • "Congress also included a protection clause for a private citizen, Albert G. Sloo, whose interests were threatened by the purchase." I wonder if this bit of detail is worthy of inclusion?
    • It's a bit awkward, I know, but every biography of Pierce I consulted for this article discussed at length Sloo's involvement in the bill. I decided that due weight requires the name, at least, to show up in the article. It does offer a hint of Pierce's economic philosophy aside from mere imperialism. —Designate (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which Pierce saw as a first step toward annexation of Canada." Annexation by whom?
  • Overlink second mention of Crampton within the section
  • "Pierce inserted language in his December 1855 message to Congress setting forth the American case" – this sounds unnecessarily complex. Instead, "In his December 1855 message to Congress Pierce set forth the American case..." etc
  • ...which they looked to remedy" – this is implied, need not be stated explicitly
Bleeding Kansas
  • As this title is an allegorical description rather than a geographical entity, it should br in quote marks
It's still a fairly well remembered phrase. I am inclined to let it stand. Designate?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should follow the sources in this case. We'd be the only ones putting it in quotation marks. —Designate (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was necessary to settlement" → "was necessary for settlement"
  • "including territory North of the compromise line" – capitalisation of "North"?
  • After "When Free-staters..." I would insert parentheticaly: (who opposed the extension of slavery into Kansas), to avoid dependence on the link
In view of the fact they were clearly opposing the pro-slavery Border Ruffians of the previous sentence and the word "free" in the name, I think it speaks for itself.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you have on "shadow governement" looks inappropriate. The phrase is pretty well in common use, and I don't think needs linking.
  • "highest numbers yet" → "highest numbers to that point"
1856 election
  • "chances of winning denomination" – reads amusingly (with the appropriate accent), but I think you mean "the nomination"
  • If possible, find an opportunity to name the main candidates (Republican and Know-Nothing) who opposed Buchanan in the 1865 election
Post-presidency
  • "Due to illness, he declined but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground". Needs more (and slightly different) punctuation, e.g. "Due to illness he declined, but sent a letter appealing to the people of Alabama to remain in the Union, and give the North time to repeal laws against southern interests and to find common ground"
Civil War
  • The weighty second para, largely dealing with the hoax letter, is perhaps rather too detailed for a side issue, and could perhaps be summarized.
It was probably the biggest event of Pierce's post-presidency (which is obviously not saying that much) though I've shortened it a bit.
Final years and death
  • "supported acquittal in his impeachment trial": "his" requires clarification, e.g. "the president's..."
Sites and memorials
  • Slightly confusing sequence in the first para. If the two extant historic Pierce sites in NH are the Hillsborough homestead and the Pierce Manse, these should be listed together before mention of the destroyed Franklin Pierce House.
It's a question of listing on the historic places register. I've added a bit to make it clearer.
  • We have "named after" and "named for" in the same paragraph
Legacy
  • "during Pierce's presidency he served": seems like the wrong way round, thus: "during his presidency Pierce served" reads more naturally.
  • "a question of property, rather than morality" – I think the comma is superfluous.
  • "stating that his expansionism \ those of later presidents" – there is clearly a typo here, but I can't work out what it is.

I had heard of Pierce, initially as the answer to a quiz question ("What other American president was christened Franklin?"), but I knew very little about him before reading this article, and I feel gratifyingly informed now. Some fascinating politics and history here – will be a worthy addition in the featured presidential series. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. I've made or responded to all (I hope) except for the ones I will check on at the library later today. Must return my latest set of books and browse for an interesting and not-too-well-covered subject that GMU has books about.

Comment Just in case you haven't seen, User:Billmckern has inserted a load of WP:OVERLINKs, presumably for the benefit of people who don't know what a liver is, and have never heard of Japan or Spain: you may want to revert before you go to FAC, where they would be jumped on from a great height. Tim riley talk 09:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll guarantee you I didn't wiki link "liver," but I appreciate the snark. If anyone thinks any links I included are overlinks, I don't have any objections to them being removed.
Billmckern (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working through them, keeping some edits and removing others. Mostly stylistic. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept some changes, discarded others. I unlinked liver.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to the library and made the changes I said I needed to consult Wallner on.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are closing this and taking it to FAC. Our thanks to the peer reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, everybody. —Designate (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Leigh Leigh

[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 intend to nominate it for featured status soon, but I currently have an article nominated for featured status already, so I thought it would be a good idea to get some comments from other editors on this article while I wait for my previous featured nomination to be closed.

Thanks, Freikorp (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as someone else has nominated the article for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hamilton (rapper)

[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. I have not personally made many major contributions but I have watched it grow thanks to a number of editors over the course of a few months, I think a peer review will be helpful to gain an independent outside view of the article and provide advice for pushing the standard of the article up to eventually achieve good article status.

Thanks, Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Kumar filmography

[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 withdrawn from FLC owing to quality of prose used in the lead section. I intend to nominate it again once the prose quality is up to the mark. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Skr15081997 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stimming

[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 wan't some opinion on it, don't know if its complete already or not, the sources in it are highly reliable, it is a short article but I think it covers the important elements of the subject.

Thanks, - Phill24th (talk). 13:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article in its current form is fine, and contains no significant errors that I could see, it just is not comprehensive on the topic. It would need considerable expansion to be ready for a good article review. I would expand the information, such as studies done on stimming, the social impacts of stimming, techniques used to curb stimming, austic stimming versus stimming in neurotypical individuals (hair twirling, nail biting), representation of stimming in the popular media, etc... Godspeed.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Get Up Kids

[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 need new eyes on it, and I'd eventually like to clean it up and submit it for Featured Article status. I'd like to know any broad categories in which this article may be lacking, but particularly small details that may come up in a Featured Article review. I've been editing this article sporadically for years now, and I'm so close to it that it's hard to parse what needs work and what doesn't anymore. Thank you for your time! Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

May as well do something while I wait for comments from my own. Man, I haven't listened to these guys in months; On a Wire has some really sublime emo-pop tracks. Anyway:

  • There are some unsourced statements, including but not limited to:
  • "The Canadian Post-Hardcore band Silverstein has cited the Get Up Kids as a major influence, and covered their song Coming Clean for a split 7" with August Burns Red in 2013."
  • "On April 13, 2010 the band released the first EP Simple Science on Flyover Records."
  • "an alt-country release similar in sound to The New Amsterdams. After his second album, May Day, Pryor announced that he would be formally disbanding The New Amsterdams in favor of his solo career, concluding the band's tenure with the release of Outroduction, a B-sides recording."
  • Album titles are unitalicized in some parts, e.g. the second paragraph of the intro.
  • The intro shouldn't have citations except for controversial statements and potentially surprising statistics. I don't think the intro really needs any of its citations...
  • Except for the quote: "Years later, guitarist Jim Suptic even apologized for having the influence they did on many of the modern third-wave emo bands, commenting that "[t]he punk scene we came out of and the punk scene now are completely different. It's like glam rock now ... If this is the world we helped create, then I apologize." This should be removed or relocated elsewhere. Intros should summarize their articles, not introduce new information that appears nowhere else.
  • In that same vein, the intro should talk at least a little about their first and fourth albums. It's weird to just lurch into the second.
  • There are two dead links.
  • Why are Nate Harold and Dustin Kinsey only mentioned in the "Band members" section? This should just be a reiteration of band-member information from elsewhere in the article. At the least, find sources for them.

Haven't gone through the prose in detail, and honestly I'm not great at copyediting for FA level. If you want me to take a look, though, please fix these issues first. Tezero (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because me and some other editors are gonna be taking this article to FA soon. So any feedback is gonna help!

Thanks, URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a quick look. Condensing the development section is the most obvious point, as stated by the message at the top of that section. I would also try to find references for the pieces in the Music section that have the "citation needed" message in front of them. If you can't I think it's best to delete them. Also, you might try adding references for some points in the Release section. Several sentences do not have a citation to back up their claims (not the Mods section though: that's beautifully references). I haven't looked at grammar yet, but I might well do when I have the time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ProtoDrake URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

PR buddies! Alright, here are my thoughts:

  • I strongly bolster ProtoDrake's points about citations. There are lots of unreferenced statements, sometimes whole paragraphs, and honestly I'm surprised the page passed GAN with all of those. If you can't find citations, they have to go. I require all statements to have sources, with very few exceptions (plot sections being one of those exceptions), before passing a GA, although recently I've become more lenient with citation formatting.
  • For FAC, though, consistent and complete citation formatting is a must. A non-exhaustive list of things that will need to be fixed:
  • It's just Gamasutra, not Gamasutra.com.
  • Keep date format consistent. Citation 99 contains both kinds: ""GameSpy's Top 50 Games of All Time". GameSpy. Archived from the original on 2004-08-18. Retrieved March 20, 2007."
  • Combining the first two, keep how you refer to a publisher consistent. 18, for example, refers to IGN as "ign.com", whereas elsewhere it's just IGN. (Use the latter.)
  • Some citations don't include the publisher, e.g. 23 (it's Rock, Paper, Shotgun).
  • Some citation formatting is just weird (e.g. 30 [Unatco Handbook], 31 [GameFAQs]). Also, GameFAQs isn't a reliable source.
  • 57's completely unformatted aside from a URL with a title, and I'm not even sure "Blue's News" is a reliable source. And including an unreliable source like Blue's News for a statement is like getting a letter and not knowing who it's from.
  • There's a "clarification needed" tag in there somewhere.
  • There's an error for citation 32.
  • The "Organizations in Deus Ex" section is pretty crufty and can probably be merged into Setting or Plot.

Not gonna lie; there's a lot to do here. But you can do it if you exert enough effort. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EdwardH

[edit]
  • Images are missing alt-text.
  • Oxford commas are sometimes being used in error; e.g., "Deus Ex was designed as a single player game, and ...". The manual of style states that these should be used in lists of three or more elements.
  • The References section uses bold pseudo-headings, which WP:Accessibility expressly forbids.

Overall, though, it's a very high-quality article. I hope this helps, EdwardH (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/August_2014&oldid=627957281"