Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2012

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.

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.


Do not edit the above article, please! Instead, please edit this draft copy, thank you.

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to work on improving it to the point where it can be submitted for a Good Article review after this peer review. I would also like to get it to FA after that, so any improvements needed toward that regard that are pointed out would be appreciated.

The user that I will be co-working with (and who wrote almost all of the content of the article) is User:WWB Too. He has an admitted Conflict of Interest in the topic, but wants to make this article the best it can possibly be while also falling in line with all of the neutrality and other requirements of Wikipedia. (Refer to Wikiproject Cooperation for more info.) Because of this COI issue, he and I will be making improvements to the article in this exact draft copy. When referring to improvements made after your comments, please refer to the draft copy and not the actual article, as the improvements will not be added there until after this peer review.

Lastly, there is an advert tag in the article added by User:Dr.K., who has indicated that he would like the reviewers to see if they agree with the issues he has pointed out in this talk page section and to suggest ways to improve the article if they agree or, if they disagree with his assessment, to feel free to remove the tag. Thus, please also comment in regard to any potential advertisement issues when reviewing the article.

Thanks, SilverserenC 04:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doc Adams

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this fairly new page on an 1800s baseball figure to become a GA. Any pre-GAN comments should make the process a little easier for me, which is important since I've only done this a couple of times. I'm looking in particular for prose comments (always good for me) and issues that impair the reader's understanding (there's plenty of discussion of baseball rules that Adams had a hand in making, which hopefully isn't too technical). All comments will be acted upon and are very much appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (Talk) 16:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I no little about baseball, and absolutely nothing about its history and development, so this was an interesting experience. Well done in working up the article. You have made it reasonably clear to ignoramuses such as myself; I have indicated where I think more explanation is required.

General issue
  • Have you investigated whether there is a copyright-free image of Adams avaialble for use? This image appears on some online sites; can we establish if/when it was first published?
  • Retrieval dates to Google book pages are pointless. It is the book itself, not the google publicity preview, which is your source.
Prose issues
Lead
  • "first recorded game" is slightly ambiguous; it could mean the first-ever game, or it could mean the first game for which records of the play have survived. I think it's the latter, but maybe clarify?
  • "...and was a bank president and representative in Connecticut after his baseball career." Needs stating more clearly, especially for your non-American readers. Perhaps: "...and was a bank president and member of the Connecticut legislature after his baseball career".
Early life
  • "The pair worked in the younger Adams' birth town of Mont Vernon, before he relocated twice, to Boston and New York City." The subject of this sentence is "The pair", which means the sentence becomes grammatically awkward with "he relocated twice". I don't think it's necessary to repeat that Mont Vernon is Adams' birth town, so the sentence could be: "The pair worked in Mont Vernon, before the younger Adams relocated, first to Boston and then to New York City".
Player
  • First sentence: Should the words "around that time" be inserted after "indicates that..."? Otherwise it's not clear when Adams began playing with bats and balls.
  • "...who have been identified in several baseball history books as responsible for beginning the spread of what became the modern version of baseball." Unnecessarily longwinded. Perhaps: "who are credited in several baseball histories as pioneering the modern version of baseball." (14 words instead of 23)
  • Similarly, "The type of baseball was an early variety of the game" → "Adams played an early form of the game"
  • "At the first baseball game with existing records, Adams participated" Suggest "surviving" rather than "existing". Also, turn the sentence: "Adams participated it the first baseball game with surviving records;" And maybe "lost 23–1" rather than putting the score at the end of the sentence.
  • "he said that his batted balls occasionally went into a river by the Elysian Fields, the Hoboken, New Jersey field where the Knickerbockers practiced and played". The commas make this extraordinarily awkward to interpret. You could perhaps salvage this with something like "he said that his batted balls occasionally went into a river by the Elysian Fields, the ground in Hoboken, New Jersey where the Knickerbockers practiced and played".
  • If the Knickerbockers were the only organised team, against whom did they play? Did the two squads just play each other?
  • What does it mean, "which Adams is said to have led"?
  • "In later years, Adams obtained the material for the insides of baseballs, which was rubber from old galoshes." This rather tends to suggest that the insides of baseballs are still made from old galoshes. Tweak to something like: In later years Adams used rubber from old galoshes for the insides of baseballs".
  • "which he started playing at" → "at which he started playing"
  • "sometime from 1849 to 1850" → "in about 1849 or 1850"
  • "pitcher was the only position he never played at." Odd use of the negative form to make this point. I would say "he played in every position except pitcher."
Knickerbockers and NABBP executive
  • "serving for three years" → "serving for three further years"
  • I'm afraid the distances in the third paragraph completely lost me. Particularly confusing are "89 feet apart, counting a pace as three feet" (89 is not divisble by 3), and the mention of "74¼ feet", which I can't relate to anything. It may be that you are overdetailing here and that some of these particulars could be simply omitted.
  • Fourth paragraph: you say Adams called his preferred rule "the fly-game". How did this differ from the rule he was campaigning against?
  • I think you should explain the Nestor reference. The link is of no help to the general reader.
Later life
  • "Now living in Ridgefield," → "Then living..." etc
  • Say a little more about his membership of the legislature. Did he only serve "during 1870"? In what circumstances? What you have at the moment is no more than you have said in the lead.
  • The words "with the bank" are redundant
  • He "served as a treasurer". A treasurer of what?
  • "still was" → "was still"
Legacy
  • I am a bit puzzled by "Before those rules were enacted, he had traveled to California, abandoning his position with the Knickerbockers." What has this information to do with this legacy? Also this is the first mention that he went to Californis. And did he "abandon" his position with the Knickerbockers?
  • The second paragraph has too much detail about the Doubleday claim to have invented baseball. I would eliminate almost all of this; the focus should be on Adams. I would add the text you have in the display box to the text of the final paragraph, which would end the article in a highly positive way.

I hope that you find these points helpful. As I am not able to watch my individual peer reviews, please call my talk page if you have any issues arising from this view that you would like more help on. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to work on the comments and have finished the routine copy-edits and added a photo with Adams in it from a 1911 book (thanks to Brian's efforts). A half-dozen of the comments (most content-based) remain, and I will peck away at these over the next several days as time permits (well, that and shutdowns of Wikipedia :-)) Giants2008 (Talk) 22:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished addressing the rest of the comments. I'll explain what changes I made to the six that still needed work:
  • How Adams led the team isn't specified in that source, but based on the weight of other sources I think it referred to his efforts to get his teammates to go to practice games. I added a couple of sentences on this, and removed the leadership bit since it wasn't really backed up elsewhere.
  • I agree that the sentences on baseline distances you mentioned were confusing, and I shortened them into an easier-to-understand form. I did want to leave some explanation, since this is one of the more significant things Adams is remembered for.
  • Added a sentence on what the fly game entailed.
  • Added a brief explanation of the Nestor reference.
  • Unfortunately, I was unable to find much more on his time in the Connecticut House. The only things I found were that he represented Ridgefield, and that one source says he served multiple terms (the conflict with other sources is noted).
  • Regarding the Cartwright part, I confused the meaning with my wording; he moved to California and left the team, not Adams. The reason I had this was that he's received more credit than Adams for things Adams had much involvement in. I modified the sentence with these two factors in mind. It relates more strongly to Adams now.
Thank you very much for the review, and for your help in uploading a good image with Adams. I really appreciate it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of chronometers on HMS Beagle

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this may be a possible candidate for submission as a Featured List. However, this is the first time I have tried for a Featured List so I am a bit in the dark and need all the help I can get.

Thanks, SpinningSpark 02:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is an interesting and unusual list. I became interested in chronometers thanks to Dava Sobel and her book Longitude. The list has FL potential, I feel certain, but I think it will need further work before it can be considered ready. Here are my thoughts, general ones first:

  • The article has a choppy look because of the many individual tables and, in some cases, short intervening bits of text. I think this article would have a better shot at FL if you figured out ways to combine several small tables into larger tables. I don't think you need to try to put everything into a single table, but Adventure's 12 tables, for example, could be combined to make one table, perhaps with an additional column for the name or designation (A, B, C,...dash for no name). The intervening bits of text could then be merged into one set of paragraphs above the new, larger tables or, where necessary to keep the prose flow smooth, relegated to notes. Ditto for the other sections with multiple small tables.
  • It's good to keep red links to a minimum in articles heading to FLC. I'd think about creating an article for Molyneux, for example.
  • There are no dabs, but there's a dead URL in one citation. See here.
  • I would delete "Beagle" from three section heads since "Beagle" is part of the article title; i.e., "First voyage" instead of "Beagle's first voyage", etc.

Lead

  • "From 1825, this became standard and ships would be issued a second chronometer if the captain personally provided a third." - Tighten to straight past, "were", instead of "would be"?
  • "It was also necessary to take chronometers ashore or up rivers and inlets which were inaccessible to the ship in order to reach the points designated by the Admiralty for longitude measurements to be recorded." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "To reach all points designated by the Admiralty for longitude measurements, it was sometimes necessary to take chronometers ashore or across inlets and up rivers too shallow for the ship." Or something like that.
  • "This was another reason for survey ships to carry a large number, the majority of them could be kept permanently in a safe, well cushioned place on board the ship." - Add a semicolon and tighten a bit? Suggestion: "This was another reason for survey ships to carry a large number; the majority could be kept permanently in a safe, well-cushioned place on the main vessel."
  • The caption beneath the lead image reads "Chronometer X from Beagle's second voyage by Thomas Earnshaw" - More clear might be "Chronometer X, made by Thomas Earnshaw, from Beagle's second voyage".

Beagle's first voyage

  • "On its first voyage... " - It would be helpful to insert the dates here. Most of the lead covers general historical background that may not need to appear elsewhere, but I'd incline toward embedding any Beagle-specific data in the appropriate subsections of the article to avoid forcing readers to backtrack to the lead.
  • I think it would be helpful to briefly explain "number", "type", and "winding" in the text. Otherwise readers have to guess at the meanings when they encounter these terms in the first table. I don't think you would need to repeat the explanations elsewhere, just on first use.
  • I wondered who Parkinson and Frodsham were as well as the other makers listed later in the article. Would it be useful to add notes on first use with a few details? Were these individuals, large companies, or something else? If they are individual clockmakers, I would include their first names on first use.
  • "King describes them as "excellent"." - To avoid making readers think that King might mean a contemporary author, perhaps "described" rather than "describes"?

Chronometer by Murray

  • "A welcome addition given King's concern over the French chronometer's newness." - This needs a verb to become a complete sentence. Maybe "This was a welcome... "?

Beagle's second voyage

  • "The Admiralty had not been so precise in specifying his itinerary across the Pacific since they could not be sure how far north he would be able to survey in the time available, and hence precisely where he would be leaving from, but they did specify he should stop at Tahiti, a point of previously well-determined longitude, and as the journey across the Atlantic, it should be done in small stages to frequently rate the chronometers." - Too complex. This should be recast as two or three separate sentences.
  • Since you link Australia, New Zealand, and so on, you should probably link Chile, Peru, and South America on first use. I might have missed some others.
  • "The total discrepancy was only 33 s but Fitz-Roy... " - I'd spell this out as "33 seconds".
  • "Others were loaned by chronometer makers who were all too keen to gain the prestige... " - Delete "all too" to avoid casting judgment that may violate WP:NPOV.

Notes

  • "Although this was the usual Royal Navy source of chronometers at the time... " - This needs a reliable source, I think.

Bibliography

  • For books too old to have ISBNs, you might want to add OCLCs. These are usually available via WorldCat.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again my friend Finetooth. Thank you for reviewing! SpinningSpark 18:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very good at getting possessives right, but are you sure about this? The French chronometers being referred to are chronometers A to H, so the possessive should be plural should it not? SpinningSpark 00:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I misunderstood the possessive to refer to "This chronometer... " instead of the whole group. I recast slightly just now to avoid the problem altogether. I think it's OK now. Finetooth (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe everything above is now addressed. For the benefit of other reviewers, Finetooth's additional comments below are in response to a talk page request. SpinningSpark 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments, part 2:

  • Yes, I think the revised tables look much better, and the overall layout looks very good. I made a few proofing changes, and here is a short list of minor things:

Chronometer makers

  • "16 chronometers used to determine the accurate longitude of Madeira in 1822" - Link Madeira on first use and perhaps not again further down?
    • Done
  • "Charles Frodsham & Co. Ltd. is still in existence today but no longer at The Strand." - Delete "today" or substitute "2012". Also, if not at The Strand, then where?
    • Changed to "...still in existence, but have moved from the Strand to another London address." I have not given the exact address, partly because the cited source does not give it, and partly because the street does not have an article and is not notable (they have moved off the Monopoly board!).
  • "reaching the furthest point south achieved by any ship (or chronometer) up to that time" - Can the time (year) be added?
    • Done

Attrition

  • "Alexander Burns Usborne, who had been put in charge of a small boat, Constitucion," - Since this is the Spanish spelling, more-or-less, should it actually be Constitución?
    • I guess you are right, the boat was purchased locally, so I have changed it. It is however, a little dubious: all the contemporary English-language sources (and even some Spanish) have Constitucion. There are modern sources that can be cited if necessary with Constitución but it is possible this is a back-formation.

Third voyage

  • "with frequent stops to check the rates throughout the voyage" - Is "rates" the right word?
    • Yes, "rate" is used as both a verb and a noun wrt chronometers and "check the rate" is a stock phrase.
  • "It was lost in HMS Erebus when she was abandoned ice-bound in the Arctic during Franklin's lost expedition attempting to find the Northwest Passage." - This and the claim about Irresistable need inline citations to sources, I think. Some of the other embedded asides might also. I'd suggest looking them over and adding sources for any with precise numbers or dates or claims that are otherwise not common knowledge or obvious from context.
    • I will add sources for these, they are both well-documented events so won't be hard to find. The loss of the chronometer when the ships went down is already cited to the Greenwich archives. SpinningSpark 13:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck at FLC. Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Bolen

[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 fix any problems it has and potentially get it to GA status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1: This looks fairly solid and should not have too many problems achieving GA. I have reviewed more with FA in mind and it should pass GA easily if these issues are cleared up. However, I am no expert in TV series/character articles and may have missed some things. And I have never watched the series. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure the first two refs are needed in the lead, and maybe the quote which uses ref 3 may be better used in the main body.
  • "are the center of the series' yearly mystery": Never having watched this, it may be worth a sentence explaining what this means (presumably some issue which lasts for the length of a season, but what form does the mystery take?). And is "mystery" the official term used by the producers/writers?
  • "Although critics initially embraced…" I can imagine fans embracing a character, but not critics. Welcomed? But embraced is not really encyclopaedic in this sense.
  • "Many critics compared Angie to Betty Applewhite (Alfre Woodard), a character whose lagging storyline was the focus of the series' second season mystery.": A little similar to the start of the previous sentence. Maybe combine them "… and compared the character to Betty Applewhite whose lagging storyline [was the focus of the series' second season mystery: too much redundancy here?] featured in the second season."
  • What is a "lagging storyline"? A little vague. I imagine it means a character with similar slow development, but this should be spelt out to avoid ambiguity.
  • "Marc Cherry and his writing staff strove": A little too much like a publicity piece. Maybe "aimed to" rather than "strove".
  • "was immediately offered the role following its conception": Redundancy?
  • "She explained, "Now that I am old and don't really care, and remember how much fun I had playing that character."": Something missing from the quote here as it does not quite make sense as presented.
  • For this section, could be have some dates for the character development and for de Matteo's casting? Otherwise, the "In November 2009…" paragraph lacks context.
  • "In November 2009, rumors that de Matteo was being released from her contract due to budgetary concerns were shot down by Cherry, who insisted that the actor would appear in 20 of the season's 23 episodes." I'm not sure the first part of the sentence works here; also, "Shot down" is not encyclopaedic. And did she appear in 20 episodes? I think it should be kept factual rather than relying on the quote. Maybe something like: "Although it was rumored in November 2009 that de Matteo was to be released from her contract due to budgetary concerns, the actress appeared in 20 of the season's 23 episodes and Cherry denied that there was a problem. However…"
  • "She has also been described as "icy."" By who?
  • The personality and characteristics section feels light. Rather than pre-series publicity, what about some comments from critics about her personality? And maybe a few more descriptions from the series.
  • "Patrick asked her to build a bomb…" Probably should be "Logan" rather than "Patrick" throughout this section.
  • And it may be better to use the characters' surnames throughout, although I am not sure of the convention in articles on TV series.
  • Presumably her background was only revealed at the end of the season? Perhaps this should be made clear, as the plot synopsis suggests this was known at the start.
  • Why do we need a "Season Six" section if this was her only season?
  • "Danny is the primary suspect of the crime…: Why not "Danny is the main/prime suspect"? No need for "of the crime".
  • "befriends Angie while experiencing a nervous breakdown as a result of Mike Delfino (James Denton) marrying Susan rather than her.": Do we need to know the cause of her breakdown in an article on another character? I would end the sentence after "breakdown".
  • "but is killed by a small plane that takes an emergency landing on Wisteria Lane soon after" Perhaps "makes an emergency landing".
  • When was Patrick introduced into the series? Maybe this could be made clear, as he is only introduced in the overview section.
  • "However, his interest in the storyline was renewed when John Barrowman joined the appeared as Patrick Logan": "joined the appeared" needs fixing
  • "Cooper also enjoyed the conclusion of Angie's storyline, scoring her plot in the season finale with a 'B.'" Punctuation off here: should be "B" with the period outside. Also, what does "B" mean in this context? Finally, "and scored her plot "B"" may work better.
  • "stating that the audience ad other characters were not invested enough": Typo.
  • I have not reviewed sourcing or performed spot checks for accurate representation of sources or close paraphrasing/copyvio.
  • I'm not sure two non-free images of the character are justified and would probably remove the second.

I do not watch PRs, so if there are any comments or questions, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foley Square trial

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on submitting it for Featured article status. I'd appreciate it if the reviewer was someone familiar with the FA criteria, and willing to treat the PR as an FAC review, applying the strict FA standards. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy
Thanks for the image info: I've addressed all the issues raised. --Noleander (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to all. But I'm postponing this Peer Review. I'll resubmit it at another time. --Noleander (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester County College

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

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

The article has been significantly expanded, but there are questions as to whether it should be expanded further - see its talk page, under "Expansions?". It also needs rerating (by anyone who's a member of the two WikiProjects involved, other than those heavily involved in its editing such as myself). Any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated, as well.

Thanks very much, Allens (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get this to GA status, BTW. Allens (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: You have obviously spent time on this article. However, my first thought is that it has come to peer review too early, and needs rather a lot of work before it is ready for a detailed review. I have looked at a few college articles recently promoted to GA, and this does not yet approach their general standard.

Specific areas for further attention:-

  • The tone seems less like that of a neutral encyclopedia article and more like that of the outline of a brochure. This might reflect your closeness to the institution; often this kind of article is better written from a distance.
    • The proportion of adjuncts should be compared to that of other, similar colleges, for instance - I'm pretty sure it's higher than average. Is editing on tone something the GOCE does? (And that's odd; I would not have thought I'd have been that much affected by only one semester of teaching plus two days there.)
      • I am not a fan of the GOCE. It's more a case, I think, of using judgement to ensure the account is neutrally presented. A stronger history section can help to take the balance away from the appearance of a profile of the college.Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General article structure: There are far too many very short sections and subsections, some only a single sentence in length. A single piece of information, e.g. that relating to KotoriCon, does not warrant a subsection to itself. Either expand the information or combine some of the short sections
    • OK. I can easily take some info from the KotoriCon article, for instance.
  • The lead is short, and does not summarise the whole article
    • Oh? I had tried to make sure I inserted something from each section, which seemed to be what the University style guide was suggesting. I'll see about expanding it.
  • The History section is especially weak and uninformative, with no information whatever relating to the period between 1970 and 2011
    • I'll see if I can get access to some newspaper archives for the intervening time period (which may also help with the "third-party sources" problem in some cases). The college did recently have a 40th anniversary occasion, with a booklet to accompany it, but I was trying to avoid using something that's inevitably pretty promotional.
  • In general, information needs to be presented much more clearly. For example, the detail in "Enrollments" is muddled and disorganised.
    • I'll check with the GOCE for some assistance. To me it seems crystal-clear, of course!
  • Overlinking: common terms such as "co-educational", "nursing", "high school" etc do not require links.
    • OK. (I do disagree on Nursing - it wasn't actually until I was at GCC that I discovered that an RN is an associate's-level degree, not a bachelor's... and I grew up around nurses - my father's a physician!)
  • Check the appropriateness of some links. For example, that on "President" links to "University President"
    • Well, otherwise it would be linking to country presidents as the primary meaning...
  • Overcitation, for example in the "Organization and administration" section, where a string of six citations supports routine factual information. Similar occurrences throughout the article
    • I'll take a look for other instances. That one is a special case - nobody that I've contacted seems quite sure exactly how the trustee appointment process works, with contradictory info from different places! I will try to make sure there isn't duplication of referencing, however. I was told by the person who changed it from Stub to Start-class that it needed more references, and I may have overreacted.
  • Numerous "third-party source" tags need attention
    • I'm actually the one who put those in; I agree; also see above.
  • The inclusion of geographical coordinates is unnecessary. People aren't going to use a compass to find this college!
    • Actually, the infobox for universities/colleges specifies geographic coordinates should be included. I find it weird myself...
      • The infobox includes a coordinates field, but you don't have to fill it. An obsession with geographic coordinates swept Wikipedia a few years ago and I suspect this field is a result of that. If you think it's weird (as I do), don't include them and defend your action on commonsense grounds. The infobox does not make the rules. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this reads rather depressingly, but I hope it helps you in deciding how best to work on the article in the future.

    • I was wanting feedback, and suspected I needed it, so you gave what I was looking for, don't worry. (Any comments on what's on the Talk page, BTW? Looks from the above like you'd say to work on those comments first, except where the Talk page material can be used to expand needed sections.)
Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ely, Cambridgeshire

[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 have listed this article for peer review as part of the preparation for a later submission, if the reviewer agrees, as a FAC. If the reviewer could also give consideration to reviewing the WikiProject membership, ratings and classes, that would be nice too. This peer review is part of a process I helped start with this article two months ago. I accept that the holidays are close and therefore editors, including myself, may not be able to devote as much time to this process as would normally be the case. I will however try to work with the reviewer as expediently as I can.

See also: Its first peer review, its successful GA, and the featured article criteria

In addition see

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Thanks, Senra (Talk) 12:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to ask for a source spot-check of this article? Many of the sources are on line and for some of those that aren't, I can provide a scan of a limited number of pages per source on request --Senra (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, but I think it still needs some work before it would do well at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead seems to me to be a little too focused on history and a little too detailed - couldn't the lead just mention that there is a Roman Road in the city, without going into almost as much detail in the lead as there is in the body of the article.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I do not see anything on government or the Liberty of Ely in the lead (for one example)
  • It is not clear to me what the pre-historical significance of the first paragraph of Pre-history is. What is the approximate date of the Roswell pits? Who / what used them?
  • For the fossils found in the Kimmeridge Clays, I would start with the Jurassic era and the animals whose fossils are found - otherwise the first recognizable dates for most readers found in the paragraph are the 18th and 19th century (which are not pre-historic)
  • We know a lot about Roman history in general, so why is it in "Pre-Istory" section? Also why no mention of the Roman Road in with the rest of the Roman material here? AT least say several Roman Roads were in Ely and surroundings, then go into detail later on them
  • Problem sentence: The name Ely comes from Old English Ēl-gē meaning "eel region", from the abundant eels in the rivers, meres and marshes around; Elge 731,Elyg 1086 (Domesday Book).[13][14] First off it is not super clear what the end parts mean "Elge 731,Elyg 1086 (Domesday Book)" - I think these are early version of the name? but if so, say so. Second avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs wherever possible.
Agreed  Done with help from the reference desk --Senra (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence is before the dates in the problem sentence (673 < 731)
  • Explain the Isle of Ely
  • I would use the octagon is "one of the wonders of the medieval world" quote in the lead
  • I would also have an image of it in the article - there is File:Elylantern.jpg here, or I just uploaded this from Flickr File:The Octagon in Ely Cathedral.jpg
  • I made one convert template show the adjective form "250-foot (76 m) diameter' vs the clunkioer "250 feet (76 m) diameter"
  • Make sure to provide contecxt to the reader - I owuld explain that Mary I was Catholic, or that Cromwell later became Lord Protector and executed Charles I, or expalin what caused the riots.
  • Confusing In The Book of Ely published in 1990, Blakeman writes that "permission was not given" for a memorial to the martyrs to be placed on Palace Green.[30] In 2011, a plaque recording this martyrdom event was erected on the north-east corner of Palace Green by the City of Ely Perspective.[33] Who did not give permission in the 1990 book? When? Why? Who changed their mind? When? Why?
  • I would have more on the plague and the reformation / dissolution of the abbey than just this The diaries of writers and journalists such as William Camden, Celia Fiennes, Daniel Defoe, John Byng and William Cobbett illustrate the decline of Ely after the 14th century plague and the 16th century reformation which led to the dissolution of the monastery in 1539.[45]
  • WHy did they choose to restore the cathedral so early?
  • Not much in "Victorian and twentieth-century regeneration" from the 20th century
  • Liberty of ELy and Westminster are again not very clear to non Britons - a short introductory sentence or two for each would help make them much clearer. "Historically the Bishop of Ely enjoyed great political power as well as religuos authority..." or something like that.
  • MOS says not to use 'single quotes' for anything but a quote within a quote - use "double quotes" instead
Agreed  Done --Senra (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS also says not to mix citation / footnote templates - so either use the cite famil or use harvnb, but not both - I tried to click on some of the roman numberal res and they did not work on my browser
  • Avoid needless repetition - see A cannon, captured during the Crimean War at the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) and gifted to Ely by Queen Victoria in 1860, is located on Palace Green, west of the cathedral.[131] The inscription reads "Russian cannon captured during the Crimean War presented to the people of Ely by Queen Victoria in 1860 to mark the creation of the Ely Rifle Volunteers".[132] and almost all of this is repeated again in the caption for the cannon photo
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - Roswell Pits is linked at least three times in the body of the article
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... acting on your above useful comments --Senra (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I am still on this. It may take a few days to get around to it all

George Went Hensley

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has been copyedited and has passed a Good Article review, and I'm now tempted to try to get it up to Featured Article quality. I would like attention to the prose and clarity, any grammar errors? does it all flow well? As well as comprehensiveness, are there any obvious questions you have after reading it.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things:
    • Try the alt text checker - one of the two images on the page (the other being the "good article" symbol) has no alt text, it looks like.
    • I have done some further copyediting. Some of the sentences are unnecessarily long and/or use longer words when shorter, more common ones will do.
    • The material under "Theology" does some explaining of his reactions when someone died from snakebite, but it is not completely clear earlier - are there any records of things that he said at such a point? That he conducted a service for someone who died of snakebite (and wasn't lynched) seems to suggest that he didn't claim at the time that dying was due to not being "saved".
    • What in the world was his problem with baseball?
  • Allens (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments and copyediting! I'll go over the prose again and dig into the sources for some more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, Astynax and I have gone over the wording some and I have added in a few details. A snake handling minister friend of Hensley once witnessed a gunfight at a Baseball game, but I think it would be synthesis for me to speculate that that is the reason for his disdain. Are there any other specific improvements that you could suggest? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've pretty much answered the questions I've had, at least insofar as they can be answered. I can't think of anything specific at the moment - I very much like the improvements! Allens (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's Secret Body Spray Tour

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to promote Music of the Sun to Good Topic, but I doubt this article will be able to become GA. So according to the criteria, I am listing this for a Peer Review to solve any issues because nominating for Good Topic.


Thanks, Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1
  • This is very short, but there are several issues which need clearing up.
  • "The 9-day tour": Should this be "nine-day", per MOSNUM?
  • "6-song": Ditto, should this be "six-song"?
  • "Rihanna would play..." Better to use past tense: "Rihanna played ... and signed ..."
  • "posters and CD's": No apostrophe in CDs.
  • "Secret Body Spray Deodorant began selling their new collection of Body Spray": Is this the name of the company? Could some info be added on who they are and how they came to be involved with Rihanna? How did the tour help sales?
  • "signed Barbadian Rihanna": Is her nationality necessary here?
  • "9 tour": should be nine.
  • "to the 9 tour dates going around promoting Body Spray and Music of the Sun, Rihanna's debut album": No need for "going around".
  • "The campaign began in Cincinnati on 26, October": No need for comma.
  • "on 7, December 2005": Again, no comma.
  • "then Rihanna would come on stage and perform": "came on stage and performed".
  • "After that she would answer fan questions then she would autograph posters, CDs or other scraps of paper for fans before leaving.": Again, should be past tense.
  • Is there really nothing else to say? Promotion, reception, attendances, reports? It just seems sparse.
  • There is a clean-up tag for bare urls which should be sorted, and should really be done before PR.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Aaron • You Da One 13:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna 2006 Tour

[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 promote Music of the Sun to Good Topic, but I doubt this article will be able to become GA. So according to the criteria, I am listing this for a Peer Review to solve any issues because nominating for Good Topic.

Thanks, Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sp33dyphil
  • Is the The suitable/necessary as the starting word in this case?
  • "by Barbadian singer recording artist"
  • "album, Music of the Sun, and" missing comma.
  • "The tour supported her debut studio album, Music of the Sun and second studio album, A Girl Like Me.[1] The tour took place during the summer of 2006." --> "Taking place during the summer of 2006, the tour supported her debut studio album, Music of the Sun, and second studio album, A Girl Like Me.[1]"
  • I'd prefer it if all the "(select dates)"s are left in their natural size so as to aid vision-impaired readers. But, it's your call.
  • MOS calls for the inclusion of alt text.
  • Be consistent with your date format. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 13:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angwa Sandstone Formation

[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 feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature.

Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Rather than doing a completely separate review of this stub or start-stage article, I'll refer you to the comments I made earlier today on the Batoka Formation. Most of those apply to this article as well. Here are a few additional thoughts:

  • Be sure to tell readers in the first paragraph of the lead where in the world this formation is found.
  • Instead of double-bolding words in the table headings of the "Flora" section, expand the section to include paragraphs of text about the flora, and add links to the text.
  • Limit red links. Mbire District, for example, should only be red-linked once in the entire article, not four times.
  • The image is out-of-focus and appears to be a photo of a rock in a glass case. Your image license gives a date of 1996, but the date of generation is given as 12 January 2012. I'm guessing that you took the photo on that more recent date in a geology museum, but I'm not sure what the 1996 date refers to. I'd suggest that you add more detail to the license. Where is the rock you photographed, exactly? What does 1996 mean?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batoka Formation

[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 feedback from the community on how to improve it, after having put in much of the scientific literature

Thanks, Babakathy (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm glad to see articles about Africa. This is a very short one in its early stages. Here are a few suggestions:

  • Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's important to make each article as accessible as possible to a wide audience, most of whom are not scientists. Technical jargon in this article that is neither linked nor explained include the following words: tholeiitic, intercalacted, aeolian, amygdaloidal, porphyritic, plagioclase, augite, magnetite, ilmenite, amygdales, quartz, chalcedony, calcite, zeolite, stilbite, mesolite, laumontite, and so on. Although your reliable scientific sources probably assume a readership of geologists and others who do not need to have this vocabulary explained, the Wikipedia audience is quite another matter. It's your job as a writer to try to translate the scientific jargon or to link to articles that explain it. This is not always easy to do, and in some cases it may be impossible. Still, I would recommend moving in the direction of clarity even if not everything can be made clear to everyone.
  • "The Batoka Formation is a geological formation in the Zambezi valley." - I would add the country or countries and continent. Not every reader will know anything about the Zambezi.
  • Vulcanodon should be linked on first use, in the lead. I would also suggest expanding on the vulcanodon in the "Vertebrate fauna" section. Say what they are and why they are important. Also, what other fossils have been found in the formation? Why single out the vulcanodon?
  • "The Batoka Formation is the uppermost formation in the Upper Karoo Group of the Karoo Supergroup, lying above the Forest Sandstone Formation and below the Batoka Formation."- This sentence seems to say that the Batoka Formation is below the Batoka Formation. Not possible.
  • The image in the article is licensed by you as "own work", but it appears to be a scan rather than a photo that you took yourself. If it's a scan, you need to identify the source document. Copying an image by scanning might or might not violate copyright laws, depending on the nature of the source.
  • It's often helpful to look at articles that have achieved GA or FA status to see how other editors have handled similar topics. I don't see many similar listed articles at WP:GA, but Marcellus Formation is one you might find useful as a model.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: The Original Series

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have quick-checked the whole article as a sole reader. I have not substantially contributed this article either at all or very much if my name is in the history log. Nevertheless, this article should have a chance to be reviewed for a reputation that this article well deserves. Please give some credit to a bunch of substantial and significant contributors of this article; they deserve all the work they have done. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead needs to be expanded to three to four paragraphs.
  • When doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Headings generally should not repeat the title of the article.
  • Watch out for redundancies as well (i.e. "in order to", "all of").

Hope these comments help. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: There have been changes after your review, Sjones: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=471619105&oldid=471446586. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=471723258&oldid=471619105 --George Ho (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Want another review; Another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=472934280&oldid=472895461 --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more ideas on improving the article:

  • Shrink down the table of contents by merging subsections or a proper system of daughter pages per WP:WIAFA.
  • Avoid contractions (i.e. wasn't, doesn't) outside of quotations.
  • The article may need to go summary style, where appropriate series of subpages are used.
  • As mentioned in my above review, we need to use standard abbreviations when we are doing conversions per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers).

I think these ideas would help further in improving the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=473108898&oldid=473052932. Found the abbreviations you may have mentioned; are there any other I missed? --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need more review; another UPDATE: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek%3A_The_Original_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=473561805&oldid=473108898. Is the addition of another parody necessary? --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monteverdi's lost operas

[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 article on and off (mainly off) for at least a couple of years. Monteverdi isn't a "core topic" and I doubt if he achieves eye-catching traffic scores, but he is a key figure in the history of opera. For this reason the operas he wrote and which are now lost are of interest to the musically minded (or to some of them anyway). If you can't stand the music there's some nice pics. All aspects open for review and all comments are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley
  • Background
    • "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" – I see what you mean, but it reads oddly. Not sure if it's the present tense, but I feel it could be put more smoothly. Perhaps something on the lines of "Most of M's works during his long life were composed in two phases…"?
    • "suggests that the high rate of loss is indicative that in that age" – creaks a bit, perhaps. What about something to the effect that he "suggests that the high rate of loss indicates that in Monteverdi's times…"?
  • For Mantua
    • Caption of image. You might consider adding that Bacchus is shown as a medium pace right arm seam bowler, and has just been called for No Ball by the umpiress on his right.
    • I agree, Bacchus's bowling action left much to be desired, but I understand that he was primarily a batsman.
      • That riposte is without doubt the most brilliant reply I have ever had on WP, blast you! Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so brilliant, really. As a shot in the dark, I googled "Bacchus cricketer", and bingo, good ole Wikipedia did the rest!
    • "Ariadne whom he believes will…" – not an accusative, if we're being strictly grammatical; either "whom he believes to be" or "who he believes will be"
    • Indeed he is (my typo), and I hope as "Follino" rather than "Follini"
    • Monteverdi's fellow-composer – I'm a bit puzzled by the quote. This chap was only 20 years younger than Monteverdi, so why is he talking of "early music"?
  • Le nozze d'Enea in Lavinia
    • "to better demonstrate the range of his musical genius" – you know, and I know, that the taboo against split infinitives is very silly, but many otherwise sensible people subscribe to it, and if I were you I'd play for safety and rejig the sentence to avoid it.

And that meagre collection is the sum of my quibbles and suggestions. I've tinkered with a few typos, but please check that you're happy with my changes. One oddity: I ran the dab checker, and it came up with a single link, "Dionysius": but there is no mention of Dionysius in the article. Very odd. You'll be adding alt-text before going on to FAC, I assume.

I am unable to explain the mystery dablink. At one time I had Bacchus erroneously pipeliked to Dionysius instead of Dionysus. I removed this a while ago, yet somehow the dablink maintains a ghostly presence. I'll ask someone with technicl skills, e.g. Ruhrfisch, how I can fix this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed the article, and alternated between feeling indignant on Monteverdi's behalf for the run-around he got from his aristocratic bosses and thinking he was quite capable of pretty strenuous running around on his own account. – Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing a subject not dearest to your heart, but you's probably prefer to read about the lost operas than the extant ones! I think I've fixed your concerns, but I will probably have to rejig further, to meet the blessed E's comments below. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Note that I've discovered Template:Efn which is wonderful for getting rid of that obnoxious {{#tag:ref||group=name}} syntax Lead:

  • "He was one of the first exponents of the emergent genre of opera, and played a significant role during the first half of the 17th century in its development from a courtly entertainment into the principal form of public musical theatre." wow, that's a mouthful - can we break this up a bit? Leads generally are less "dense" than body text ... this is pretty dense for the lead.
  • Not sure on the MOS for this ... but for "In the following 36 years he wrote nine further operas,..." I think you want either "In the following 36 years he wrote 9 further operas,..." or "In the following thirty-six years he wrote nine further operas,.."
  • See below
  • Quickie explanation for intermedi? I know you have the link but...
  • Does L'orfeo also survive? If so, we probably need to make that clearer in the sentence starting "Of the works..."
  • See note below
  • "Of seven other operas he composed either in part or in whole, the music has been lost with the exception of fragments." Does this mean the words/libretto survive? Or that the only thing surviving is fragments of the music? If the latter - I think "Fragments of the music for seven other operas he wrote either in part or in full also survive." would be better phrasing, less ambiguous.
Wording has been replaced, per below Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the information relating to the lost operas has been deduced from contemporary documents, from which it is not always possible to determine how much music for individual works was actually written." Totally lost me with what you're trying to say in the second part here - Actually, I'm totally lost on the whole second paragraph of the lead. What are we covering in this article - the seven works for which we have something still surviving? I think the lead needs to be explicit here - in one of the first sentences - stating what we're covering here. Also .. I would expect a listing of all the titles covered by this article in the lead.
  • WaYYY too many sentences start "Of the ..." or "Of (number)..."
  • Following your criticisms I re-read the lead and found it unsatisfactory. I have rewritten it; I hope it's now clear that (a) the article is about the seven "lost" operas out of the ten Monteverdi wrote, (b) that apart from a couple of fragments the music for these seven works has disappeared, although in some cases the libretto has been found and (c) of the seven "lost" works it is known that four were completed and performed and three were aborted by Monteverdi. These are the critical points, though I shall probably add a litle more to the lead as this review progresses. But please let me know if anything remains unclear at present. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • "maestro di capella" is .. what?
  • "This timespan of more than 50 years covers the period from the inception of opera as a form of courtly entertainment in the final decade of the 16th century, to a point towards the middle of the 17th century when the genre had achieved widespread acceptance as the principal form of public musical theatre." Ouch. Convoluted and I got lost somewhere in there... can we break this down a bit?
  • "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not applied generally before 1634." Sounds awkward. Suggest "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not in general use before 1634."
  • "The first works now generally considered as "operas" are Jacopo Peri's Dafne of 1597, and Euridice (1600) for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided music." I think what this is trying to say (but it took rereading it twice) is that Peri wrote Dafne by himself and collaborated with Caccini on Euridice? Can we make this clearer?
  • "...and the use of recitative, aria and arioso as well as choruses in the vocal parts." Need to explicate the words "recitative", "aria" and "arioso" a bit here so you don't lose your readers to other articles.
  • Hmm, I have to disagree here. These words are the common currency of opera; even people who know little of opera will usually have an idea what these words mean, and for the tiny minority who don't, the links are there. The alternative would be to ruin the prose flow with paranthetical explanations, e.g. for recitative ("a form of sung speech used between arias and other formal numbers to advance the plot"). With less usual tems such as "intermedi", I have incorporated a brief explanation, but to apply it to the extent you suggest is not, I think, justified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, Monteverdi's torneo Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) is a work whose precise genre has proved particularly difficult to define." But apparantly it's a torneo? If it really is subject to debate, suggest not defining it in the sentence - looks very ... strange.
  • "Monteverdi composed, in all, 24 works for the stage. Of these, ten are usually classified as operas, of which the music for seven has been lost apart from a few fragments." I think you need all numerals here ... since you're comparing/contrasting all the same type of thing.
  • "...their loss is that they may contain musical links..." reads odd. Suggest "...their loss is that they might have shown musical links..."
  • Link for Libretto and explanation on first usage?
  • Done (in lead)

L'Arianna:

  • "...and set the ballet Ballo delle ingrate." Huh?
  • Linkie "soprano"?
  • Shouldn't "...could hold an audience of several thousands." be "could hold an audience of several thousand."?
  • I gather the libretto survives?

Le nozze:

  • "maestro della musica" is ... what?
  • "Thus, late in 1616 Striggio asked him to set Scipione Agnelli's libretto Le nozze di Tetide, as part of the celebrations..." I don't get the "set" bit here.

Andromeda:

  • A "ballo" is what? Yeah, there's a link, but you can lose readers that way.
  • "still with 400 lines of the Andromeda libretto to set" ... we need to define this jargon of "set" somewhere - I sorta get the gist of it, but it's jargony and should be explained on first usage so you don't confuse non-specialists. Again ... "librettos were often the subject of numerous settings by " is going to be opaque to non-specialists.

Two abortive:

  • "about a women who feigns madness" is this "a woman" or "about women"?
  • Woman (typo)

La finta:

  • "appreciation of the composer's innovatory style" awkward - more usual would be "appreciation of the composer's innovative style"
  • Yes
  • "...theme in commedia dell'arte which..." "commedia dell'arte" is what?
  • Linkie "Italian theatre"?
  • What link did you have in mind?
  • Linkie "Paulo Sacrati"?
  • It's a redlink; I've never heard of him otherwise so I wonder about his notability?

Armida:

  • Linkie "Girolamo Mocenigo"?
  • Even less notable than Sacrati, I'd say. Very much doubt he's worth a redlink, honestly

Proserpina:

  • Quickie explanation for canzonetta?
  • Quickie explanation for "balli"?
  • Its the plural of "ballo" which is already explained and linked.
  • Okay, so it was added to a repetroire after his death but when did it fall out of the repetoire?

Le Nozze:

  • Linkie for "Michelangelo Torcigliani"?
  • I think about this. In my view redlinks should be used when there is a possible chance that an article will be written on the subject. I know that some editors like to use them whenever possible, but when overused they can confuse the uninformed reader and can be unsightly. But as I say, I'll give it more thought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He acknowledges numerous departures from the original, including the introduction of a comic character, "Numanus", to match that of the popular "Iro" in Ulisse: "I knew the dispositions of many theatregoers"." Disjointed - I diddn't see the connection between the quote and the first part until I reread the sentence - suggest rewording.
  • Okay, the article just ... ends. Nothing to tie all this together and stuff?
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Laser brain

It's very good. As you know, I find the concept of the lost work quite fascinating—even more tantalizing is the possibility that these scores will emerge from some dank library archive in the future. Thanks for the great read.

General:

  • Spotted some comma inconsistency in sentences that begin with "In [date]" or "On [date]" phrases.
  • I use a comma after a year or date only if a subclause follows. Thus: "In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death,..." etc, as against "On 20 June Monteverdi informed..." etc. I believe I've been consistent in following this principle, but please point out any instance where I haven't.

Background:

  • "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" Same comment as Tim riley, really. Maybe "Monteverdi's long creative life comprises largely two phases"? Not sure...
  • "Before then, and even after, in Italy operatic works were typically termed favola in musica" The "and even after" lost me here—you've just written that the term opera was not used before 1634, implying that it was used after. Do you mean that after 1634, Italian operatic works were sometimes called opera and sometimes called favola in musica, etc?
  • "A significant aspect of their loss is that they may contain musical links between the composer's early Mantuan court operas and the public operas he wrote in Venice towards the end of his life." I think you need more clarity here. I'm assuming what you're stating is that the opportunity to study the potential links has been lost.

For Mantua:

  • "The libretto for L'Arianna was by Rinuccini, whose literary skills had earlier impressed Duke Vincenzo I of Mantua after a performance of Euridice." Wouldn't Rinuccini's literary skills have impressed the duke during the performance?

For Venice:

  • Ninth Book of Madrigals—what is it? Stylize as appropriate. A brief explanation would be nice.

Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for these comments which were most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments
  • I just read this in one sitting - very nicely done. I have a few quibbles, but think it is ready for FAC already (ping me).
  • In For Mantua, even though I have read the article on L'Orfeo, I somehow expected a bit more on it here than a passing mention in the second sentence of the L'Arianna section and one mention by name in the Background.
  • When I read this, I just assumed there would be some sort of follow-up sentence (when it was next performed, or even that no trace of it remains) In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death, Proserpina rapita was added to the repertory of Venice's Teatro San Moisè.[92]
    • Redlich, the source, give no performance details, and no other source I've seen even mentions this fact. Carter refers to a second edition of the libretto being published in Venice in 1644 which is indicative of some relevant action there. I have extended the sentence to incoporate these facts.
  • General comment - I know that it says in the lead which were the four operas that were actually written and performed, but perhaps it could be made clearer in the beginning of each section if this is the case. So for example the first sentence of L'Arianna begins with L'arianna was composed for the Mantua court as part of the festivities for the wedding of the heir to the duchy, Francesco Gonzaga, to Margherita of Savoy, in May 1608. which makes it clear it was actually composed and performed. His last two Mantuan projects are under the header "Two abortive projects (1627–28)", so it is clear from the start that they came to nought. However the sections on Le nozze di Tetide and Andromeda both begin ambiguously, and to be honest, I was a little unclear at first if Andromeda had been performed or not (I went back and re-read the sentence The libretto's frontispiece confirms that the work was performed during Mantua's Carnival, 1–3 March 1620.[50] - perhaps if "Andromeda" was used instead of "the work"?).
  • I am not sure if it would help to have a sentence or two at the start of the For Mantua and For Venice sections giving an overview of each? So "For Mantua" could have a sentence that said Monteverdi worked on six operas for Mantua, only the first of which, L'Orfeo survives with music. Perhaps give a sentence or two on L'Orfeo next, then it could go on to say that of the remaining six, only the second (L'Arianna) and fourth (Andromeda) were actually completed and performed.
  • The "For Venice" section could start with something similar, though these were clearer to me (both lost Venetian works were composed and performed). So perhaps something like Monteverdi composed four operas for performances in Venice, half of which survive with their music. His first Venetian work ... It is your call, but this may be clearer for the average reader.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these excellent suggestions, to which I shall apply myself. I wonder if I could ask you, as a further favour, to check whether you see any problems in relation to image licencing, or with the soundfile? The soundfile was on the L'Arianna article on which I am working independently, but I haven't really checked it out (Jappalang used to do these things) Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The painting images are all old enough to be out of copyright and thus photos of them are free. The photo of the palace is free too. The sound file is free as far as I can tell - I added the web page of the uploader (who is no longer active here). He recorded and sang it himself, so that seems fine. The only possible question is which version of the song did he record - assuming it is the one from the Madrigals book, all should be fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the brief introductions at the start of each section are fine and all of my concerns above have been addressed. While re-reading the start of the article, I noticed a stray quotations mark in ...but of their music, only the famous lament",... that needs to be paired up or removed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folantin comments

Nice work. "Paolo Sacrati" should be Francesco Sacrati, a popular opera composer of the era who may have had a hand in M.'s Incoronazione di Poppea. I created a stubby bio of him years ago, which could be expanded one day. --Folantin (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thnks for spotting my error. I had Sacrati correctly named in L'incoronazione, don't know why I called him Paolo here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "None of Monteverdi's music for Andromeda has survived." I'm pretty positive "Andromeda" needs italicising here, because presumably you mean the whole opera, not just the music for the heroine.--Folantin (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda Arendt comments (with only little time at the moment)
  • Lead: I would like to know all seven titles in the lead, rather soon, to know what we talking about, for example at the end of the first par.
  • Still there: I bet there is a better link to the court of Mantua than the present day city (compare Selva morale e spirituale) like Gonzaga mentioned later.
  • Arianna, Armida: It is clear only afterwards where the plot ends.
  • Another enjoyable interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fully preserved" - can we really say so about Ulisse and Poppea, looking at the debates about what in the copies is by Monteverdi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gerda, for these helpful comments. I have adopted your suggestions, except for the first. Having tried this at an earlier stage in the drafting, I found that the proliferation of names led to confusion as to what was lost and what wasn't, what was finished and what wasn't, etc. So I'm leaving the first paragraph as it is, though all seven titles are now listed in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt comments (first part as yet)


Lede
  • Are you sure on the bolding? Please consult WP:BOLDTITLE is you have not yet done so.
  • The first two sentences contain an excessive number of commas, which is not helping to draw the reader in.
  • "only three of which—" This is a very odd place to break off for the dash.
  • "There is irrefutable evidence " Can you not bind this paragraph together by relating the papers mentioned in the previous sentence to this?
Background
  • The sentences about what occurred during Monteverdi's musical career can probably be made to carry more impact if you are so inclined, but it may be best to pull your punches at this early stage.
  • "for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided musically settings independently." The reader may be confused by this statement. Would it be wise to say that the work was performed to these settings, and in I assume 1600?
  • I would reserve any mention of Monteverdi and L'Orfeo until the start of the following paragraphs from the one it presently appears in. This way, you move from the general to the specific with no need to move back.
  • If you are going to italicise intermezzo, I would give consideration to doing the same to entr'acte. Just so the reader reads with an easy mind.
  • "alongside the development of opera" perhaps "during Monteverdi's musical career; he often ..." or similar?
  • " to confusion as to the correct classification of some works." perhaps, "to debate about how to categorise some works".
  • Perhaps a few well-chosen words on Monteverdi's 1624 work which show how it resembled and yet was different from modern opera would be wise.
For Mantua
  • "In all, " omit.
  • " the service of the Gonzagas and was ensconced " Perhaps a reminder of the date he left the service of the Gonzagas.
  • "nearly 20 years later, in a letter to the duke's secretary" could you find a graceful way of conveying to the reader that the duke was then dead?
  • "After a Prologue" On balance, I think prologue should be lower case.
  • Lamento caption: I would state when the piece was recorded.
  • "Rinuccini's libretto was extended during the rehearsals, after complaints to the duke " If it is known who made the complaints, I would say so. Is it possible to turn the first phrase to the active voice, or is the extender not necessarily Rinuccini?
  • "Andreini's renowned acting and vocal abilities." Perhaps the "renowned" can be moved to the first mention of Andreini? I think it would convey to the reader that they didn't just grab the first lady who could sing who came along in all likelihood.
  • "employed" Perhaps it is overcute, but would you consider "deployed"?
  • "the Mantuan court's official reporter for the occasion" I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps a rephrase is worth considering?
  • If the Venice performance was the last, you should say so. If it is not known if it was the last, you should say so instead.
  • "was familiar to the Mantuan court" If what follows is the evidence of this, it really isn't enough; it might only be familiar to whoever screened the candidates assuming he had a good memory and was still alive. Life seemed rather chancy then. Far safer to be at the Mint!
  • "intermedi" a link to its singular form would be good, I think.
  • "the duke had a sudden change of heart " I would omit "sudden". It does not matter if the duke agonized over it or did it on a whim, the point is he withdrew the commission.
  • "still with 400 lines" There's a definite feeling that an "only" is intended before the 400. You may as well say it, then.
  • "discovery" "rediscovery"?
  • "current employers" then-employers?
  • "In reply, Monteverdi offered three options: " Perhaps this can be split?
  • "Mindful of Mantua's" I think you will need a "Tomlinson believes that ..." or "He believes that ..." or similar.
  • "There are obvious structural similarities" I think this is too abrupt a start to the analysis.
  • Thank you very much for such painstaking reviewing. I have dealt with your points in the letter or spirit of your suggestions, except for:
  • Lead bolding: the link in the bolded characters was obviously wrong, but I think simple bolding of the name is permissible; I can't see where in WP:BOLDTITLE it is forbidden
  • "A few well chosen words" where you suggest them would I think veer off-topic, but such words do appear, in a better context, in the Armida section
  • There is no information available about performances of L'Arianna after the 1640 Venice revival
  • "still with 400" was my intended sense, i.e. he still had much music to write when he suggested the project be given up
  • "then-employers" is not BritEng idiom. I've made it "Venetian employers".

I'll be ready for the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Venice
  • " Only Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and L'incoronazione di Poppea survive, although the two lost Venice operas were both completed, and were performed within Monteverdi's lifetime." I would reverse this and say "All were performed in Monteverdi's lifetime, but only ..." I think saying they were performed carries the implication that they were completed. I understand, though if you want the word in there for stress
  • "Girolamo Mocenigo" Perhaps describe him for those who come directly to this section as "Monteverdi's wealthy Venetian patron"?
  • I must say, that is quite a plot for a wedding celebration! I personally would find it put me off my cake.
  • " dances were choreographed " I am rather dubious about using this very 20th century term. Arranged?
  • I would shorten the quote. The reader is waiting too long to find out what the special effects were.
  • "Come dolce oggi l'auretta" Greek to me. I would translate.
  • " Ellen Rosand" Perhaps state her profession
  • "a similar " consider "an analogous"
  • "wounds a deer and kills a Latino shepherd, Elminio," Lest it be thought Monteverdi valued the dear more highly, perhaps (if true) "first wounds a deer, and then kills ..." Also must you use "Latino"? Can he not be "Latin"
  • "the trio's" hm. Mortal or divine?
  • "Torcigliani's preface refers to "the sweetness .."" This preface was performed onstage? I gather that it was. He praised himself in the verses? Set to music? Perhaps a little clarity is called for.
Consequences
Is it possible to mention that there are no performances as yet of the remusicked work?

That's all I have. Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have dealt with the minor points per your comments except:-
  • I don't yet have a translation for the Italian "Come dolce oggi l'auretta". This can always be added later
  • Rosand: having said "In her analysis of Monteverdi's late works..." I thought it unnecessary to add a further description, e.g. "musicologist", "historian" etc. People will I think gather that Ellen Rosand is an authority. This requirement to identify people with a specific label, even when the context speaks for itself, is probably as tiresome for readers as it is for writers.
  • Torcigliani's preface was not part of the libretto and was not set to music. I think this is now clear.
  • Goehr's "remusicked" version of Arianna was performed at the ROH in September 1995. I trust this is also clear.

Thanks for all these comments. I will probably wait for FAC to shift a bit before nominating. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

[edit]
Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review 1
Previous peer review 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it could be an FA. I am prepared to put in the work to achieve this, but any help would be most welcome :-) -- Marek.69 talk 02:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now see that there are a few more issues with this article than I anticipated. User:History2007 raises some good points and I think that they are probably correct.The article does come across a bit soul-less, so fair comment. Looking at the references I would guess that there are probably quite a number which are not WP:RS. I am happy to go through them to check, but it might take a while.:) --Marek.69 talk 20:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

[edit]
  • The overall tone may be criticized as a bit too friendly, and "in universe". Lots of people said nice things about him, but what will be his lasting significance really?
  • Some of the references seem a bit dubious - it's a pity to start with "about.com"! There are an awful lot of piled up refs - 7 in one place. Is it possible to bundle these with your citation method? Why does it take 4 refs to say he was at Vatican II, but only 1 to say what he did there? One of the Stourton refs is malformed & stranded in the text.
  • Several tags - citation & clarification needed.
  • I'm not a great one for spotting inconsistency in refs, but I noticed some here - I'd drop the street addresses some publishers have but others don't in the bibliography.
  • Should he be called "Karol" before the papacy?
I think to use Wojtyła would be correct, so I agree with search/replace. --Marek.69 talk 22:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Accedie. -- Marek.69 talk 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1970, according to a contemporary witness, Cardinal Wojtyła was against the distribution of a letter around Krakow, stating that the Polish Episcopate was preparing for the 50th anniversary of the Polish-Soviet War.[39]" Why? What's this about?
  • I have no idea either, it appears to be sourced to a Polish newspaper (Roman Graczyk, Cena przetrwania? SB wobec Tygodnika Powszechnego, Warszawa 2011 p. 204 ISBN 978-83-7700-015-1) which I don't seem to be able to access, so I've removed it for now. If someone can explain then please feel free to re-add. -- Marek.69 talk 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman Graczyk is referenced on the Polish Wikipedia here. -- Marek.69 talk 21:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Health - understates the weakness of his final years?
  • rather too many short sections for my taste - Jubilee 2000 campaign is one line.
  • could do with a summing up with some extended quotes on his significance, analysis rather than tributes.
    The book I mention in my comments by John Cornwell offers some critical analysis of the Pope's significance. Development of the sections regarding his theological views and teachings would also stave off this criticism somewhat. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beatification section may be a bit too long?
  • Criticism section probably too short.
  • Rather too many external links
  • There's nothing, or no section anyway, on his organizational impact on the church, which was surely considerable.
  • Couldn't see his Polish camp followers mentioned - esp. Card. Paul Marcinkus (ok Lithuanian-American) head of the Vatican Bank during the Banco Ambrosiano scandal - not I think mentioned in the "criticism" article either, which it should be.
Does anyone have a book on the Banco Ambrosiano scandal? -- Marek.69 talk 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Marek.69 talk 23:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Comment I've done a run through and made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki. I spotted a certain amount of overlinking and linking to generic words and events rather than specific articles - see constantinople. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WereSpielChequers. -- Marek.69 talk 21:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tom Morris

[edit]
  • I haven't really participated in peer review or FAC, so forgive me if I stray from expectations on these things.
  • I found the Teachings section rather underwhelming. It starts with the sentence, "As pope, one of John Paul II's most important roles was to teach Christianity." which is perhaps stating the obvious rather too much. It'd be like an article on Wayne Rooney containing a sentence of the sort "As a Manchester United striker, Rooney's most important role is to kick the football into the goal." Well, duh. The paragraph really needs a bit of rewrite.
  • The teachings section needs to be longer: there are plenty of sources on the topic. The point about John Paul II, according to my rather shaky and layman's understanding, is that his theology combines classical Thomism with the insights of phenomenology. There is some discussion of this at Personalism#Roman Catholic personalism and some more details at the expanded article, Teachings of Pope John Paul II. This latter article, while not complete, does give enough of a flavour, but isn't adequately summarised in the main article.
  • The subsection on Evolution is currently in the 'Social and political stances' section. Although obviously the Catholic Church's position (and change in position) on evolution has social and political effects, this probably ought to be in 'Teachings'.
  • Have you considered making use of John Cornwell's excellent book The Pontiff in Winter—Triumph and Conflict in the Reign of John Paul II?
  • I have expanded the section on the role of Wojtyla and the Polish delegation in the drafting of Gaudium et Spes. There's plenty more to write about on Wojtyla's role in Vatican II. There's extensive discussion of this in "Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition" (Lamb and Levering ed.) ISBN 9780195332674. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by James F. (talk)

[edit]
  • It's quite long - 52 kB (8694 words) of "readable prose size", which feels like it could do with being tighter, with some of the text moved more into subsidiary articles. For example the "Pastoral trips" section does not need the list of all 104 of them, even if in a collapsible box. Similarly, the "Death and funeral" section is quite long for what it's saying (viz.: "He died. People came to his funeral."), probably because it's pretty much the only part of his life that happened post-Wikipedia, so it's current-events-style. James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Life's work" feels oddly-named to me, though our normal alternative ("Career") also feels wrong. Sorry, not a very helpful comment. :-) James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose style is rather, ahem, laudatory - the use of indented highlight-quotes to start sections, lines like "John Paul II had a special relationship with Catholic youth and is known by some as The Pope for Youth" (CN/SAYSWHO/OLEAGINOUS/etc.) or "He constantly attempted to find common ground, both doctrinal and dogmatic" (followed by only one example, and with no cites on the general claim - OR?)... James F. (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil

[edit]
  • "often playing football in goal" --> "often playing as goalkeeper in football"
  • Can the motto Totus tuus be translated to English?
  • "Election to the Papacy" Why's the last word capitalised?
  • I think there are too many issues in this large article; I suggest starting the article afresh in your userpage, where you can copy and paste the best parts of this article and work on anything that needs to be improved, before asking for another PR.

Comments by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus

[edit]
Comments by --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03
05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Lead should be expanded, at least doubled in size.
  • Too many quotes; in at least one place one quote follows another, breaking text flow.
  • Gay rights activists is a stubsection; please expand.
  • See also should be incorporated into text.
  • There are reference errors; somebody didn't do an error check after running some automated tool recently, most likely.
Thank you Prokonsul Piotrus -- Marek.69 talk 20:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rich Farmbrough

[edit]
Comments by Rich Farmbrough, 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • No need for three coats of arms (Infobox, illus, styles).
  • The ref errors were surplus refs left by the trimming, I have fixed. Fixed
  • We avoid abbreviations such as TX, NY.  Fixed
  • A better pic of the Dali Lama or none. This one has the reader searching for the pope in it.
Thank you Rich. -- Marek.69 talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moonriddengirl

[edit]

I'm afraid that I don't really have time to do an in-depth peer reviews at the moment. I'm trying to keep too much of a backlog from developing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and there are a couple of days worth of listing I'm already behind. I do notice one issue at a glance: the article uses {{cquote}}. This is not supported for the body of articles by the Manual of Style. It's too flashy. To quote from WP:MOSQUOTE:

Format a long quote (more than about 40 words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged. Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quote}}.

The quotes shouldn't be formatted in italics, either, unless the originals were. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moonriddengirl. -- Marek.69 talk 20:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed both the {{cquote}}s and the italicised quotes -- Marek.69 talk 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by History2007

[edit]

First, my apologies for what there is to follow. But I do not like this article. Not at all.

Good News: This article does get the basic facts about his birth date, papacy period, etc. right.

Bad News: The article seems mostly unaware of what the man did, and what his goals were. That shortcoming is epitomized by the lack of any serious content in the teachings section. That section is specially uninformed. Again, my apologies for using the term uninformed, but there is no other term that would apply here. There is a link to his "Social and political stances" but that is not really the center of his teachings which can only be traced through the encyclical and apostolic exhortations he issued. As a clue, consider the fact that the word "encyclical" only appears once in the article, referring to Humanae Vitae which he did not issue himself. The only apostolic letter mentioned seems to be Ordinatio Sacerdotalis which is more political than theological. Items such as Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia and Redemptoris Mater, etc. were key elements of his plan to "reposition the Catholic Church". That plan was in effect for over two decades and mostly succeeded. I could go on and on and on about what is missing... But I think it is clear that only a very small fraction of his teachings or goals or influences are mentioned anywhere. And sorry, I will not have time to work on that any time soon.

Image: The article does not mention his high level of popularity among masses around the world. He was far more popular than the previous popes, or the current pontif. In places such as Mexico he was deeply loved for declaring Juan Diego a saint. The same was true in the Philippines, etc.

Photographs: The selection of photographs is quite unusual and non-representative. For instance, there are 3 photographs in which our previous commander in chief appears. His attitude would have been better represented by this photograph. There are probably public domain versions of that, without the caption, if you want to find one and add it... would be fun to see the reactions.

Overall, a very long and almost unreadable article that gets the dates right, then gets lost in the political issues, relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, etc. and misses the key goal of his papacy which was to transform and reposition the Church. A goal that mostly succeeded. History2007 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence to the lede on this subject. Do you think we need to go into more detail? -- Marek.69 talk 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A whole sentence? I am sorry, but I think you know what I mean. I will also type more below. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Marek.69 talk 18:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 talk 10:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments (requested move?)
[edit]

I am half joking, but after thinking about it a little more, based on John's comment above (what will be his lasting significance really?), I think a move request may be in order. I would suggest a move to "Prime Minister John Paul II" instead of "Pope John Paul II", for this article is written about a politician, not a pope. The first focus of a pope is "his flock" not relations with Islam, Eastern Orthodox etc. Look at how much space is given to those, vs how much space is given to his relationship with his own crowd and their "spiritual direction". This article seems to view him as "Prime Minister John Paul II of the Republic of Earth".

And again, the selection of images reflects that mindset. A photo with ex-KGB Mr Putin, and as I said 3 photos of Einstein give the wrong impression. The icing on the cake was that the photo of his beatification featured Benedict! I touched up the two photos to show that he was beatified on the very feast for which he worked very hard for from 1965 to 1978. And John, one of his lasting impacts is that said feast/devotion (which was previously banned) now has over 100 million followers. That is called impact. To that end, I also added an image of how the Mexicans donated the keys for his statue. Those items focus on a "pope", not on a prime minister. But the article seems to be mostly unaware of the papal side of his life and just a restatement of news reports.

I am sorry Marek, but I do not see how a band-aid or two could fix this article. The heart of it is based on a perception as a political figure - hence the move request suggestion. As I read the article I do not see an awareness of his role as a "spiritual leader", but I see a collage of newspaper clippings which mostly cover prime ministers and other dignitaries in three piece suits. He was not wearing a suit and a tie, in case that was not noticed. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, History2007. I do take your comments on board. I agree that his primary role was Pope of the Catholic Church, but I also think he was more than that. Why was he so loved, especially so in his mother country? I would say primarily for his character and the way he interacted with common people. He also met with and was respected by a large number of political as well as church leaders, so much so that he had great political influence in his time. All these factors contribute to the man and the figure that he was. Marek.69 talk 17:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His own country was a given issue, maybe national pride. But the rest of the world was a bigger test. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do not know if the article uses this or not, but it gives a glimpse. He put in "a lot of work" to reach out to specific groups, including obscure groups of seminarians, orders with a small number of nuns, etc. as well as well known cases such as his rapid move on Mother Teresa. An item that does not even appear on the page now. A large number of other elements that shed light on the issues that shaped his life also need inclusion, e.g. that he was trained by Lagrange, etc., etc. History2007 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does reference vatican.va. I will try to look a few of these up. Thank you. -- Marek.69 talk 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. I suggested that link because the trips/visits/addresses were a key element of his strategy, and reason for popularity. Compared to other popes, he was much more "in touch" and reached out. That point needs to be made in the article somehow. It reminds me of what Gerstner said when he first got to IBM: "A desk is a dangerous place to observe the world from", then went on the road for ever, talked to the company and turned it around. What John Paul II realized was that "the window in St Peter's Square is a dangerous place to see the world from" and unlike others, went out to the masses and turned the Church around. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the comment below, let me say a little more on the "Teaching secion", and then move on. The Teaching section has 35 lines on the Eastern Orthodox trips, his visit to Athens etc. Is that a teaching? Most of that section is a list of trips. Those are not teachings. Most of that section is about photo-ops which any pope has to take part in. I guess that is a Cosmo interpretation of teaching in some sense - photo-ops. But I will pass on further discussion on that.
Yet in that context let just ask ourselves exactly what power did he wield anywhere? Was he going to send the Swiss guard to invade Denmark and claim it as new Papal Territory? No, his only power was mobilizing the billion followers he had and claim them as new territory. There is no mention of that and no section in this article called "impact on his Church". Is there? Not that I can see. Should there be there? Should does not apply here, it depends on who will be editing the article. And that may change somewhat at random. But I think the article would do well to mention his focus on "spiritual values". That was a key element of the character of the man.
Anyway, that is why I do not edit these types of articles. I just commented here because there was a request for comment. I will not be looking at this page again, or looking at that article for a while. I will look at the article maybe in 3-4 months and perhaps comment again, but who knows.
In any case, I think you know what I see as the material that is needed for the article to look more "informed". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you History2007. -- Marek.69 talk 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Accedie

[edit]

Marek, I think you've done a commendable job of tackling a huge, meaty article with all kinds of competing agendas and turning it into something coherent and readable. I have just a few minor questions/suggestions:

  • What is the miracle for which he was beatified? There's mention of a little boy suffering from kidney cancer, but there's also a reference to "the miracle involving Sister Marie Simon-Pierre"... (with no wikilink) -- seems notable enough to warrant a redlink at the very least. That was the one thing not clear to me.
  • I did a good bit of copyediting and found myself removing some POVish phraseology from a few sections. I think I got all the glaring examples, but it wouldn't hurt to take a second pass and make sure to tone down anything excessively adulatory or biased. JP II may be a saint, but this is still an encyclopedia :)

I also have to say that I strongly disagree with the above critique of the article's nature and scope. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Catholicism, so I wouldn't expect to find detailed exploration of his teachings and other doctrinal nuance here – though I would expect good references to set me off in that direction of research if I so desired, of course :) Wikipedia is also meant to serve a global audience of readers, and I think the most cosmopolitan interpretation of the life of John Paul II is the one found here: a man who was at the forefront of many important political events, who put himself in the global spotlight by both his faith and his actions, and whose legacy far exceeds ecclesiastical bounds.

Accedie, maybe we should add this last line into the lead. -- Marek.69 talk 03:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks for all your hard work, Marek, and good luck with the rest of the peer review process! Accedietalk to me 05:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. History2007 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you! Added that in to the article. Accedietalk to me 05:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Accedie :-) -- Marek.69 talk 16:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Casliber

[edit]

Sorry, I got completely distracted reading list of popes...I'll come up with something soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casliber. -- Marek.69 talk 02:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HJ

[edit]

I'm only going to comment on the references for now, because I think that's the most immediate issue. From a cursory look through the references, I found over thirty "sources" that I wouldn't let anywhere near an article I was planning to take to FAC.

  • Catholicplanet.com
  • About.com
  • Ewtn.com
  • Klee.us
  • Popejohnpaul.com
  • Dialog.org
  • Docstoc.com
  • Catholicity.com
  • Giga Catholic Information
  • Wikipedia
  • Writespirit.net
  • Catholicireand.net
  • Popejohnpaulii.org
  • The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt
  • The Catholic Community Forum and Liturgical Publications of St. Louis, Inc.
  • Scribd.com
  • Blogspot
  • Contactmusic.com
Is Contactmusic.com not WP:RS? -- Marek.69 talk 16:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 123muslim.com
  • Coldlakeislamicsociety.ca
  • Blessinexhibit.org
  • Adl.org
  • Polisculture-nyc.org
  • Lutheranworld.org
  • Religion-cults.com
  • Helpfellowship.org
  • Reformation.org
  • Blogspot again
  • Redicecreations.com
  • Metrowestdailynews.com
  • Javno.com
  • Huliq.com
  • Vlex.co.uk
  • Gcatholic.com
  • Rense.com
  • About.com again

Thank you, Harry, for taking the time to go through the references and flagging these up. I think I've removed them all now.
-- Marek.69 talk 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Add to that the article cites a great many sources that were written by the subject himself or by the Vatican, that many more references are lacking basic bibliographic information, and that others still are not of the quality I would expect for what's cited to them. This article has got a long way to go before it's even worth putting significant effort into the body. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HJ Mitchell. -- Marek.69 talk 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Harry, are quotations of what the Pope said, which are referenced from his own books, and events in the Pope's life, which are referenced from The Vatican website OK? -- Marek.69 talk 22:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from his books & speeches certainly, & simple events also; anything approaching commentary should be clearly labelled as from the Vatican, or sourced elsewhere. My take. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John of Reading

[edit]

"Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July he was selected..." - presumably this means that Wojtyła was selected. The two sources given at the end of this sentence do not seem to mention it. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does refer to Wojtyła. I have changed it to say that. I will check the references to make sure this is clear. -- Marek.69 talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, for the first time in history, a Bishop of Rome sets foot on English soil" - this paragraph looks out of place. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John for your comments, and for your copy-edits :-)
This is a quotation from Pope John Paul II from the time of his visit to the UK in 1982, which is briefly mentioned (one line) in the Pastoral trips section above. It is significant because it was the first time a Pope had ever [officially] visited the UK. Unfortunately it does not stand out as a quotation as we are now using the <blockquote>...</blockquote> format. Maybe it should be within quotation marks? The section previously looked like this, before the recent changes of style. -- Marek.69 talk 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been me; {{cquote}} is for pull quotes, which that (and a few others) are not. The doc for the templates says so right up front, in red. Maybe you want {{quotation}}? Alarbus (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Moscow)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my very first article about a building, and I need advice and suggestions from you how it could pass GAN and later FAC.

Thanks, ♫GoP♫TCN 13:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks interesting, I'll review this, I'll try to find time in the next couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I took a quick read through and have some comments. Hopefully they're not redundant to the peer review. I don't know anything about Architecture or Russia-related articles, so you might want to get more input from someone who is familiar with the subject. Off the top of my head, Giano has worked on some Russian Architecture articles, I think. But the article seems to be in very good shape, I found it pretty impressive.
  • Comments: (These are just what came to mind, feel free to disregard if you don't think they're improvements.)
  • There are some WP:REPEATLINKs in the last few sections.
  • Check to make sure you're following WP:MOSCAPTIONs, I think there should only be periods after complete sentences in the captions.
    • Done I think
  • There's a bare url in the references.
    • Unfortunately I can't put the full url, as it is only available for people with registration
  • Better check the copyright issue with the videos you link to (see WP:YOUTUBE for the guideline).
    • Removed
  • Be consistent translating the titles of references.
    • Now consistent
  • When giving equivalents of money, try to say what year the comparison was true of (i.e. "corresponding roughly to US$6,800,000 as of 2010" instead of "corresponding roughly to US$6,800,000 at current rates")
    • Done
  • "during a Mass" should Mass be capitalized? (I don't know)
    • mass now
  • Is Orgelbau Kuhn worth a redlink?
    • Linked
  • In the infobox, maybe put a date with "Reconstructed by the Soviets for civil purposes"
    • Added
  • "fall of communism" maybe a wikilink?
    • Linked
  • Might want to add conversion templates to measurements.
    • Done
  • "Virgo Maria Immaculata Concepta" maybe that should be in italics?
    • Italicized
  • "also provided funds towards the end of the work" maybe say "conclusion of the work" so it is less ambiguous
    • Reworded
  • "Prayers in the temporarily adapted..." maybe "Congregants praying..."?
    • Reworded
  • "An important policy..." I'm not sure you need to say this, the context indicates the importance, I think.
    • Removed
  • "Sources vary on when the pinnacles were built: According to some sources..." Should "According" be capitalized here?
    • De-italicized
  • "Latter were fitted out with benches until the closure of the church in 1938; unlike today, the left side reserved for women, the right for men" Maybe find a word other than "today" to use here.
  • There are some copyediting improvements that could be made, but I don't think the prose is that bad, just a bit choppy in parts.
  • That's all for now, let me know if you have any questions. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation crowding theory

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's too short and I can't figure out how to expand it.

Thanks, Selery (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of thoughts:
    • The supply curve could be moved higher (I almost missed it on first glance - it's more useful than the firefighters picture, which also more goes with the material on managers adapting to psychology) and most of the caption moved into the text. An explanation of it - that people may get up to the minimum level of income they want and then start valuing free time more than they value additional income - would be nice. An alternative form of this probably appeared in the former Soviet Union when they tried monetary rewards, in that there were so few higher-quality or usefully-greater-quantity consumer goods available to spend the money on, people weren't interested (a citation would be necessary for this, however!).
    • You might try soliciting for input via the talk page of the two main articles linked to as examples, and/or on the WikiProject Economics talk page (or other appropriate pages).
  • Allens (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I swapped the image positions and will work on your other suggestions soon. Selery (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Paragraph about the curve added, and asked for further review on both parent topic articles and both wikiproject talk pages. Selery (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blake's 7

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate Blake's 7 for promotion to Good Article status, I think it's almost ready and would like some feedback from uninvolved editors to see whether it cuts the mustard before I nominate it. The article uses British English without Oxford commas, and 'series' (singular and plural) instead of 'season(s)' as is usual on UK TV articles. I'm thinking of using a table of video and DVD releases at the end of the article but it's rather large (31 rows for the VHS tapes) and I'm not sure whether the existing prose is sufficient. Comments on prose, images, layout and all other aspects of the article are welcomed. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
  • Check italicization - titles like Brave New World should be in italics. be consistent in whether ship names are italicized, etc
  • Don't use hyphens for line pauses, but instead either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes
Done - spaced en dashes. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Girlfriend capitalized?
Oops, it was a minor error - fixed. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "alpha-grade worker"? In general, some of the plot points and aspects of the fictional world could be clearer for readers who don't watch the show
Done - he's now a " ...a worker of high social status classified as "alpha-grade"..." That's a good point which I'll deal with. Are there any other terms you found confusing or are unexplained? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the IMDB and Youtube references - The Anorak Zone reference covers merchandise (annuals, books, magazines) that I couldn't find elsewhere. The latter 'Louise and Simon's Blake's 7 Fan Site' (blakes-7.co.uk) is an interview with the new rights-holders that can't be found elsewhere, the former reference is a press release which probably can be found elsewhere. Amended - actually one of my books covers the marvel comics, so I'll change that over later. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nikkimaria, I'll deal with those issues over the next few days. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP Comments

Just a look at the lead; I'll post my comments here:

  • "Four series of Blake's 7 were produced and broadcast between 1978 and 1981." - do you mean "four seasons"?
  • "A comparatively small range of Blake's 7 merchandise was issued by several companies." - "comparatively small range" is a bit awkward. Does the adverb need to be there? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WP, thanks for taking he time to look at this article. British television tends to use 'series' (plural) instead of 'seasons', as do the Doctor Who, Hi De Hi, George and Mildred and other British TV articles. Above you'll find a 2008 discussion about this - I wanted 'seasons' then, as that's what my source material uses, but I agreed to leave it alone and 'series' does fit with other UK TV articles. '...comparatively small...' - I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it at the time, but yes it's a small amount of merchandise compared to 'Star Trek' or 'Dr. Who'. Would '...a limited range...' be an improvement?

Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. Limited range would work. I'll post more comments soon. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WP; there's an ongoing peer review now; you can find the link at the top of the page, comments on all aspects of the article are welcome. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand we've disputed this, but the purpose of ellipses in quotations is to show that there is missing information in place of the ellipses. Without the ellipses, the quotation is otherwise modified and misused. However, in the beginning and end of quotes, they are not needed because it is usually obvious that there is missing information there and the quotations are integrated into the prose, so ellipses are not necessary. Take it as a kind word of advice. By the way, a lot of the article is actually really well written. GA should be no trouble for you, but I'll help you out with the PR in case I have a long list of concerns. ;-) Best wishes, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, WP. I know ellipses can look awkward on a page but I don't think that exempts us from being intellectually honest.Omission isn't always obvious (your "usually" bears this out!). I 'will look again at this article in that respect to see where I can omit the ellipses. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. ;-) However, are you sure there must be a space between a quotation mark and an ellipses? I've never seen this style used before... Thank you, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:ELLIPSIS: "Put a space on each side of an ellipsis ("France, Germany, ... and Belgium"), except that there should be no space between an ellipsis and: * a quotation mark directly following the ellipsis ("France, Germany, and Belgium ...")". You're right - I'm wrong, at least at the closing end! :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Ark Royal (91) an FA doesn't use 'the' - I'm unaware of an official policy on the use of 'the' before ship names, but to write "the London" seems unwieldy so I've used London in preference to "the London". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jona's Comments

If I may baffle gab, here are my concerns while reading this interesting article:

Infobox
  • Why does the run_time parameter reads "c. 50 minutes per episode"? Meerkat Manor, a FA television show, does not represent this. Also its best to use {{duration}} for this parameter.
Not done - 'duration' is a parameter that relates to music infoboxes, television uses 'runtime'; 'c.' means 'circa' which is Latin for 'approximately'. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "and was inspired by sources such as" - what does "sources" mean in this sentence?
"Sources" in this context means sources of inspiration (film and other media) that were drawn upon by the creator and writers of the programme. 'Changed to "fictional media texts". Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Roj Blake wikilinked at its second occurrence?
Fixed Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they commandeer an inferior spacecraft" - is this a typo?
No it isn't a typo; to commandeer is to take something from somebody for a specific reason, usually applied to a legal authority (police, military etc). Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the final episode, Avon discovers Blake's location and suspecting Blake of betraying the group to the Federation, kills him." - is not in past-tense tone, the rest of lead is in past-tense except for this sentence.
We use the present tense to describe fictional events that occur within the narrative per WP:WAF. This also tells the reader whether fictional or real-world events are being described. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its memorable final episode" sounds like an MOS:OPED to me
removed 'memorable' Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but broadcasterClive James called it" - needs space
Fixed - thanks :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Music and sound effects were released by the BBC, toys and models were produced and books, magazines and annuals were published." - this reads like a run-off, xx was released, xy were published, and ab were published.
Yes I think this needs re-wording - I'll be onto it later.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Done - sentence re-worded. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • FN#58 and FN#77 needs to be fixed
Done - formatting errors Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format (compare FN#75 and #77)
Done - #77 dates converted to full d-m-y format. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing those reference problems to me, I'll fix them as soon as I can. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajona, thanks for commenting here, you've been very helpful. :-) This should be discussed at the peer review page; would you mind if I move these conversations into that page? It would help keep all the relevant comments together. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My closing comments: I'm closing this Peer Review now; many thanks to everyone who left comments; it's been good to have some critical feedback. I now feel more confident and look forward to nominating this article for Good Article status. If anyone wishes to add further comments, please feel free to leave them at mine or the article's talk page. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech Research Institute

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like additional input before nominating the article at FAC. The last peer review was certainly helpful, but I'd like a few more eyes. Thanks! Disavian (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have you requested a review of it at Wikipedia: WikiProject Universities? This can admittedly take some time to get a response... I'm waiting for one myself. You may also wish to inquire at the main Georgia Tech article's Talk page, unless you've already done so. Allens (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should also check the report from Checklinks (external links checker, in the toolbox), and revise the couple of inaccessible-from-outside links that it found (check them out from a computer not at GT...) Allens (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments:
    • There are currently some citations from the lead - IIRC, that is generally discouraged by the University style guide; everything in the lead should be a summary of what's already in the rest of the article, which is where the citations should be.
      • I've actually had this go both ways at FAC; in 2007, they wanted the refs entirely out of the lead, and in 2010, they wanted them in the lead. It's not particularly defined policy, to be sure. Disavian (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have there been any controversies about research that's done? On cyberwarfare and other sorts of warfare, or on "national security", for instance, particularly with regard to anything classified or otherwise limited in publication? I'm thinking of the missile R&D as a probable example of classified research. These should be discussed, if any criticism has happened. If there are any limited-publication materials, how is this handled for tenure purposes (are they counted as peer-reviewed publications or not), including for GT professors?
    • Similarly, have there been any controversies over the patent income - is some of it supposed to go back to whatever professor/department/whatever generated the revenue, or is there/has there been a push to have this take place?
    • Are faculty at GTRI tenured? Could a graduate student do dissertation/thesis research at GTRI, ideally with a GTRI faculty member as advisor?
      • I had actually not considered that. I looked it up and found an answer here: "Tenure is not awarded to persons whose home unit is in GTRI or a Center." That fact could probably go into the article somewhere. Disavian (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allens (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article about Madagascar up to FA status (most likely passing through GA first) and have been working at it off and on for about a year. It was a mess earlier, with plenty of plagiarized and unsubstantiated content and a free-for-all in terms of respecting the MOS. I've made significant edits, changes to organization and structure, and revisions to references. I'm still polishing refs and adding a few details here and there but feel it's ready for a peer review, with particular attention to the depth and breadth of subject coverage for an FA-level country article. I've never done a country article before so would appreciate some experienced eyes looking this over. I'm also interested in maintaining objectivity in regards to Madagascar's political situation so some rewording may be necessary. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Automated tools
Peer reviewer
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 432 km, use 432 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 432&nbsp;km.[?]
I switched to the convert code, so this is automatic. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed then. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 432 km.
However, the convert code keeps measurements abbreviated. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed then with first. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there's no avoiding it, since it's part of a proper name. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
I'll have a look at ways to shrink this. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style should be used, especially as the size (230,410) is over 100 kb. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, summary style is being used as far as I understand it - if you see something that doesn't fit summary style please help me understand it better - but I think I'll leave the TOC for now since it's really on par with GA and FA level TOCs for other country articles. These bots don't always get it right. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Will go through it looking for these. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), leukemia (A) (British: leukaemia), enrollment (A) (British: enrolment), cosy (B) (American: cozy), program (A) (British: programme).
Will do in the morning. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?
Didn't see an instance of this problem. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see either. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dablinks
Fixed Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manual
  • Google books should never be added, having only the title, and ISBN is good. URL must be reliable, google is not.
For other FA articles I was told to keep the Google book url but not to include the access date. Did the policy change? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessdates should be added.
Where are they missing? Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As your comments above, ignore this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting is needed.
Already requested. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 17:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these tips. Will you also be reviewing the article for the points I listed above (scope of coverage and objectivity) or will that be another reviewer? Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storm in a Teacup (film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was close to become deleted by PROD, but someone contested it. Therefore, one editor added some reviews into this article; I have to do the rest, such as confirming the date of release and adding more reviews. Well, I did "original research" of "Copyright status", but that was removed. I haven't watched the movie yet, but this is all I can. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1

I'm not too sure what is being requested here, and I'm not sure the nominator knows either if they have not seen the film! This is a long, long way from GA or FA status. It is barely more than a stub and it is not really appropriate for PR at the moment. Here are some suggestions to take the article forward.

  • The article should not really be submitted for review with an under construction banner. Or at such an early stage of development.
  • Generally, films have a "Plot" section which summarises the plot of the film. There are also usually sections on Casting, Writing, Filming, Reception, etc. This article lacks any of this information except some details of its reception.
  • The article should include background about how the film came to be written, it's source, and how the cast and crew were assembled.
  • Details about the studio and distributer should also be included, with more information obviously helpful if available.
  • A greater range of sources is required. Possible places to look are biographies/autobiographies of the actors (one is listed in the bibliography) or production crew, sources about the studios involved, newspaper reviews, and ideally, books and sources which are directly about the film.
  • I recommend looking at some film GAs and FAs to give further ideas about how the article could be developed. Some film FAs are listed here.
  • If this is a British film, it should really use British English.
  • "Over the years, a number of favorable reviews grew": Reviews can't grow. Better to say "the number of favourable reviews grew".
  • There is not much else that can be said about the article as it stands.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw airlift

[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 (a.) I have just created it, (b.) created because there was no Wikipedia reference to these series of flights by British, American, South African and Russian aircraft in support of the Polish Home Army besieged in Warsaw in 1944.

Thanks, Farawayman (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments - all valid and appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Good luck with the article. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Here are my comments:
    • The article should note that the RAF squadrons included many personnel from other countries. Several members of the Royal Australian Air Force took part in this operation, for instance. Added note with citation referring to RAAF aircrew in 148 and 178 Sqn's RAF Farawayman (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • London Poles shouldn't be in italics Fixed Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The plight of the Poles captured the imagination of the world" - this is a bit of an overstatement. It obviously didn't capture the imagination of the Germans, for instance. Agree - Changed "world" to "Western Allies" Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • RAF units have a 'No.' as part of their names (eg, '205 Group RAF' should be 'No. 205 Group RAF') Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The various RAF units should also be linked Done Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the military uses all-caps for operations names, this isn't normally used by historians, so 'OPERATION FRANTIC' should be 'Operation Frantic' Changed to Sentence Case Farawayman (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did the USAAF aircraft which flew to Warsaw land to refuel? Direct line flight distance from UK airfields to Warsaw is +-900mi (1,400km) - actual range was longer, because they didn't fly the shortest route. B17 max range was approx 2,000 mi (3,200km). They could reach Warsaw from the UK, but did not have sufficient range (including min reserve fuel) to return from Warsaw back to UK. This is why they were compelled to land in Soviet occupied territory - which caused all of the political problems related to getting prior clearance for re-fueling from the Soviets! Farawayman (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Russians would have mastered the Polish Resistance in much the same way as the British and Americans had eliminated the resistance in Italy and would have done in France if de Gaulle had pressed his independence too far." - what resistance in Italy did the Allies 'eliminate'? That assessment about de Gaulle also seems way off the mark - he did press his independence too far, but the UK and US put up with him as he was by 1944 the closest thing to a credible French government which was available. I note that this is cited to AJP Taylor, who's now regarded as being outdated and somewhat unreliable at times.Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Excessive speculative text from AJP Taylor removed. Farawayman (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I think the last section could be enlarged to answer questions like: was it successful? was there blame for not doing more? what did commentators in Britain, the US, and the USSR think? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis: The Lost Empire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after two recently failed FA nominations. I and several others have put forth intensive work in improving it further but before I try a FA nom again, I would like to kindly ask other editors to look the article over for any improvements which they see it could use before it goes to FAC again. Thank you for your time and input. DrNegative (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Loved that movie. According to the FA review, it needs a good eye. Gimmie a couple of days for this, though. ResMar 01:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Plot

I didn't find any notable faults with the remainder of the article. ResMar 02:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Parker

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the fact that this is getting passed over during the WP:GAN backlog elimination drive probably means it is a hard article for people to review. Maybe it needs some cleanup.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

I actually found this article to be hard work to read. It is very choppy and facts seem to be spread through it a little randomly. It makes it hard to follow and the prose does not flow. I only read as far as the end of "Sophomore year" but these are a few comments on what I read. As it stands, in my opinion it is still some way short of GA standard.

  • "Parker is considered the top player in the recruiting class of 2013 by ESPN[1] and Scout.com[2] as well as numerous experts. Rivals.com lists him second.": Suggest: "Many experts consider Parker the top player in the recruiting class of 2012, including ESPN and Scout.com, and Rivals.com lists him second."
  • On a related note, I think the lead overdoes this idea of him being highly regarded. I think the sentence above would do the job, and the lead is not the place for a long list like this. The idea is established without needing to emphasise it.
    • I disagree a bit. Based on his current notability, the lead discusses his points of distinction. I have written a ton of sports GAs and generally, you summarize the greatest accolades in the WP:LEAD. The accolades are a bit different at the high school level than they are at the pro and collegiate level, but they are the yardstick by which an athlete at his level is measured. I don't think a one- or two-sentence lead is advisable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is Derrick Rose' high school alma mater": Why is this significant for the lead? If there is a reason, it should be made clear for the non-specialist.
  • The lead in general is a little choppy and list; could it be made to flow a little better? It seems to be a list of "he is great because he won x award and y rated him great".
    • I see you are actually a cricket guy. Can you tell me if you understand the difference between these two sentences: "Many experts consider Parker the top player in the recruiting class of 2013, including ESPN and Scout.com,[1][2] and Rivals.com lists him second..[3] Prior to his junior season, Dime Magazine declared him the best high school basketball player in the country,[4] while a ten-member panel at ESPN HS rated him second.[5][6]"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sonny has directed a youth foundation serving hundreds of kids in and around Chicago since 1990." This is a very odd way to begin the main body. It should state in full who "Sonny" was and why is this the first sentence when the article is about Jabari?
  • I did only a couple of spot checks but found this close paraphrasing.:
    • Article" "Sonny has directed a youth foundation serving hundreds of kids in and around Chicago since 1990. Jabari discovered basketball in one of his father's leagues, although his father has never coached one of his teams"
    • Source: "Since 1990, Sonny has directed a youth foundation that provides mentoring and life skills for hundreds of kids in and around Chicago. Jabari discovered his love for the game through his dad's basketball leagues."
  • "He actually made the eighth-grade team as a fourth-grader": For which team?
  • "and made headlines": Tabloidy.
  • "he made his high school choice the same as Rose, Nick Anderson, Ben Wilson, Bobby Simmons, and Deon Thomas before him": I think these lists of names make it hard work to read the article. Why are these names significant (for the non-specialist) and why not give Rose's name in full as this is his first mention in the main body. Also, why was this a big deal and what was the school? It should be explained here on its first mention.
  • "Simeon waived its freshman varsity team ban for Parker ": The school's name should be given in full here. What is the ban that it usualy has? Again, it should be explained.
  • "Parker was the first freshman to start on the Simeon varsity team in school history, but he has been playing with kids older than him since the third or fourth grade." Why the sudden switching into present tense and "kids" is very unencyclopedic. And it should be made clear that he is only the first because of the previous rule, something the source makes clear.
  • "He was part of an incoming class of freshman that was considered to have the best trio in state history (Whitney M. Young Magnet High School's Tommy Hamilton Jr., De La Salle Institute's Alex Foster and Parker)" Best trio of what? This is very unclear.
  • "With Hamilton and Parker in the fold, Simeon and Young renewed their dormant annual rivalry": What annual rivalry? What is Young? Although the school is named in the previous sentence, it is not clear that this is what you mean. It looks more like a surname when given like this.
  • "The game became highly anticipated when Simeon moved into second behind Young in the City rankings." This does not read easily. Maybe: "When Simeon moved behind Young in the City rankings, the game became highly anticipated." But I'm not too keen on "anticipated" here. And why so much focus on the school, rather than the player?
  • "While a freshman on the varsity, he volunteered as waterboy for the junior varsity games.": I'm afraid I just don't understand this. To when are these events referring? After his debut? Did he not play in this match of which the background has been explained?
  • "He missed the final three quarters of the championship game against renewed rival Whitney Young due to a foot injury." Why focus on one game so much; should it be three-quarters, and I don't think the rivalry needs mentioning again.
  • "As a sophomore, his team spent much of the season ranked nationally in the top five, according to the USA Today." Reads like the team was the sophomore.
  • "One game was aired on ESPN." Why is this significant for Parker?
  • "Despite having been ESPN HS National Freshman of the year, Parker dipped to number six in the ESPNU Terrific 25 sophomores in December 2010." I don't think "despite" works here as I don't see any reason why his prior ranking would affect his ranking for another season.
  • "However, the team's 23-game winning streak was snapped": Snapped is not encyclopaedic.
  • "Parker measured 6 feet 8 inches (2.03 m) 225 pounds (102.1 kg).": Why is this inserted in the middle of his second year performances?
  • "That season, he scored 15.3 points and 5.9 rebounds/game": Presumably these are averages? It should say so rather than "scored".
  • The last five sentences of "Sophomore Year" seem to be on five completely unrelated facts, or at least they read that way. This makes it hard to get any sense of narrative, and the lists of names and awards make it even harder to get a grip on what is happening. I think this happens throughout the article.

I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions please ask me on my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Most of the changes look pretty good; where we may disagree in a few places, it would not be enough to stop it passing GA if I were the reviewer, and based on what I have read (only the first few sections) this looks like a pretty solid pass at GA now. It may benefit from a quick copy-edit though: I did notice one typo further down the article ("That January, Simeon faced top nationoal competition..."). Also, I have not read the remainder of the article as my time is slightly limited over the next few days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been one or two months since the article was at peer review, and I was hoping if you could help me find newly emerged problems in the article that would prevent it from getting to FA. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two dead external links here

Recommend including this critique in critical reception section. Selery (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The site publishes established journalists subject to editorial supervision and has a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Please ask on WP:RSN if you have further questions. Selery (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good, but I think the language is still a little too rough to have an easy time of it at FAC. I will try to point out as many examples of places where the prose could be polished or other issues as I can.

  • Where possible, avoid passive voice and flip it to active voice. SOme passive is OK, but active is almost always more concise and usually more interesting. In the lead The series is produced by Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions). could be something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series. Or it could even be combined with the previous sentence (It is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.) to give something like Hasbro Studios and DHX Media Vancouver (formerly Studio B Productions) produce the series, which is based on Hasbro's My Little Pony line of toys and animated works.
  • Four sentences in the second paragraph start with "Faust" or "Lauren Faust" - again switching the first sentence to active voice "Hasbro selected Lauren Faust..." would help here too.
  • Seems a bit too certain as to the reasons why Reasons for this unintended appreciation include Faust's creative contribution to the writing and characterization... Perhaps something like "Reasons cited for this unintended appreciation..."?
  • Could the first sentence of Origins give the year MLP started? [Since YEAR], Hasbro, Inc. has produced several generations of toys and entertainment related to the My Little Pony franchise...
  • Avoid needless repetition The animated cartoon series My Little Pony Tales, produced in 1992, was the toy line's most recent television series before Friendship Is Magic, and it featured the pony designs of the first generation.[3][4] Does the sentence need both animated and cartoon (wouldn't either one suffice)? Does the sentence need the word series twice? Perhaps something like My Little Pony Tales (2002) was the toy line's most recent animated television series before Friendship Is Magic; it featured first-generation pony designs.
  • MOS says that images should draw the reader's eyes into the article - the photo of Lauren Faust is looking the wrong way (out of the article)
  • Tweak / tighten this to something like Senior Vice President Linda Steiner stated that they "intended to have the show appeal to a larger" demographic, with a central theme of the Hub's programming being parents "co-viewing" with their children.[8]
  • First sentence of Production does not need to say "(formerly Studio B)" as this was expalined in the previous paragraph
  • Move last phrase earlier Though Studio B performed this animation work initially, [in the later part of Season 1 and beyond] the final steps of creating the animation were passed to Top Draw Animation in the Philippines, an animation studio that Studio B had worked well with in the past, in the later part of Season 1 and beyond.[14]
  • MOSIMAGE also says not to sandwich text between two images - in Production the photo of Thiessen could be moved lower to avoid this.
  • Any more details on why Faust left?
  • This sounds contradictory Near the end of the first season, Faust announced that she had left the show, and for season two she stepped down as Executive Producer, to become Consulting Producer. The phrase "left the show" makes it sound as if she was completely gone, but then it says she was still Executive Producer, and is still Consulting Producer.
  • OK, I will just poiint out MOS issues - see if WP:GOCE or someone listed at WP:PR/V under copyedits can help.
  • Who is the sister? Celestia reappears, reunites with her sister,... See WP:WAF and WP:PCR
  • Cutie Mark Crusaders info in Charatcers is a bit repetitious (already in Premise)
  • Article refers to "as of September 2011" a few times but it is now 4 months later - can this be updated?
  • Episodes section needs a ref too
  • Needs some sort of date / year for context Shannon Chan-Kent, the singing voice performer for the character Pinkie Pie, has begun recording for an upcoming third season.[1]
  • I would be explicit that TV-Y is ages 2 and up. The series is rated TV-Y (designed for a very young audience).
  • Really awkward The series is or will be available in the following languages, sorted in chronological order of debut. The series is or will be automatically available in countries wherever the following television channels are broadcast.
  • Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections as much as possible - Toys and merchandise is one sentence - could it be combined with something else?\
  • Watch tenses in Critical reception - some critics' views are present tense (Todd VanDerWerff of the A.V. Club favorably notes ...) others are past tense (Kathleen Richter of Ms. believed that...)
  • OK, will stop for now


  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Coalfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for five years! would appreciate comments before nomination an GAN. I am aware that quite a few page numbers are still needed but otherwise I think it is getting close to GA quality. In particular the structure of dividing the detail into the collections of collieries and the collapsible drop down list of detail for each group would be appreciated. Thanks, — Rod talk 09:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks an impressive gathering of information, of considerable interest to social and economic historians. There is a huge backlog in the peer review system that needs shifting, and for this reason I am unable to provide a detail prose review, but I have highlighted some significant points for your attention, and have done a little copyediting in the lead:-

  • Weak opening: to say that "The Somerset Coalfield included pits in the North Somerset, England, area..." is imprecise. Do you mean "comprised"?
  • The single-sentence opening paragraph looks isolated and should be combined with the next.
  • Lead, second paragraph, second sentence: "It stretched..." Does this "it" refer to the wider coalfield or to the Somerset coalfield?
  • The "Early surveys of William Smith" subsection has one citation near the beginning, but is otherwise unreferenced. First paragraph of the "Stratigraphy" subsection is likewise uncited. Reading on, it seems this is a general problem; there are uncitated statments (including direct quotations) throughout the article. Likewise, the information in the various tables is only sporadically cited.
  • The "Coal seams" subsection might be clearer if the information was presented as a table or list
  • So far as I am concerned the collapsible lists are a good way of presenting this information. But why are the latitudes and longitudes of each pit considered necessary? I don't imagine one would need a compass to find these locations?
  • A few format problems with the refs. There are "page needed" tags in place; hyphens are used in page ranges rather than ndashes; italicisation of non-print sources (43 is an example but there are possibly more), etc
  • In the bibliography, the Coombes publication year is misplaced. Also, for consistency, publisher location information should be given for this book. ISBN formats should be standardised. What are the physical forms of the Gould, Hanley and Williams sources (book, leaflet, report, etc)?

I hope you will find these points useful. I am sorry not to have provided more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will work on those areas. I've done some peer reviews so know how much work is involved and am really grateful for any comments.— Rod talk 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Xperiment

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to nominate it as a Featured Article. Since I've never gone through the FA process, I'd appreciate some feedback here first. I first started working on this article at the end of 2008 and it easily breezed through the GA process. Since then a lot more books and other works have appeared related to Hammer Films and this film, which is significant in the history of Hammer Films and the development of horror films generally, and I have expanded further, mainly using the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) article as my guide for what makes a FA standard article.

Thanks, Joe King (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

This is an extremely well researched and enjoyable article. As far as I can tell as a non-expert, it seems comprehensive and the sourcing looks good. I've quite a list of nit-picks, but most of them are minor.

Lead
  • "However, it becomes very clear that something infected Carroon during the flight": Maybe cut back to "However, something infected [or has infected. I'm never sure about tenses in plot description!] Caroon during the flight"
  • "he rapidly begins mutating into an alien organism": Either "he begins mutating" or "he rapidly mutates".
  • "upset Nigel Kneale who frequently criticised the film": I'm not sure this comes across in the main body.
  • "In his approach to making the fantastic nature of the film's plot convincing to audiences, Val Guest aimed to employ a high degree of realism…" A little too wordy: what about "To make the film's plot convincing to audiences, Val Guest employed a high degree of realism…"
  • "the first of many scores he would compose for Hammer": No need for "would compose", "composed" would be better.
  • "The film enjoyed a highly successful release in the United Kingdom": I never like "enjoyed" used like this, and not sure about "highly successful". What about "Upon its release in the United Kingdom, the film was [highly/very - but this implies editorial judgement] successful…"
  • "Its success led to Hammer producing…" What about "Its success influenced Hammer to produce…"
  • "leading to them becoming synonymous with the genre": Maybe "making them synonymous with the genre"?
  • Possibly the lead devotes too much to the one plot change at the end of the film and to the realism. I'm not sure the rest of the article is sufficiently covered in the lead: for example, the casting , make-up or critical response.
Plot
  • "…and its three occupants - Carroon, Reichenheim and Green - is lost.": I think these should be emdashes, according to MoS.
  • "Quatermass and Briscoe track the creature to Westminster Abbey. Examination of tissue samples taken from Carroon has led Quatermass to conclude that the alien creature that has taken him over will eventually cause him to spore, endangering all of humanity as the organisms spread": Maybe "From his examination of tissue samples, Quatermass concludes that [an or the: this is the first mention of an alien creature in this section. It depends if the film has established an alien as involved by this stage or if it is just implied] alien creature has taken over Caroon and will eventually spore, endangering all of humanity." [Not sure about "as the organisms spread": is this referring to the spores, or the creatures that they grow into? Maybe better to leave it out anyway]
Development
  • "it was an enormous success": Another judgement; maybe just leave as "success" unless it can be evidenced or quantified.
  • "who was immediately keen on buying the rights to make a film version.": Maybe "…keen to buy the rights for a film version."
  • "with one executive expressing reservations that The Quatermass Experiment was not suitable material for the company" Reads like the executive felt it was unsuitable for the BBC; also, why did he consider it unsuitable for the company, which I imagine was largely unknown?
  • It's possible the executive also felt it was unsuitable for the BBC given the disdain most senior management would have had at the time for television and science fiction! Hammer would have been well known to the BBC since several of their radio series had been adapted by them. I think the article should probably make some reference to that but I need to have a bit more of think about how to go about it. - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing
  • "Further stylistic changes were sought by the BBC": Such as?
  • I can understand why Briscoe would return to being British after an American was cast as the lead, but why should Q be re-promoted? (And why was he demoted in the first place in the script?)
  • Not known. I suspect that Landau assumed Quatermass would be played by a Brit so probably demoting him made Briscoe's relationship with Quatermass less subservient (Briscoe, being a Flight Surgeon would also be a doctor). But that falls under original research - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casting
  • Two of the actors have a sentence describing their later life and death. The others don't: could this be made consistent?
  • ""he-men roles - rough, tough and realistic"": Should this be an emdash?
Filming
  • "Hired to direct the film was Val Guest": Why this slightly odd construction rather than "VAl Guest was hired to direct the film"?
  • "and only began reading them after being teased for being "ethereal" by his wife, Yolande Donlan." I'm not too sure what this means.
  • Incidentally on Guest, were there any comments from critics specifically on his direction?
  • "low even by the standards of Hammer at the time": Any comparison with other Hammer films, or other films in general?
  • Lights out shot: It may be interesting to explain how this appeared on the film. Did it include just the Abbey or did the catch a shot of a wider area?
Makeup and special effects
  • Any comments on the effectiveness of the monster?
Cinema release
  • "It has been alleged that an audience member, a nine-year old boy who suffered a ruptured artery, died of fright during a showing of this double bill in Oak Park, Illinois.": Alleged by who? I think this story needs a better provenance than just "alleged".
Legacy
  • How could Neale refuse permission to use the Quatermass character in 1956 if the BBC owned the rights? And how could Hammer produce the two sequels by the same token?
  • Good question. After the sale of The Quatermass Experiment to Hammer Kneale demanded and secured greater control over his work, including Quatermass, from the BBC. The sequels were made with Kneale's consent and he also worked on the screenplays. Have amended both the Development and the Legacy sections to reflect this. - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General
Thanks for the very useful comments! Some of the points that I haven't yet answered I either want to think about how to reflect in the article or I need to do a bit more research. The lead needs a complete rewrite. Will come back on some more of these soon! - Joe King (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valenzuela, Philippines

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I know that I've been doing a lot for researching and improving the article for the past few years by adding stuff and even re-writing whole chunks of sections. I wanted to see if the article is now A, GA or FAC-qualified or I still need to emphasize few points.

I would like to mention that there is already a first peer review for this article right before it was moved from Valenzuela City > Valenzuela, Philippines in 2010. Books that are used in here either have no ISBN (don't know why) or some data are missing. I know that there are some major grammar and punctuation inconsistencies but I think I can work with that in the future.

Thanks, — JL 09 talkcontribs    11:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Few of the references have dead links which I have tagged last December 2011. I'm still working on replacing citations and references.--— JL 09 talkcontribs    11:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments. A lot of work has gone into this interesting article, but a lot more will need to be done to improve it to, say, GA status. What follows is not a complete review, but rather a short list of things to think about.

  • Quite a few paragraphs lack inline citations to reliable sources. The first, third, and fifth paragraphs of "American era and Japanese occupation" are examples, but there are many others. It's a good idea to provide a source for every set of statistics, every unusual claim, and every direct quotation, and also every paragraph. If one source supports all of the claims in a whole paragraph, put the citation at the very end of the paragraph.
  • As a general rule, where quantities are given in metric and imperial units, the primary units should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated. In the first sentence, for example, the distance would be 14 kilometres (8.7 mi). I like to use the {{convert}} template, which automatically spells out and abbreviates in a way that conforms to the Manual of Style.
  • Virtually all of the quantities, including temperatures and areas, need to be rendered in both kinds of units. I see quite a few that still need conversions.
  • There's a good deal of overlinking in the article. My rule of thumb is to link special terms on first use in the lead and perhaps again on first use in the main text. For example, Spain, Bulacan, Metro Manila, Pío Valenzuela, and many others are linked multiple times. Common words like "physician" and "murder" should not be linked at all. Occasionally there are reasons to link something more than once or twice in an entire article, perhaps in the infobox and in a caption as well as in the lead and the main text, but those are exceptions to the general guideline.
  • The color-coding in the "Feasts and holidays" table may not make sense to color-blind readers. I would consider removing the colors and flagging the city-wide holidays with a text symbol or drawing notice to them in some other way.
  • In places, this long article seems to me to include unnecessary detail. Will many readers find a complete list of the city's ZIP codes useful, for example? Is the table of traffic counts really necessary?
  • The article has too many lists. Generally, the Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists, where feasible. For example, "Landmarks and attractions", could be rendered in prose paragraphs without bullets or bolded subheads.
  • The link checker finds 20 or dead or problematic urls in the citations, here.
  • I would set the image size to "thumb" for most of the images rather than bumping them up. Exceptions to this general guideline would be the lead image in the infobox, which is usually set to 300px, and maps, which often need to be bigger than "thumb" for readability.
  • It's best not to displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons with images.
  • Images should be placed within the sections they illustrate and should not overlap section boundaries.
  • When all other changes have been made, you might ask someone from WP:GOCE to copyedit the whole article. Small grammar errors occur here and there that look to me like second-language mistakes, though the prose is otherwise generally OK. An example from the "Ecology" section is "Thomas Hodge-Smith noted in 1939 that Valenzuela is rich of black tektites occurring in spheroidal and cylindrical shapes and are free of bubbles." The phrase "in black tektites" would be correct, and the sentence would be better if it ended with "that occur in spheroidal and cylindrical shapes and are free of pebbles". Here's an example from "Feasts and holidays": "Listed below are the most notable feasts in Valenzuela that gained media as well as international attractions." I think "attention" is the word you mean, rather than "attractions", and I would rewrite to avoid the redundancy in "most notable" plus "gained attention".
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bal des Ardents

[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 feedback and an extra set of eyes. It's a topic I read about and found interesting. At some point I may submit to FAC

Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

This is an excellent article and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I had never heard of this before, but French history of this period is not really my strong point. The prose is excellent and probably beyond my ability to improve! However, here are a few comments, questions and nit-picks.

  • "…during which Charles VI of France was almost killed": Possibly a little strong. Maybe it's just me, but I imagined this involved injury in the fire, rather than his life being endangered but no actual harm coming to him.
  • "The fire led to a loss of confidence in Charles' capacity to rule.": I'm not sure this is reflected in the main body.
  • "all ambitious men": Could the opinion be attributed or rephrased slightly as it currently looks like editorial opinion?
  • "the first Duke of Burgundy and "one of the most powerful princes in Europe"" This quote requires in-text attribution.
  • "After an attempted assassination of Olivier de Clisson, Constable of France and leader of the Marmousets carried out by Pierre de Craon but orchestrated by John V, Duke of Brittany Charles became overly enraged and believed the attempt on Clisson's life represented an act of violence against both himself and the monarchy." This is a very long sentence; I would be inclined to split it into two: a sentence about the attempted assassination and a second on Charles' reaction.
  • "Charles charged at his knights including his brother": Just to clarify, this was not fighting the forces of Brittany? He was attacking his own men?
  • "Enguerand de Coucy brought the king to Notre Dame de Liesse…" Who is Enguerand and how did he become involved?
  • "Jean Froissart writes that he was so sick that "far out the way no medicine could help him"" Just checking that this quote is not a typo: I'm not too sure what "far out the way" means here.
  • "He appeared unable to recognize his wife Queen Isabeau, demanding her removal when she entered his chamber, though after his recovery, Charles made arrangements for her to retain guardianship of their children": Perhaps the chronology could be made clearer here. Was this recovery after his treatment by Harsigny, or later? And, to clarify, he did not recognise his wife after he recovered from the coma?
  • "who left Paris despite fervent pleas to stay": Fervent seems a little dramatic here.
  • "Women's fashions became excessive as Isabeau and her sister-in-law Valentina Visconti, Duchess of Orléans indulged in extravagant clothing": The phrasing seems a little odd here; as the previous sentence ends by saying the court turned to amusements for the king's health, the opening of the sentence jars a little as unconnected, although it obviously is once the rest of the sentence is read. Could this be tweaked?
  • "Charles' uncles were content to allow the frivolities for "so long as the Queen and the Duc d'Orléans danced, they were not dangerous or even annoying."[14]": In text attribution?
  • There are a few other examples of quotes that are not attributed in the text.
  • "arrived at the event late and drunk and entered the hall carrying lit torches": I'm not sure about "and…and" here; I like the "late and drunk" though, so maybe replace "and entered" with "entering the hall carrying lit torches"?
  • "Other accounts accused Louis, who was known to have practiced sorcery, of intentionally causing the fire": Whose accounts?
  • "and chastened by the Maillotin revolt of the previous decade": Perhaps briefly explain what this was?
  • "the court did penance at Notre Dame": Who would have decided this? Charles?
  • This is probably not known, but what effect did this have on Charles? Who did he blame?
  • Although Charles was not considered at fault, how did it affect his reputation?
  • Duchesse de Berry or Duchess of Berry? She is called both in the article.
  • The first paragraph of "Folkloric and Christian representations of wild men" seems disjointed. It discusses masquerades and then about where the Duchess of Berry was standing and he king's movements. Maybe there is a connection, but I'm missing it.
  • I'm struggling a little with that section: it's interesting but I'm not too sure of the relevance to the article. Particularly the parts about ritual burning: the burning at the event was hardly ritual or deliberate in the sense given here. But that is just my opinion and I'm often wrong!
  • I have not checked sources or performed spot checks.

I don't usually watch peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please use my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot - very helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NBC logos

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's in need of some work and I believe a peer review is a good place to start.

Thanks, Son (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very quickly, an article about logos needs one at the top right. Copy the most visually interesting to the top. It's okay to duplicate it later on because the article is about images. Then, add perhaps four more sentences to the introduction describing how many logos, how they have changed, who the major designers were, a summary of any critiques you can find in reliable sources (not jokes about turkeys, but when someone serious says something), and a sentence about NBC's business, size, founding date, and maybe a link to the CEO's article if there is one, as they usually get final say on logo decisions in the corporate world. Selery (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comment
YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, you need to remove them as citations. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They can't be primary sources for existence proofs in this case? Selery (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOYT, explained here. You can use YouTube but it isn't advised, you need permission from the primary/secondary source and even if in this case it is compliant, there are probably better sources out there to depict the NBC peacock idents. Look at books for instance with information about branding exercises. Advertising agencies too. – Lemonade51 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of NOYT suggests that screenshots would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps ask on WP:RSN? Selery (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The article is in an early stage with much work to be done to meet WP:V. I would work on this aspect of the article before getting involved deeply in other concerns.

  • Many of the claims in the article lack inline citations to reliable sources, as explained by WP:RS. For example, "Second peacock logo/"Laramie Peacock" (1962–1975" makes many claims but gives no sources. Where does this information come from? It is not possible to verify the claims in the article unless the sources are completely identified. To make the claims verifiable, provide a source for any statistics, any unusual claims, any direct quotes, and every paragraph. If all of the claims in a paragraph are supported by a single source, put the inline citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, URL, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. Although you don't have to use templates, the "cite" family of templates may help you organize the citation data in a consistent way. See {{cite web}} and its cousins like {{cite book}} for details.
  • To improve the layout, consider merging very short subsections to make larger sections. This will make room for images, which should not overlap section or subsection boundaries or displace heads, subheads, or edit buttons.
  • Please review WP:IUP and WP:NFCC for information about Wikipedia's image-use policies. Without going into detail about any particular image, just on the face of it I'd say it would be difficult to justify using this many non-free images. One of guidelines in WP:NFCC says: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I doubt that changing the colors on the peacock feathers, for example, conveys anything significant that cannot be conveyed in words alone.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quoll

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to get new suggestions to get back into the flow of wikipedia. We are hoping to have an FA by June, so critical reviewing is welcome.


Thanks, Marissa927 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and user:Savetheoceans[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. However, it will need further improvement to have a chance at promotion to FA. I'm not a biologist, and I can't give much advice about content or comprehensiveness. Nonetheless, I have quite a few suggestions related to prose, layout, and Manual of Style issues.

Lead

  • "deposits in Queensland" - Link Queensland and mention that it is an Australian state?
  • "indicates that the quoll evolved around 15 million years ago in the Miocene" - Link Miocene?
  • "which occurs during the winter season" - Tighten by one word by deleting "season"?
  • "A female gives birth to up to 18 pups, of which only 6 survive to suckle on her teats." - This has a slightly comical unintended meaning. Do the other 12 survive for other reasons? I think I would stop with a terminal period after "survive".
  • "All species have drastically declined in numbers since Australasia was colonised by Europeans, with one species—the Eastern quoll—becoming extinct on the Australian mainland and is now found only in Tasmania." - This is not a grammatically correct sentence. Suggestion: "All species have drastically declined in numbers since Australasia was colonised by Europeans. One species, the Eastern quoll, became extinct on the Australian mainland and is found only in Tasmania."

Taxonomy

  • "The name Dasyurus means "hairy-tail", and was coined by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1796." - I would expand on this a bit and make it into at least a two-sentence paragraph instead of a one-sentence orphan. Who was Saint-Hilaire, and what was his specialty? Did he have a particular interest in marsupials?
  • "There is no evidence the local indigenous people used the word in the Sydney area." - Link Sydney and explain where it is (not in north Queensland). You can't assume that foreign readers will know that it is on the east coast of Australia.
  • Link "polecat" and "marten"?
  • The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than bulleted or numbered lists, if feasible. It would be easy to turn the list in this section into prose paragraphs, and that's what I recommend. While doing that, you should remove the double bolding from the six names; double-bolding is another Manual of Style no-no. The links by themselves are sufficient, and you shouldn't use even those for the three of the six that have already been linked on first use earlier in this section.
  • "Rising sea levels due to an increase in global temperature caused a land bridge that once connected Australia and New guinea to be covered up with water." - It might be useful to say when this happened. Also, use a big G on Guinea.

Description

  • The sections toward the end are short enough that the article begins to look choppy, and the images do not fit into the appropriate sections in every case. Ideally, images do not overlap section boundaries or displace edit buttons. I would consider merging sets of two short sections to make fewer but slightly longer sections. For example, "Description, distribution, and habitat" could be a section, and "Behaviour and diet" could be another. When combining, it would be good to eliminate repetition such as "The quoll is a mostly solitary creature... " , which partly echoes "Quolls are largely solitary, nocturnal animals." Another repetitious sentence begins "The quoll is mostly carnivorous... ", which echoes the earlier "The quoll is a carnivorous marsupial." My advice is to merge and tighten these sections and to rearrange the images to avoid section overlap.

Diet

Threats

  • "The meat is supposed to be buried at least 8 centimetres (3 in) underground, but has been found under minimal dirt that a quoll can dig around to get to it." - This is not a sentence. Suggestion: "The meat is supposed to be buried at least 8 centimetres (3 in) underground, but it has been found under minimal dirt that a quoll can remove."

Conservation efforts

  • "a University of Sydney project revealed in 2010 is teaching them to avoid eating the invasive amphibians" - More detail would be helpful here. How do you teach a quoll not to eat a cane toad?
  • "The reason for the young parents was the fact that older male quolls can become violent and kill the female if they do not want to mate." - Do you mean that the park managers selectively bred young quolls with other young quolls, or do the quolls themselves make this choice?

References

  • Citation 3 is incomplete. Citation 16 is incomplete. Citation 26 lacks the date of most recent access.
  • A single p. is the abbreviation for a single page. Citation 7 should therefore be "p." rather than "pp."

Images

  • The images look good. The distribution map File:Quoll range map.jpg is good; however, if you can find out what the source of the data was, it would be good to add that to the image license page. In other words, how did the mapmaker know where to put the shaded areas on the base map?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments, mainly on the biology:
    • I find the reproductive behavior of older male quolls (mentioned in the conservation section) rather weird. Normally, it's the females of a species, who have to bear much more of a burden usually, who are "choosy". Any ideas in the literature as to why this happens?
    • Also in the conservation section: Why should the female be inexperienced? The male needing to be inexperienced due to the weird behavior mentioned above, I can see, but what was the logic for the female being inexperienced?
    • I did one slight bit of cleanup in the initial paragraph.
    • You might want to mention the connection with the likewise-endangered Tasmanian Devil a bit earlier, as in part of the lead - people are likely to find it interesting.
    • Is there any phylogenetic research not using the mitochondria (rRNA being the most likely)?
    • I note that the "Extant Dasyuromorphia species" banner (at the bottom) doesn't classify by tribes, resulting it not showing the relationship with the Tasmanian Devil, etc. Perhaps this could be improved?
  • That's about all I can see at the moment. Allens (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Lies Ahead

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article was previously nominated for FA, but failed. I would love to see this article become a featured article, but prose is usually my greatest weakness. Several of the reviewers brought up issues with the prose, as well as inconsistencies with referencing. I would like a thorough review in preparation for a future FA nomination.

Thanks in advanced! —DAP388 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment: Given that one of the first concerns raised in the FAC was plagiarism, I think it would be best to ensure that that issue has been addressed before we beginning detailing prose issues and the like. What steps have you taken to ensure that this aspect of the article is no longer problematic, and do you feel the article is now appropriately paraphrased? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely rewritten the plagiarized bits of the plot section (where all of the plagiarism was). The parts that were not plagiarized were either lightly edited or were left alone. I think I have completely solved the issue. —DAP388 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things (not a full review):
    • I sympathize, with prose not being my strong point either in many respects - perhaps a review by the Guild of Copy-Editors? They have a new "potential FA reviewing" page.
    • The alt text checker found some images lacking real alt text.
    • I did a bit of copy-editing on the lead.
    • One sentence in the lead caught my attention: "Worldwide, the episode averaged a 2.0 rating in most television markets." It is also found in the "Ratings" section. What does this mean? In other words, what is a 2.0 rating? If this means it was ranked second that night out of all shows at that time, which is what I am guessing, then please state that; otherwise, I have no idea what it means. Clarification of a "4.8HH rating" for those of us who don't follow TV ratings (or, actually, TV at all in my case...) would also be nice; 4.8 million households, perhaps?
    • In the plot section, I tried to clarify things a bit - I understand a desire not to repeat the word "Rick", but the reader is not likely to remember his last name (or at least I didn't, without some searching among the characters for which one had the last name "Grimes"). I notice one or two other uses; perhaps this can all be best treated by deliberately alternating between "Rick" and "Grimes" wherever neither his wife nor his son are being discussed?
    • The quote in the middle of the filming section is not at all clear as being a quote, partially because it was done as a blockquote but (at some screen widths) is right next to the photograph, obscuring the different formatting. Putting right after it something about it being "Rodney Ho" who is speaking would perhaps help.
  • Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor

[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 work on it and nominate it for Good Article. It is far from the nominating stage at this point, and needs major revisions that I'm willing to make. First, however, I'd like to see what others view as the strong and weak points of the article and what can be done to fix them.

Thanks for your assistance, DCItalk 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • intro: too many 'alsos'
  • why was the marriage a defeat?
  • 'Francis, just past his 24th birthday, was now Emperor...much sooner than he had expected.'
  • 'even speaking to them in their own language' - how many did he know? Not mentioned.
  • Overall, needs a lot more context. Besides his family life, did he have any notable hobbies? Did he patronize any noted artists or commission major works or buildings? What do historians make of his realpolitik? He seems like something of a failure against Napoleon but maybe he did as well as could be expected. What were the consequences of his being Emperor of Austra etc? Did his domestic spy system expand or become malignant? And so on. --Gwern (contribs) 16:00 4 February 2012 (GMT)

Brianboulton comments: I agree with the general gist of the above comments; the article seem thin and underprepared.. In addition, here are some more specific criticisms:-

  • Disambiguation link on Florin needs fixing
  • Unwarranted bolding in lead should be removed, specifically "elected" and "hereditary"
  • Uncited statements and material: A great deal of the information in the articles is not cited anywhere. The following are the more obvious instances, but there may be further cases within paragraphs supported by a single citation at the end.
    • "The strain told on Leopold and by the winter of 1791, he became ill. He gradually worsened throughout early 1792; on the afternoon of 1 March Leopold died, at the relatively young age of 44. Francis, just past his 24th birthday, was now Emperor...much sooner than he had expected.
    • Entire third paragraph of "Emperor" section
    • "The federal Diet met at Frankfurt under Austrian presidency (in fact the Habsburg Emperor was represented by an Austrian 'presidential envoy')."
    • "Francis was interred in the traditional resting place of Habsburg monarchs, the Kapuziner Imperial Crypt in Vienna's Neue Markt Square. He is buried in tomb number 57, surrounded by his four wives."
    • Entire final paragraph of "Final years" section
    • "Titles and styles" information
    • Marriages and children information
  • Overreliance on a single source (Wheatcroft book). What part if any has the Reifenscheid book played in the preparation of the article? The Wiener Zeitung sourece needs to be marked "in German". But it is unreadable and therefore useless.
  • Why give the IBSN information in the short citations, and why is this information different from that given for the book?

Francis is an interesting historical personage, but until the article has received a good deal more attention, I hink further review is fairly pointless. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the primary contributor to the article, but do have an intent to revise the article to make it worthy of GA status. I hope that the peer review can provide guidance telling interested editors what the right way to go on this thing is. Thanks for your comments. DCItalk 22:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen comments Hi, DCI. Franz II deserves a great article and I'm glad to see that someone is interested on improving it. My first suggestion is: find books, a lot of books. I have no idea if there are English spoken biographies of him out there but you'll need books if you want to make a good article. If you plan to use itnernet sources or something similar, than you should forget about it. Other suggestions:

  • The article needs a physical description as well as character traits. How did he look like? Was he tall? Short? What was the color of his eyes and hair? Was he rude? Gentle? Inteligent? Stupid?
  • It also needs to be enlarged, and a lot. I'd recommend taking a look at Pedro II of Brazil, a FA about Franz II's Brazilian grandson. It will be a good model.

That's all for the moment. If you need any help, don't think twice before asking me. Good luck! --Lecen (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If I Were a Boy

[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 take it to nominate it for FA soon. I want someone who is familiar with the requirements of an FA to review this article. Help me fix maximum errors and improve the prose. Be as harsh as you want with the comments you will leave for all I want is to make this an FA.

Thanks, Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, why has this been classified as a list? It looks like an artixle to me. Secondly, it should not be brought to peer review while it still has an Underconstruction banner in place. If the construction has finished, the banner should be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have always been doing. I see no music category for PR. And that banner will be removed soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes in Arts Jivesh. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Am I supposed to change it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are supposed to move it manually at WP:PR and then change the category of this PR page to Category:Arts peer reviews. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do it right now. I have to go. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the "topic" to "=arts", the bot will do the rest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a banner saying this is being overhauled by The Guild, suggest this peer review is removed until the copyedit is complete. People could be reviewing material that is being changed while we speak. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will you comment of the PR if I tell to copy-editor to stop the copy-edit? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, it appears that the template has been removed, I assume the article is now stable? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel bad that this has gone so long without a review, and so am doing a light copyedit - I have worked on the Writing and production and Controversy sections already. I will make comments on things I do not understand or have trouble with in the copyedit. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This seems out of place in the first paragraph of "Composition and lyrical interpretation" - everything else in the paragraph is factual, but this is pretty much opinion: With unwavering sentiments, she delivers a tormented performance. I would keep it, but move it elsewhere. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vocals and emotions form part of the composition analysis. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I attributed it to critics Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Spanish name really need to be repeated twice in a few sentences? A Spanish version of the song, titled "Si Yo Fuera un Chico", was translated by Rudy Pérez, and mixed by Andrés Bermúdez at The Beach House in Miami.[47] It was included on the version of the album sold on the iTunes Stores of Mexico and Spain,[48] where it was marketed as "Si Yo Fuera un Chico (If I Were a Boy)", and released as a stand-alone single on February 3, 2009.[49]
  • I am surprised the criticism of the song from the Onion AV Club is not mentioned in the Critical reception section - it is used a a ref earlier in the article. See here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found this source less than a month ago. I still haven't made maximum use of it. I will add it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please suggest how I can use it? The author seems to have written it in riddles (at least to me). Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk)
I added something to the Reception section just now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the oldest open PR by far - if I have more comments I will add them to the article talk page (and will do more copyedits). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roxette

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is close to being a GA, though I'm sure it can be improved further, any comments welcome.

Thanks, Mattg82 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Redtigerxyz Talk 18
45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I have removed one sample because I can see that it didn't add anything significant, possibly "Real Sugar" also. But I'm more confused about the others. Does "contextual significance" mean unless the article talks about the actual sounds and composition of the song, then the sample shouldn't be included in the article?
IMO "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" of "contextual significance" is not fulfilled. 1 sample of a popular number to illustrate their style is OK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK:In "1988–1990: Look Sharp!" - "Listen to Your Heart", "Dressed for Success" are linked more than once. Also, MTV, EMI, UK are linked more than once.
 Done Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the whole article and check other instances. Eg. "Neverending Love" linked twice in 3 consecutive sentences. Joyride, "It Must Have Been Love", Billboard, Gyllene Tider , Tourism, Canada etc. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All statistics must be cited for a GA. Add references for (and the similar instances):
    • "in 1996, Marie Fredriksson released another solo"
Releasing an album is a statistic that needs to be cited? Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The year of the release needs a reference. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The album Tourism also charted well outside of the USA, reaching No. 1 in Germany and Sweden, No. 2 in the UK as well as peaking at No. 5 in Australia." etc.
  • WP:UNDUE ?? :
    • "Four months later, Swedish newspaper Expressen reported Fredriksson had been diagnosed with a second tumor. This turned out to be false,[73] and Fredriksson later sued the newspaper for 500,000 kronor" --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've made the sentence more neutral. It was a long protracted legal argument, I don't think a couple of sentences adds too much undue weight. Mattg82 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roxette is about the duo, but IMO throughout, the article digresses to reveal UNDUE details of solo albums of both of them.
  • Inconsistency (choose 1 spelling): United Kingdom/UK; United States/US/USA
  • Don't start a section with "It was around this time that...". Mention year

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of your comments now. I've toned down their solo album details. As solo artists they have been very successful in Sweden so I'm not sure if I should remove solo albums completely. I fixed one of the "It was around this time that..." paragraphs but I still need to find the timeline for the "It Must of Been Love" paragraph. Mattg82 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipalities in Florida

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think it is one of the best lists of all City lists in the U.S. I'd like feedback to see if there are improvements that could be made or problems that need to be resolved.

Thanks, Mgrē@sŏn 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It is difficult to find anything critical to say about such a well presented list, which I should think is a near shoo-in for FL status. The following is all I can come up with:-

  • "They are distributed across 67 counties, in addition to 66 county governments": I am not clear as to what the words "in addition to" mean here; some clarification requested.
√-moved Jacksonville consolidation info to intro which explains the 66 vs 67
  • In the pie-chart, the text on the dark green segment is very difficult to read. Perhaps lighten the coloured background?
√-replaced primary colors with softer pastels for improved readability
  • This paragraph explains the general form of governance for principalities: "Approximately 70% of Florida's municipalities use the Council–manager government system, where a professional administrator is hired by the elected council/commission members to oversee government operations and is responsible to the council/commission. Even when an individual is hired to administrate on a daily basis, there is almost always a mayor, elected independently or chosen from the council/commission. However, the power of that position is primarily symbolic and ceremonial". That is clear, but I find it hard to relate this to the tiny municipalities with populations under 50 – there are six of these. Does Lake Buena Vista (pop. 10) elect a mayor and council which then appoints a manager? Common sense tells me that these places would be administered by a larger adjacent authority, but there is nothing in the list to confirm this.
√-according to the municipal directory on the Florida League of Cities website, even the smallest cities DO have a mayor and at least two council members. I've added a statement and reference to that effect at the end of the narrative
  • In the list, for some municipalities the "government type" is marked with a capital S or W (see Belleview, Holmes Beach etc). It is not clear from the list what the purposes of these letters are.
√-in the source, a few cities were identifed as having S-trong or W-eak mayor form. I will remove those designations since all are not available
  • Maybe identify the state capital by some marking or other?
√-added "capital" label to Tallahassee
  • I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the Manhattan-ish graphic is, bearing in mind tat the main table is sortable by population size.
√-visually shows how much larger Jacksonville is
  • The notes tell me that, uniquely, Crawfordville is not an incorporated municipality. The link goes to an underdeveloped artice, so could you briefly add what its status is, and why this should be so?
√-removed notes section and moved the info to lead paragraph
  • Nitpicking, but I would prefer the years in the final column to be centre-aligned.
√-I agree, change completed

All in all this looks a first class list which in my view, with very little further work, deserves to be featured. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei

[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 need suggestions for improving the article to FA status.

Thanks, Hallows AG 06:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark
  • Images should have alt text
  • Checklinks is showing numerous deadlinks and servers down. Blogspot.com is not usually an acceptable reference.
  • I would recommend archiving online references with WebCite to protect against linkrot.
Infobox
  • The map could use an inset or a second map on a larger scale. The country is small and it is difficult to make out.
  • The "Legend" link does not make sense. It links to an entirely different map with a different colour scheme so is not helpful in interpreting the displayed map.
  • The stated official language does not agree with the main body text.
  • There should be a reference for the land area, and any other facts, if they are not repeated in the main text.
Lede
  • You need to review the lede for compliance with WP:LEAD. Does it truly reflect the content of the article?
  • island and state are overlinking. Also dubious is constitution.
  • "...and in fact it is separated into two parts by Limbang, which is part of Sarawak." The "in fact" is superfluous, suggest "...and is separated into two parts by the Sarawak district of Limbang."
  • "...is around 401,890 (July 2011)." This is a rather exact number. Either remove "around" or round off the number. Suggest "...was 401,890 in July 2011."
  • "thalassocracy". This is an odd place to introduce this term. It would be better in the previous sentence using a construction like "...creating a thalassocracy". Might be better still to move it out of lede into the body of the article where it can be better explained. It is not really essential to the lede. It also probably should have a reference to verify that it can be so described.
  • "...was visited by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521 and fought the Castille War in 1578 against Spain". Who fought the war, Magellan or Brunei?
  • "wartime occupation". This needs to explicitly state WWII occupation by the Japanese. There have been many wars since and younger readers may not make the connection so easily.
  • "Developed Country" should probably not be capitalised (its article is not)
Etymology
  • The second paragraph needs a reference
  • FN.13 does not say "possibly" or any other kind of conditional clause. If there is doublt on this etymology, a source saying so is required.
References
  • Numerous sources are not fully, or properly cited. At minimum, author, title, page(s), publisher and date are required. To achieve FA, a consistent citation style must be used throughout.
  • Many footnotes are repeats of the same source. You might want to consider moving the full citation to the bibliography and use [{WP:SFN|shortened citations]] in the article body
  • Numerous footnotes have ISBNs that do not appear on any of the well known databases such as WorldCat, including FNs 14,15,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47. While this does not entirely rule them out, it leads to a suspicion that they might not be reliable (self-published, COI concerns etc). Are you sure all the ISBNs are accurate; some of them, eg FN.31, return an invalid number message.
  • FN.13 describes itself as a blog. These are usually not acceptable unless written by a recognised authority in the field. The page seems to be based on a newspaper article. The Brunei Times article should be cited directly instead if possible.

Given the number of problematic references, I am going to stop the review here. Fixing the referencing is likely to substantially affect the article content so I suggest you work on the refs first then request another peer review. Good book references should not be hard to find. A gbooks search returned numerous hits. The Saunders book (second on the list for me) looks particularly promising for history.

Joseph Berrios

[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 eventual GA.

Thanks, Hugh (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the output of the "disambig links" and "external links" checkers, BTW. Allens (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments-

  • Lead needs expanding; it should be more than a brief introductory statement. Per WP:LEAD it should summarise the article. One newspaper's summary of Berrios should not be the substance of the lead.
  • Is his date of birth, as distinct from the year, not on record somewhere?
  • Structure: Rather too many short sections/subsections. Some, e.g. "Business and political use of government facility" appear to contain fairly incidental information which doesn't warrant a separate section
  • Inappropriate section titles: some are way to complex, e.g. "County Board of Ethics investigation into excessive political contributions from property tax appeal attorneys". Just the first five words would be adequate. The general rule is to keep all such title succinct, and there are others that could be trimmed
  • Some inappropiate capitalisation in section titles. e.g. "Early Political Career" should be "Early political career". Check for other instances
  • Tendency to over-cite, evident in the use of citation strings for referencing what seem like fairly routine facts. Examples: "Days after taking office, Berrios hired his son, sister and Jaconetty to work for him, bringing them over from the property tax appeals board."[39][40][41; "One day later, Pikarski resigned."[51][52][53]; "Berrios is President of an insurance agency, J B Insurance - Consulting Inc. with an office in downtown Chicago."[70][71][72]. There are plenty of others
    • yeah, but they are needed to demonstrate proportion to coverage in RS, i'd like to leave this for now, this is BLP for an active pol, we anticipate a barage of deletes including refs
  • Some attention is required to reference formatting, in particular with regard to retrieval dates for online non-print sources. In some cases dates are indicated, but it is not clear if these are retrieval dates. Also, non-print sources should not be italicised (see, for example, Ref 19).
  • Ref 72 returns a dead link message.
  • Some of the content seems decidely off-topic. For example, this: "Thomas G. Lyons was a veteran 45th Ward committeeman who served as a lawmaker, lawyer and lobbyist and headed the Democratic Party of Cook County for nearly 17 years.[10] Lyons announced his retirement on January 9, 2007. Democrats scheduled a February 1 meeting in Chicago to fill the vacancy.[11] Lyons died Friday, January 12, 2007, at age 75 in an Evanston nursing home of complications from paralysis, the result of an inflammation of the spinal cord." That could be condensed to a single line; we don't need Lyons's clinical details.
  • I have not carried out a detailed prose check, but I suggest you look at this, or get in an uninvolved editor, with a view to eliminating repetitions such as "Berrios ran unopposed, and at the age of 30 Berrios became the first Hispanic American to serve in the Illinois General Assembly."
  • Note also the number of times Berrios's name occurs in the short "Early life and education" section.
  • Also, maybe reconsider some informal phrasing: Berrios "landed" a job; "mushrooming", etc. Not a major issue, though.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not able to watch peer reviews individually, please feel free to contact me if you wish to raise anything arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League Players Association

[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 extensive revision by TravisBernard, 66.234.33.8 and myself, we would like to take the article to FAC and would appreciate feedback before doing so.

Thanks, The Writer 2.0 Talk 23:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you all for your effort on this – it's a very well written article. This does have the potential to be a WP:FAC. Good to see that the references are consistent. Without going into prose, the only trouble I have is in some cases the comma is overused in the wrong areas. Though at the time of doing this I am in desperate need of forty winks. Below are some suggestions/feedback:

  • There are three dablinks.
  • No need to put a comma between the month and date (such as 9 June, 2001 → 9 June 2001). See WP:DATES for more info. That applies to the references.
  • "It has been at times a professional association, as well as a labor union." Tad ambiguous. You need to rephrase that, the use of 'at times' isn't appropriate in this case.
  • In Precertification, "Creighton Miller, who was a former Notre Dame football player turned lawyer, continued to..."; no need for comma between continued and lawyer.
  • For Refs 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19, use the template (subscription required) instead of 'Fee for article'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed all of the points you bought up. Thank you for the feedback! -- The Writer 2.0 Talk 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt

Sorry to be so slow to review.

Lede
  • "the goal of the organization" The thing is, it has, I gather, achieved this goal (except when it chooses to lay down the burden, of course). Perhaps "function"?
  • Break up that sentence in the first paragraph.
  • In my opinion, in American English, the use of titles like "President" and "Executive Director" before a name of someone who does not hold public office looks mildly pretentious. I would go with "led by its president, ..."
  • "receive official recognition by the NFL " perhaps, "recognized as the bargaining agent for the players by the NFL"
  • I am somewhat uncomfortable with the repeated use of the passive voice in the second paragraph combined with causation being ascribed to a lawsuit. It makes for a very vague sounding paragraph.
  • "the extended 1993 CBA," I know what this means, the reader may not.
  • The third paragraph seems much too detailed. Can it be summarized in two or three sentences, and then perhaps a couple of sentences on what the NFLPA does when it's not in the limelight during labor negotiations?
Early history
  • "The players originally began to unionize " I have no idea what "began to unionize" means. You go on to describe a gradual process towards collective bargaining over decades. Perhaps you need a more "Once upon a time" style beginning such as "From the early days of the NFL in the 1920s, there were labor grievances and disputes. " I'm sure you can find a ref. I would also restate the whole things about playing exhibition games for free as staying they only got paid if they made the regular season roster, and had to play exhibition games in order to make the roster (you can say that cut players received no pay for their efforts, for example. Just don't rail about the injustice of it all, if you understand my meaning. What they, in effect, wanted was a per diem.
  • "left the NFL to play for" joined
  • Were the players forgiven when the AAFC ended and Cleveland Baltimore and SF were allowed to join the NFL? Also, I would end this paragraph here and then discuss the 1950s events in the next paragraph
  • I recall a famous story about how when a Packer dared bring an agent to a negotiation with Lombardi, he excused himself for a moment and returned to inform them they now needed to do their negotiating with the Eagles (as I recall). If you can find and source it, it might be worth an inclusion for the sake of color. Your call, obviously.
  • "They were eventually supported by 11 of the 12 teams that were in the league at the time, and they announced the formation of the NFLPA in 1956." Well ... players on the teams anyway. You need to clear this up, Also, I dislike the way you've used "they", you are talking about people being supported, and so it reads oddly. Can you say supported the formation of the organization? Additionally, it would be interesting to know the attitude of the owners at that time.
  • "new association initially requested " I think you can say "new association's initial demands". That's a perfectly proper term in a labor context and carries no disrespect to the organization. I take it they were also asking recognition as the players' exclusive bargaining agent on labor matters? They did want to be recognized as a union from the start, I assume. You need to explain this. Also for "unable to perform" suggest "unable to play". Or perhaps omit the whole phrase and rely on "injured" to carry that implication.
  • You should mention the Seals were a baseball team.
  • " Don Shula of the Baltimore Colts," gently make it clear to the reader that he was then a player by mentioning his position.
  • You can't personalize Radovich by telling his story and then only refer to him winning his lawsuit by leaving the reader to discern it by referring to a successful lawsuit with his last name! You have to say something like "Their hand was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL had wrongfully (whatever) to Radovich by (whatever)." That kind thing. Find someplace to do a pipe to the article on the court decision. Also, I would omit the "For example" with which you introduce him. He is not an example, he is a central figure of this part of the story.
  • I would combine the first two subsections under the name "Formation and struggle for recognition"
  • Miller need not be given his first name the second time he is mentioned. Can Bell's quote be explained a bit? I think a reader sufficiently interested to get this far would want to know.
  • "Miller refused" This phrasing in this context implies that Miller was being unreasonable. Also "grievance committee" needs to say inline who says so. My POV meter is twitching at this passage.
  • "The players " Why now the players? Surely Miller was an instrument in this? The switch to the general when we start talking about something positive again makes me think there's a bit of favorability to the anti-Miller position. I should add that I know only what I've read here about the history of the NFLPA and really have no position.
  • "this was a misconception as the NFL could play the associations against each other in negotiations. " This reads very oddly, like the AFL, NFL, and NFLPA would all be part of the same negotiation, which was not the case. Sugguest you give this another look.
  • "In partial response to this misguided threat," First, "misguided" is a very strong term. I don't understand what threat. The AFL could hardly avoid being a factor in negotiations between the NFL and NFLPA. They could hardly ignore the elephant in the room. You have to make it clear what was done wrong and what the NFL was responding to.
  • It might be wise to mention the fate of the forfeited pension contributions, if any. I trust they were eventually restored?
  • "On January 14, 1964," This should probably be a new paragraph.
  • As Addison is unfamiliar to most today, I would mention his position.
  • The last sentence of the paragraph obscures the obvious. Simply state that with the merger, players could no longer use the leverage of being able to sign with the other league to get more money out of their existing team. That's what it was all about and why the leagues eventually had to merge once it became clear the AFL was not going away.
  • "weak constitution" Not really. What it was that as the NFLPA really had no leverage as they had no power to strike. You might want to relate it, if you can, to resentment over the changes that basically were being imposed on them as the leagues merged. They had lost their leverage of being able to change leagues and no doubt were pretty unhappy about it. You should tie this in with the changes that were going on. This sounds too much in isolation. Also, did the NFLPA play any role in the AFL-NFL War which preceded the merger, such as Davis's raid on the quarterbacks?
  • why are events being told backwards in chronology? In addition, as soon as you begin to mention Parrish's efforts, you should make clear that he proposed to be independent of the existing NFLPA organization.
  • O'Brien: If someone is not notable enough to be a blue link, and you are only going to mention him once, unless you are making a point by making him a redlink, it is probably unnecessary to mention him at all.
  • " and declared itself an unaffiliated union" The significance of this may be lost upon the reader. Make it clear how this was a major change from its prior role. It should also be made clearer that the two events, that is, the NFLPA becoming a union and Miller departing, accomplished an awful lot of what Parrish was seeking.
  • "Sources speculated that he quit" Who? The sources you have found, or a reporter's sources. Very unclear. You may want to attribute to someone's name, and also preface his name by a one-word job description like "writer" or "lawyer" so the reader gets the significance of what you are saying.

More later. Generally quite good but needs a little cleaning up before prime time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formation
  • The first sentence makes the rest of the paragraph anticlimactic. I would try to phrase this a little more dramatically, and then end with something like "Despite the union's success in reaching a CBA (an acronym you need somewhere in there), many players were dissatisfied because ..."
  • "the owners relented" How? It was a strike, not a lockout. POV meter twitching again.
  • "they were forced to accept the owners' terms" Were guns placed to their heads?
  • The minimum salaries and lack of recourse to arbitration are presented as unreasonable. I don't know if they are or are not. I am becoming increasingly concerned that there are POV issues in this article.
  • "As the merger of the AFL and NFL became official in 1970, the unions" multiple issues here. I would say "effective" rather than "official"; it's still imprecise because what was undecided is how to institute an integrated schedule that included the regular season, but at least it's commonly used. Clearly, though, with the AFL "ending" after 1969, there was no place for two unions.
  • "Jealousy between both associations and fear on the part of the AFL players strained the negotiation process." I would omit. It's clear from the following sentences that the NFLers (the majority, I would think) wanted a NFL guy (so to speak) the AFLers an AFL guy.
  • "The NFL owners continued, however, to treat the players lightly in negotiations," This is certainly POV, and I doubt you could find universal acceptance for this statement, especially from the NFL owners still active from then. I am going to leave it here for a while. I want you to consider whether or not there is a pro-player bias in this article. The Writer 2.0, drop me a note on my talk page when you think it's ready for me to look furhter. There is no point in my going through it when you may be inclined to make changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more things, sorry to be so slow, am gearing up again.
Recognition and certification
  • "the concessions the players received were not as pronounced as they hoped, leaving many members frustrated." Perhaps "many players felt that the agreement did not get them as many benefits as they had hoped, leaving them dissatisfied."
  • "compromised by agreeing to" agreed to. Also, at the end of the sentence, I would conclude "; there was at yet no neutral arbitration".
  • I would inform the reader that the Colts were an NFL team which was moving to the AFC, predominately made up of former NFL teams. That kinda thing anyway. Accordingly, it was an adept compromise.
  • It might be wise to mention what issue was at stake in 1970. The owners are sounding unreasonable, be careful.
  • You mention the NLRB approval twice. I would remedy this by deleting the word "successfully" when you talk about the filing with the NLRB.
  • "option clause and the NFL revenue clause," Are we talking "reserve clause" here? Also, I would mention, when you talk about compensation, that the compensation in question can include players.
  • Why not start the paragraph by mentioning the filing of the free agency lawsuit? That way you stay in alphabetical order.
  • "individual contracts to protect players and guarantee their salaries." I have no idea what this means. Mackey should be italicized where the case is meant.
  • As Mackey was to achieve free agency, if it did not do so, I would not describe it as successful. Start with what Mackey called for without characterizing it, then go on and chronicle what the union did in response to it. Consign the legal citation to a footnote, but link to the article on the case, if there is one.
  • I would like to see the story of the 1982 strike more completely told. The story seems to pick up in the middle. Perhaps say a little more about how the strike came to be. Possibly incorporate the All Star Game stuff into the section, not have it separate.
  • It should also be made clear that the schedule and playoff changes were for that season only.
  • "significantly less than those of" Significantly lower than those in
  • "Say where RFK Stadium is on first mention.
Upshaw era
  • The introductory text needs to be referenced.
  • What were the players demanding? Again, a little more background is needed here. Also, I'd link to NYJ, it's been a long time
  • "replacement players as other strikebreakers." Why "other"?
  • "in place" Consider striking.
  • You should concisely mention the names of the courts for Doty and the appeals court. I would give the names fully and then shorter forms later.
  • "a deadline later ruled to be in violation of federal labor laws and backpay for the strike" backpay probably should be back pay, but please look at this phrase as it doesn't seem to be that clear.
  • " (so-called "Plan B") " You might want to make clear who called it this. As you never mention it again consider whether it is needed.
DeMaurice Smith era
  • " the issue that dominated discussion was the 2011 lockout." As he still serves, perhaps "has been"?
  • The list of issues seems a bit random.
  • I found the description of the 2011 lockout unsatisfying. Surely there is more of interest to say without overdoing it? Also can something more be said about what the terms of the settlement were?
  • I think you need more about what the union does between industrial actions.
NFLPA game. Is this really worth having for one sentence? Consider a See Also.

The Secret of Monkey Island

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I and a bunch of good fellas (Guyinblack25, S@bre and JimmyBlackwing) turned the article into quality GA after three months of hard work, and I think that it can reach even more. I would like to know what needs to be corrected/added in order to promote the article to FA.

Thanks, Electroguv (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this - it reads well and seems pretty close to FAC to me. Here are some mostly nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

Lead
  • This seems a little awkward to me, especially the "which focused the game on exploration" phrase Gilbert's frustrations with contemporary adventure titles led him to make the player character's death impossible, which focused the game on exploration. perhaps something like "which meant that gameplay focused on exploration"?
  • I would clarify this is a remake of the original game (the preceding sentence is on the sequel) LucasArts released a remake [of the original game] in 2009, which was also well-received by the gaming press.
Gameplay
  • Tighten? ...topics for discussion that are listed in a dialog tree; the game is considered to be one of the first titles to incorporate such a system.[5]
Plot
  • can you avoid two uses of island in one sentence? A youth named Guybrush Threepwood arrives on Mêlée Island, a fictional island in the Caribbean, with the desire to become a pirate. perhaps A youth named Guybrush Threepwood arrives on the fictional Mêlée Island, with the desire to become a pirate in the Caribbean.
  • Tighten / avoid two uses of island in one sentence When Guybrush reaches Monkey Island, he discovers a village of cannibals in a dispute with Herman Toothrot, a ragged castaway marooned on the island there.
  • The root is little confusing for me - is it used to make the elixir? If so, could it be He settles their quarrel, and then recovers a magical "voodoo root" from LeChuck's ship for the cannibals, who provide him with a seltzer bottle of "voodoo root elixir" that can destroy ghosts.
Origin and writing
  • Mechanic? A guy with a wrench? The game's insult swordfighting mechanic was influenced by swashbuckling movies starring Errol Flynn, which Gilbert, Schafer and Grossman often watched for inspiration.
  • is it supposed to be "in hell there would be mushrooms" (and not "here")?? such as Guybrush's line "I had a feeling in hell here would be mushrooms", which came from Schafer's own hatred of fungi.[14]
  • I know it is linked, but I would add a few words of description about the book After having read Tim Powers' [historical fantasy novel] On Stranger Tides, he decided to add paranormal themes to the game's plot.
  • How about The developers included Cobb, a character from Loom (another 1990 LucasArts title). When approached for conversation, Cobb encourages the player to purchase Loom.[19]
Creative and technical design
  • I like this formulation much better The team decided to make it impossible for the player character to die, which focused gameplay primarily on world exploration.[9]
  • I would make it clearer that the top image is from the original game and the bottom image is from the 2009 special edition - this is a very nice use of fair use material and allows the reader to compare the versions
  • Is it worth mentioning that he is standing in front of the SCUMM Bar in both images (inside joke)?
Special edition
  • "remade" is awkward - perhaps "2009"? The developers included the function to switch between the remade and original audiovisuals at will.[33][34]
  • Avoid passive voice where possible The remake's idea was conceived in 2008 by LucasArts's game producer Craig Derrick and his team.[34] could be the much smoother and a bit tighter LucasArts's game producer Craig Derrick and his team conceived the idea of the remake in 2008.[34]
  • I am not sure exactly what this means The designers made the cursor contextual to the game objects as the primary interface.
Reception
  • Should the price be mentioned here somehow (even a comparison to how much it cost compared to other games at the same time?) Although they believed that the game was too expensive, they summarized it as ...
Legacy
  • It is not clear to me which version of the game made the various top 10 lists / halls of fame.
  • Also, the game was selected as one of five games for the exhibition The Art of Video Games in the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2011.[59] could be something like Also, the original version was one of five selected for the exhibition The Art of Video Games in the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2011.[59]
  • Unclear - what is he referring to - the original Grog XD or the erroneous news story?
General
  • Watch out for WP:OVERLINKing.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malmö FF seasons

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I think it needs further work before FLC. The two major areas for improvement are of course the lead and the "1920-Present" section. I would also appreciate any constructive advice regarding the list layout and format.

Thanks, Reckless182 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a little bit of a shuffle through (as you probably saw), just a minor copy-edit and alt-text on the images, also a tiny bit of work on the tables. The lead can wait; the tables need work now.
  • Firstly, the sorting is rather strange. The first step to resolving this is ensuring that there is an entry in every single space on this table. Even if nothing is applicable at all, just put an en-dash.
  • Where Malmo played in two leagues in one year (Allsvenskan and Mästerskapsserien, for example), separate the entires with a ---- within the box to create two entries within a single box which will still sort as "Allsvenskan". At the moment you have two entries arguing with each other when the table attempts to sort and it buggers up. If this isn't clear, I will put an example:
 |-
 |[[1991 in Swedish football|1991]]
 |[[1991 Allsvenskan|Allsvenskan]]
 ----
 [[1991 Mästerskapsserien|Mästerskapsserien]]
 |18 <!-- Allsvenskan matches -->
 ---- 
 10 <!-- Mästerskapsserien matches -->
 |7 <!-- Allsvenskan wins -->
 ----
 3 <!-- Mästerskapsserien wins -->
 [and so on]
  • If I were you I would start by working through the table and fixing these.
  • Under 1933–34, replace "DSQ" with an endash. It will help with sorting. If you have a word with letters in there with "1st", "2nd", "3rd" and so on, it makes the table sort these as words rather than numbers ... which isn't really useful for us (in this case).
  • Move the up and down arrows to the "Pos" column, and where they are present force the table's sorting with {{sort|1|1st {{up-arrow|alt=promoted}}}}. This makes the table easier to follow.
  • It may be worth putting an actual en-dash in the "key to cup record" as well as the description, as not everybody will know what it is.
  • It may be helpful to have a section of the key where it has a quick, simple and easy key to refer to giving the English and Swedish names of all of the different competitions; for example:
*Allsvenskan – "The All-Swedish"; Sweden's top football league, held since 1924
*Svenska Mästerskapet – "Swedish Masters Cup"; a cup held between 1896 and 1925 to decide the Swedish football champions
[and so on]
  • This will, I think, help enormously in making the article engaging and making people interested.
  • Okay, I think you're going to hate me for this: for FLC the top scorers' names are going to have to be formatted with the {{sortname}} template, so they sort by the players' surnames. Yes, thought so, you hate me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I always appreciate constructive criticism! I'll get to it later. I believe I have fixed the other sorting issues and I have also clarified and added to the key section. Hopefully it works and looks a lot better now. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{sortname}} has now been applied to all top scorers and I've tested the sorting function which now seems to be working in a good fashion, please correct me if I'm wrong. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone trough the sorting and I've detected issues with the league parameters (W, D, L, GF, GA and Points). There are also some issues regarding the sorting of the other competitions, Svenska Cupen, Supercupen and the European competitions. How do I solve this? --Reckless182 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got the same issue as before: numbers are sorting as letters. To resolve this, for every number below 10, use a sort template, like this: {{sort|09|9}}. On the other competitions, put an en-dash into every cell. Blank spaces bugger up the sorting. You may also want to force en-dashes to the bottom, like this: {{sort|Zz|–}}. One more thing: in the prose you refer to "Distriksmästerskapen", but in the table there is "Distriksmästerskapet". Is this correct? I don't speak Swedish at all, so don't know. Also, you may want to combine the refs on the "2011" row into one. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I believe that all sorting is fixed as of now. I also changed Distriktmästerskapen to Distriksmästerskapet, both can be used but we better be consistent. The picture is a nice addition to the list, I have no objections whatsoever! --Reckless182 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that table looks great now. Now let's turn to the lead. In the list of seasons I did for Luton, I just put a potted history of the club here, but as you've got a separate history section here we have to do something different. If I were you I would put a very brief history of the club in the first paragraph, then the second paragraph as you have it, then put some stuff about top scorers, lowest league position (and when), unbeaten seasons, seasons with highest percentage of wins, etc. Just see what you can come up with and I'll have a look over it when you're done. Great job on the table! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think of this for the brief history of the club?
"Malmö Fotbollförening were founded on 24 February 1910 by 19 members of a predecessor club named BK Idrott who for a short period of time merged with local town rival IFK Malmö. After participating in regional competitions and national cup play in Svenska Mästerskapet for the 1910's the club joined the newly created league system in 1920. With the exception of Malmö FF's one season apperance in the unofficial first tier of Swedish, Svenska Serien, the club played in the second tier of Swedish football for the entire 1920's. In 1931 they first participated in Allsvenskan, the first tier of Swedish football created in 1924. Following a brief spell in the second tier after being relegated by the Swedish Football Association having been found guilty breaching amateur relegations Malmö FF became a permanent feature in Allsvenskan and had several periods of success, particularly in the early 1950's, 1970's and the 1980's. The club were regulated for the first time since 1934 in 1999 but spent only season in the second tier before being promoted once again. Malmö FF had their first major success since the 1980's in 2004 and 2010 when they won the league."
and this for the record paragraph:
"As of 2012, Malmö FF have played 102 seasons of which 76 have been spent in Allsvenskan, 13 seasons in various divisions of the second tier of Swedish football and 11 seasons outside the league system. They have won Allsvenskan 19 times and been relegated two times, first in 1934 and later in 1999. Their worst league finish up to date came in the 1926–27 season when they finished in 6th position in the second tier. Malmö FF's best performance in terms of the highest percentage of wins and the fact that they remained unbeaten through the entire season was in 1950 when they won 20 out of 22 league games, drawing in 2 games and losing none. The season also holds the club record of most league goals scored in a season with 82. The 1949–50 season is a part of the still standing record in Swedish football of 49 league matches without defeat. Looking at goal scorers Hans Håkansson holds the record of scoring most league goals for Malmö FF during a single season, scoring 30 goals in 18 matches for the 1935–36 season when the club played in the second tier of the league system, Bo Larsson holds the record of scoring the most Allsvenskan goals during a single season, scoring 28 goals in 22 matches during the 1965 season. Overall Malmö FF holds the record for most consecutive Allsvenskan league titles with five titles between 1985 and 1989 and the most consecutive Allsvenskan seasons played with 63 seasons between 1936 and 1999."
I'm thinking that these might be better of for the List of Malmö FF records and statistics but we could still use them here. What do you reckon? --Reckless182 (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think for records directly relevant to seasons are more appropriate here. Here is my version of what you have written:
Malmö Fotbollförening, commonly called Malmö FF, are a Swedish professional football club based in Malmö, who currently play in the highest tier of Swedish football, Allsvenskan. Malmö FF were founded on 24 February 1910 by 19 members of a predecessor club named BK Idrott, who for a short time had been merged with cross-town rivals IFK Malmö. After participating in regional competitions and national cup play in Svenska Mästerskapet during the 1910s, Malmö FF joined Sweden's newly-created national league system in 1920, and played in the second tier of Swedish football for the next decade – with the exception of one season in Svenska Serien, then unofficially the top football league in Sweden. Allsvenskan was established as Sweden's official first tier in 1924, and Malmö FF first took part in 1931. The Swedish Football Association prohibited professionalism at this time, and Malmö FF were demoted in 1934 for having paid players. They were promoted back in 1936, and have since had several periods of consistent success, most notably in the early 1950s, the 1970s and the 1980s. The pinnacle of the club's history came in 1979, when, as finalists in both the European Cup and Intercontinental Cup, Malmö FF were ranked as one of the strongest clubs in the world. After winning a record five consecutive Allsvenskan titles between 1985 and 1989, the club won nothing during the 1990s and were relegated for the first time in 1999, though they returned to the top flight a year later. They have since remained in Allsvenskan, and won league titles in 2004 and 2010.
As of 2012, Malmö FF have played 102 seasons, 89 of which have been spent within the Swedish league system. The club have contested Allsvenskan 76 times, and have won the competition on 19 occasions. Malmö FF have been demoted once (in 1934) and relegated once (in 1999); their 63 successive Allsvenskan seasons between 1936 and 1999 is a league record. Their worst league finish to date is sixth in the second tier, their placing at the end of the 1926–27 season. The 1950 season was Malmö FF's best in terms of league performance: the team were unbeaten all year, won 20 out of 22 league games, and collectively scored 82 league goals, a club record which still stands. Hans Håkansson holds the record for most league goals for Malmö FF during a single season, having scoring 30 goals in 18 second-tier matches during the 1935–36 season. Excluding second-tier seasons, however, the record belongs to Bo Larsson, whose tally of 28 goals in 22 games during 1965 remains unmatched today.
  • That sounds perfect. Should we place both these in the history section or do you think that one might be a good paragraph to have in the lead? I'm thinking that maybe the lead might look better with an additional paragraph. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I did a minor copy-edit of the notes and it all looks good now. I'm still waiting on when the Swedish FA started allowing professionalism in Allsvenskan? That would be really good to have. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some research but I've failed to find a reliable source on the subject, the Swedish FA have a fairly good statistical record and a year by year history section but there are no mentions of when professionalism became acceptable or when the entire league became a professional league. I do know that Malmö FF turned fully professional in the late 1970's, I also have a reliable source on that. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2012 (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.
I've listed this article for peer review because now that it is a GA, I'd like further feedback on what more could be done to improve it even further past GA. I have addressed most of the comments in the previous peer review. There are still some "citation needed" tags.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing alkali metals in water should probably be covered in more detail. Double sharp (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links: [1] (sodium and potassium only) and [2] (all the alkali metals except francium). Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Brainiac faked explosions might be included. Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. I think it needs a fair amount of work to get to FA (A class and FA are the only two levels above GA), so here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - Noble gas is a FA and seems like it would be a good model for this. It is also an older FA and standards have gotten tighter since it was promoted. Caesium and Francium are alkali metals and FAs and so would be good models too.
  • There is one dab link that will need to be fixed (see toolbox on this PR page) and here
  • I do not think the first sentence of the lead follows WP:LEAD well enough - The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is - I would use the word group in the first sentence (as that has a specific meaning in the periodic table) and would also mention that these are all very reactive metals that readily form +1 cations (ions / cations are not even mentioned in the current lead that I can see)
  • There are a bunch of MOS issues that would be a problem at FAC - I will try to point them out before discussing other aspects of the article
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Hydrogen is linked twice in just the lead
  • Headers need to follow WP:HEAD and not repeat the name of the of the article if at all possible - so "Concept of alkali metals" could be just "Concept", and "Discovery of the alkali metals" could just be "Discovery" (the reader already knows this is about the alkali metals)
  • Two headers with "This section is empty. You can help by adding to it." below - these need to be made into proper sections or else eliminated.
  • Lots of citation needed tags and even a [when?] tag that I saw - all of these would have to be cleaned up before it stood a chance at FAC
  • There are also some places that need citations (but are not marked). For example the first paragraph of Hydrogen has no refs and needs at least one. Or The alkali metals have the lowest first ionization energies in their respective periods of the periodic table because of their low effective nuclear charge and the ability to attain noble gas configuration by losing just one electron. The second ionization energy of all of the alkali metals is very high; thus, they almost always lose a single electron, forming cations. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. If one or more sentences follow a ref, but there is not a ref at the end of these, then they need a ref.
  • Captions should better explain the image's relevance to the article - for example Mendeleev's Periodic Table shows Tl as an alkali metal (could some sort of highlight color or box be added to the image to make this clearer?)
  • Or something like this "Petalite, the lithium mineral from which the element Li was first isolated"
  • Be consistent on spelling - Wikipedia uses "Caesium", but Cesium is also used 13 times here (its use in ref titles is OK)
  • Be consistent on how refs are formatted too - for example Mark WInters' Web Elements is cited in a t least three different ways Winter, Mark. "Geological information". Francium. The University of Sheffield. Retrieved 26 March 2007. versus Winter, Mark (2011). "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Lithium | historical information". Retrieved 27 November 2011. versus Winter, Mark. "WebElements Periodic Table of the Elements | Potassium | Key Information". Webelements. Retrieved 27 November 2011.
  • There are any number of good books on the periodic table, but searching "periodic table" in the references I did not see any of them cited here. I would make sure the references used are from the best sources possible (and make sure to include print sources too)
  • The lead either needs no refs (since it is a summary of the article, which has the refs)(please note that direct quotes and extraordinary claims in the lead still need refs), or it is cited like the rest of the article.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the lead repeats the whole "H - Group 1, but not an alkali metal" spiel in two consecutive paragraphs, for example
  • Or the electrolysis of NaOH is explained in the same level of detail twice (under Discovery of Na and of K - K can be much briefer)
  • Or the fact that UUe has not yet been made does not really belong in Production since it was explained in some detail in the section on Uue just above it.
  • Bold font for Uue does not follow WP:ITALIC
  • OK, on to specifics on the chemistry / organization
  • There is a general tendency in the article to confuce the element with its compounds. Two examples:
    • Sodium is not the same as sodium chloride / sodium salts: Sodium has been known since ancient times; salt has been an important commodity in human activities, as testified by the English word salary, referring to salarium, the wafers of salt sometimes given to Roman soldiers along with their other wages.
    • Potassium is not used as a fertilizer - its salts are Potassium is often used as a fertilizer,[85] as it is an important element for plant nutrition. I note that the ref (in German) title refers to salts of potassium (Kalisalze). Also the ref is from 1868 - surely there is a more recent ref for the importance of K salts as fertilizers?
  • There is only one mention of the name Natrium (and no explanation) and no mention of the name Kalium, yet they give the symbols to Na and K
  • It seems very odd to say twice in the lead that Hydrogen is NOT an alkali metal (which I agree with) and then start the article with a section on ... Hydrogen. I would combine this with the section on "Substances sometimes considered alkali metals" and put it after the Characteristics section
  • If you mention "the notable exception that potassium is less dense than sodium" in the lead, the article should point this out in the body (and offer an explanation too)
  • I was surprised to see there is no mention of the overall formula of alklali metal halide salts (MX), and shocked that the alkali metal oxides are not mentioned at all - since they do not all follow the expected M2O formula, and instead there are oxides, peroxides, and superoxides, I would definitely include that in this article. Such systematic chemistry is useful to mention in this article, and makes more sense here than in the articles on the individual elements.
  • Since Occurrence describes ores and sources mentioned in Production, would it make sense to have Occurrence before Production?
  • For each element, I would discuss uses of the pure element (metal) first, then discuss the compounds (salts)
  • There was a bad case in Brazil several years ago where a radioactive Cs salt was sent to a dump and poor people who salvaged items from the dump found it and used it as a glowing body powder / decoration - lots of radioactive poisoning.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain Olympic football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's covering a relatively new topic, which will have significant amounts of info to add to it in the Summer of 2012. I'd really like to get it shipshape before that time. In particular I'm interested in what people think of the current history section, and the overall structure. I'm concerned that the article could end up being overly weighted towards the 2012 tournament, and would be interested in any tips on how to avoid this. Overall, as well, I think this could just benefit from a new pair of eyes. Oh, and it would be interesting if someone who isn't from the UK or into football (soccer) could look at it, to test how well the content is described.

Many Thanks, Pretty Green (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1: I read up to the end of the "Pre-1972" section, and my main concern is a lack of referencing. Many paragraphs and chunks of other sections are not referenced at all; I have not checked the quality or accurate representation of the other references. Such an article should be carefully referenced as it will probably get increasingly high traffic. There are also several prose issues. As it stands, the article is some way short of GA, even before any rapid changing which may arise from the Olympics is taken into account. I think the history section should be fully sorted out first, as the current team information will probably evolve rapidly and it would be good to have a stable base to work from. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the distinction between GB, GB&I, and UK needs to be cleared up. It is not clear where Ireland/Northern Ireland fits into this, and bear in mind that some readers may not appreciate the GB/UK distinction. And the lead states that the team is/was known as Great Britain and Northern Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland. The main body omits this completely. And why was the team never known as The United Kingdom? (I suspect this is an Olympic issue rather than to do with this article) This should be made clear somewhere: was Ireland/N Ireland a part of this or not?
  • There should be no spaces before references. I corrected a couple, but there are many other instances.
  • "represents Great Britain and Northern Ireland in international football competitions in the Olympic Games": Maybe just "…at the Olympic Games" as a football team is unlikely to compete in any other competition!
  • "The selection is limited to players under the age of 23…": Maybe "Selection for the team is limited to players under the age of 23, although three older players are allowed [in the team? in the squad?]".
  • Maybe stress when this age limit came in, as it presumably did not exist in the amateur days? A reader may think it applied throughout.
  • "The team first competed at the 1908 Summer Olympics, controlled by the English Football Association (FA)": Was the team, the competition or the Olympics controlled by the FA? But see the next point
  • "The team was controlled by the FA": We don't need both this AND the previous fact that the FA controlled the first team. Maybe cut the first mention of the FA and leave this one?
  • "as an off-shoot of the English national amateur football team for this period" Most readers of this article will be unaware that such a team existed. Rather than just link, maybe add a sentence to explain what this was? And "for this period" is redundant.
  • "occasionally players from the rest of the UK competed for the team": Maybe "represented the team" as competed for suggests they took part in a competition to play for the team.
  • "After the FA abolished the distinction between amateur and professional players, and thus abolished the amateur team": When? And possibly why?
  • "in the UK": I think everyone will know where London is.
  • "The national football associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all oppose their players being selected for the team.": Why, and how will this work if they won't let him pick their players.
  • "When the world's first football association, The Football Association (FA), was formed in 1863, its geographical remit was not clear: there was no specification of whether it covered just England, the UK as a whole or even the entire world." A little too wordy? Maybe "The geographical remit of The Football Association (FA), which formed in 1863 as the world's first such association, was originally unclear; it may have covered just England, the whole United Kingdom [not UK here as it is the first mention] or even the whole world". Although I think strong referencing is needed to show that such suggestions were ever seriously considered. And see below on referencing.
  • "The question was answered…" Too dramatic? And no question has actually been asked here.
  • Did the national teams arise from the creation of FAs or FAs come from the creation of national teams?
  • "Football therefore developed with separate national teams representing separate associations for each of the countries of the United Kingdom and no 'United Kingdom football association' was ever formed.": Wordy. Maybe "Subsequently, each country of the United Kingdom was represented by a separate national team and a separate football association. No association ever formed for the whole United Kingdom."
  • The first paragraph of Origins and composition is unreferenced. This really needs some good references.
  • "When football was held as a demonstration sport at the 1900 Olympic Games, club teams entered with Upton Park representing the UK": Maybe "When football was held as a demonstration sport at the 1900 Olympic Games, club teams entered; Upton Park represented the UK".
  • "Upton Park won the gold medal, which has since been retroactively awarded by the International Olympic Committee as a full gold." Close repetition of "Upton Park" which could be replaced with "the team". And I don't follow the "retroactively awarded" gold. Were they given a gold or not? (Or was it something like a "half-Gold"?) And "retrospectively" is the word needed here, not "retroactively".
  • Up to the mention of the 1908 Olympics: this all seems to be unreferenced.
  • "An arrangement was reached with the other Home Nations' FAs, under which a Great Britain team consisting of amateur players organised by the FA would enter future tournaments.": Unreferenced; also, a very short paragraph follows which could be combined with this one.
  • How did the other "home" FAs react to this "Great Britain" team and how great a proportion of non-English players were included? Again, how did the other FAs react to their selection?
  • Scores should use ndashes: i.e. 2–0, not 2-0.
  • "The team withdrew from the 1924 and 1928 Games over disputes surrounding professionalism, which eventually led to the withdrawal of the Home Nations from FIFA, and the creation of the FIFA World Cup.[17]" This should be explained in far more detail. What disputes surrounding professionalism? What happened to FIFA? In fact, how does FIFA fit into this story regarding the Olympics? How was the dispute resolved as the team played in the Olympics again?
  • The team failed to qualify: What form did qualification take? How did the team perform in this qualification?
  • How did the composition of the GB side compare to the countries against which they competed? Presumably they were all amateur, but were the teams more representative or of a similar standard? Where did the GB players come from? Amateurs playing for league teams? Or just amateurs playing for clubs?
  • From scanning the next section, it is not clear why there was a break after 1972; why did the ending of amateurism mean that a team could not be entered? Why could players not be found from somewhere other than the amateur England side?
  • I have not checked sources or performed spot checks.

I do not watch peer reviews; any questions or comments should be made at my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lenny

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I plan on taking this to FAC in the future, and I'd like some feedback on the article before I did so. Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is in need of a basic copy-edit. Check for proper usage of hyphenated compounds, commas after date clauses (e.g. "and on November 14 the National Hurricane Center (NHC) upgraded it" needs a comma after "November 14"), unnecessarily wordy constructions ("as well as" when "and" would suffice; double-clause sentences with multiple subjects referring to the same thing), missing words and typos (I've seen several), and style inconsistencies (such as whether the serial comma is implemented or not). There is also some overlinking. Auree ★ 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is good, although small glitches mar the effect in places, as others note above. I did quite a bit of proofing, and I have other suggestions as listed below. Please revert any of my edits that you think are wooden-headed. I tried to use a light touch.

Thanks Finetooth - the prose has been much improved after your c/e. I also had a go at tweaking the MH a bit, so some of your suggestions below might have been fixed in my run. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "On the island, the hurricane destroyed over 200 properties, and there were three deaths." - Stick with active voice? Suggestion: "On the island, the hurricane destroyed more than 200 properties and killed three people."

Meteorological history

  • "The origins of Hurricane Lenny were from a low pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8." - Active voice? Suggestion: "Hurricane Lenny formed in a low-pressure area that was first observed in the southwestern Caribbean Sea on November 8."
  • "It developed an area of convective that day, although for the next few days the system remained poorly defined." - I think you mean "convection" rather than "convective".
This was fixed in my copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone, the depression's convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days." - I don't think you can say that the convection became a tropical cyclone since "convection" is a name for a kind of air movement. The cyclone and its movements are different things. Suggestion: "When Lenny first became a tropical cyclone, its convection was fairly disorganized, and the National Hurricane Center did not anticipate any strengthening for three days."
Removed redundant ""Upon first becoming a tropical cyclone" in the copy-edit. Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The path resulted from its movement along the southern end of a trough over the western Atlantic Ocean that extended from the lower to the upper levels of the atmosphere." - Would it be helpful to specifically state the general orientation of the trough, which I assume was also west–east? Also, move "the Western Atlantic Ocean" to the end of the sentence for clarity?
  • "the group also reported a minimum pressure of 933 mbar, which was a drop of 34 mbar in 24 hours" - Should these have conversions to inches of mercury, such as: 933 millibars (27.6 inHg)?
  • "Around the time it peaked in intensity, Lenny slowed its motion due to moving between two ridges." - Does this mean its forward motion? Suggestion: "Around the time of its peak intensity, Lenny's forward motion slowed as the storm passed between two atmospheric ridges." Or something like that.
I had tweaked this to something slightly different -- how does that read? Auree ★ 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is good. Finetooth (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite favorable conditions, the hurricane began weakening as it turned to an eastward drift, possibly due to upwelling of cooler waters." - Slightly contradictory. Maybe "despite apparently favorable conditions for strengthening"? If the conditions had really been favorable for strengthening, the hurricane would have strengthened.
  • "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity, after the center became exposed from the convection due to increased wind shear." - Would it be more clear just to say "Late on November 19, Lenny weakened to tropical storm intensity as increased wind shear disrupted the center"?

Preparations

  • "southern coast of the Dominican Republic, and only a hurricane watch was issued for the southern coast of Haiti" - Link Dominican Republic and Haiti? I think these are the first mention of these places in the article.
  • "A hurricane watch was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands late on November 15, which was upgraded... " - Since it was not the date that was upgraded, I'd suggest moving things around a bit, like this: "Late on November 15, a hurricane watch, upgraded to a hurricane warning six hours later, was issued for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."
  • "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded to a tropical storm warning on November 17, which was discontinued the following day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands." - Same problem here. Suggestion: "After Lenny made its closest approach to the island, the hurricane warning was downgraded on November 17 to a tropical storm warning, which was discontinued the next day along with the advisories in the Virgin Islands."

Impact

  • Since the death toll box displaces an edit button, I'd consider moving it down. Alternatively, you might merge the opening paragraph with the "Central Caribbean" subsection.
  • "on the storm's fringe killed a man after striking him with a beam." - Could you add what kind of beam? Wooden? Torn loose from a house?

Lesser Antilles

  • "On Saba, there was an unofficial wind gust of 167 mph (268 km/h) before the instrument blew away." - Rather than "instrument", it would be good to say what kind of instrument. Anemometer, maybe?
  • "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest land observation from Lenny." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "The sustained wind report at the airport was the highest recorded for Lenny over any land mass." Or something like that.
  • "Due to the hurricane's unusual track from the west, it produced unparalleled waves of 10–16 (3–5 m) along the western coast of St. Martin,[31] which damaged or destroyed many boats." - Suggestion: "The hurricane's unusual west–east track produced unparalleled waves of 10 to 16 ft (3.0 to 4.9 m) along the west coast of St. Martin."
  • "power utilities" - Maybe just "utilities" since these seemed to have included telephone lines, which are not the same as power lines.
  • "High damage to tourist areas caused a decrease in cruise lines. - Maybe this should say "in cruise-line business" rather than the lines themselves. Or did some companies go out of business altogether?

References

  • Who is the publisher of the material in citation 44? Is this a reliable source?
  • Citation 46 needs publisher data.
  • Is Island Sun in citation 21 a newspaper? If so, it should appear in italics.
  • Is the cruise line named in citation 50 a reliable source?
  • In citation 49, instead of naming the Wayback Machine, shouldn't you use the same kind of formatting found in citation 57?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mauna Loa

[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 is an aging FA dated from 2006, and it's showing. I'm listing the article for peer review to get an assessment of how much needs to be done/redone to meet current standards, and plan to do so sometime in the near future, and then run it by FAR. Oh, and don't nom it at FAR just yet, I need to get to it...thanks, ResMar 23:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple of things from a brief check:
    • I fixed one thing the automated check spotted (unattributed "it has been") and filled in one reference using Reflinks.
    • The alt text checker has spotted a number of images without alt text.
  • Allens (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more things:
    • "No recent eruptions of the volcano have caused fatalities, but eruptions in 1926 and 1950 destroyed villages, and the city of Hilo is partly built on lava flows from the late 19th century" from the lead - this is not clear; did the eruptions in 1926 and 1950 cause fatalities? Did those causing the lava flows that Hilo is built on?
    • How are volcanoes (e.g., Mauna Loa and Kīlauea) defined as being separate? How far down do the lava flows need to be apart in order to be considered separate volcanoes? To the hotspot, or what?
    • "Mauna Loa is shaped like a shield, because its lava is extremely fluid (it has low viscosity), and its slopes are not steep." That it is a shield volcano means that its slopes are not steep, as far as I know. Why aren't they steep? Please explain the relationship between viscosity and shape. I would suspect that the eruptions not being explosive also contributes to the shape (no jagged edges from explosions).
    • "city of Hilo is the wettest in the United States" - IIRC, it's right next to what is considered a tropical rain forest, which should be mentioned.
    • "skies are very often clear" - this is one reason astronomical observatories are on the Big Island, IIRC. Perhaps they should be mentioned here, with a reference to the more complete section below?
    • Not much is mentioned about what types of igneous rocks are produced, other than one reference to "rough rock" - which would be rather an understatement if it was obsidian! Or is it entirely "tholeiitic basalt"?
    • "Dr. Judd traveled between the summit and the Recruiting Station to tend the many who suffered from altitude sickness or had worn out their shoes on the rough rock" - how well was he able to do treatment for altitude sickness in 1840? The latter portion of this sentence is also problematic; shouldn't it be something like "or had cut their feet, having worn out their shoes on the rough rock"?
    • How about emissions of gasses, as well as lava and the (stated to be rare) flying rocks? CO2 is mentioned briefly under Observatories; what level of outgassing (and from where) is present? Any other outgassing?
    • Any usage of heat for geothermal power or similar?
    • I also fixed a few minor things (degassing to outgassing, for instance).
    •  Doing... Not really finished yet (have to take care of other things) - and someone with more editorial experience than I have should probably also take a look.
  • Allens (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, a few more:
    • The second paragraph under "Archibald Menzies" does not have adequate referencing toward the end.
    • The "Others" and "Wilkes expedition" sections are also lacking referencing in some places (or at least appear to be so - I would make sure each paragraph has a citation at its end, even if it's the same as the previous paragraph's - ideally, one locates more than one...).
    • Given the longest quiet period in recorded history, is there a worry that an eruption may happen soon due to pressure building up? This is only partially answered under "Current activity" - is that there hasn't been an eruption another factor in the likelihood of one rising?
    • I see now the material regarding the separate volcanoes given differing chemistry - but "separate shallow magma chambers"? Are there deep magma chambers that they may share?
    • The first "Flank collapse" paragraph may not have sufficient citations; ditto for the first three paragraphs under "Monitoring".
    • Citations need to be copied from the appropriate article for "Since October 2006, the Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMIBA) has been exploring the origin of the universe" under Observatories.
    •  Done, at least for me.
  • Allens (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will work on this sometime in the near future—I'm getting all three remaining tasks running at different states of completion—but I'll keep this open for now, in the hopes of a second editorial review. The more I do now, the better, no? ResMar 03:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Canada

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to see if others think the readability, presentation, coverage, neutrality, sourcing are in order as per our policies and general guidelines on this type of subject. The ultimate goal is GA status then FA over time. Thanks, Moxy (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by AustralianRupert

I've read through the article and have a couple of minor suggestions which you might consider. Feel free to ignore if you disagree:

  • watch out for date format consistency: sometimes you have ddmmyyyy (e.g. "19 March 2011"), but then elsewhere mmddyyyy (e.g. "November 27, 2010"). Either way is fine, but it should be consistent;
 Fixed.Moxy (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Iraq War section, the article has an image of "one of four Canadian ships deployed to the Persian Gulf in relation to the Iraq War", however, the prose doesn't mention the deployment of ships. Would it be possible to add a short sentence on this, explaining their role?
 Fixed - The Canadian Forces involvement was delegated to ship escort duties and expanded participation in Task Force 151 to free up American assets.REF .. Moxy (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Libyan civil war section didn't really give me a good understanding of Canada's contribution to the NATO action. I understand that you don't want to write too much on this so that it doesn't overshadow earlier, larger conflicts, but I wonder if a small sentence or clause could be added. For instance, maybe: "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."
 Fixed - your sentence is great and has been inserted - the old ref covers the new info added REF.Moxy (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In July 2006, for instance, Canada ranked 51st on the list of UN peacekeepers". Is there a ranking that could be provided as a comparison? I assume it was higher previously, do we know what it was at the peak of Canada's involvement for instance? If so, maybe just add a short sentence on that.
 Fixed - Were in November of 1990 Canada had 1002 troops out of a total UN deployment of 10,304.REF.Moxy (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
  • The TOC is quite long, especially given that some of the subsections are short - perhaps merge a few?
Not sure how to do this in a good way... so I added {{TOC limit}}.Moxy (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few different ways. The easiest approach would be to limit the TOC so that lower-level headings aren't included (ex. you'd have 4.1 but 4.1.1 wouldn't appear); I wouldn't advocate that solution, simply because it's so inelegant. I'm not sure subsections of American Revolution are needed at all; you could also potentially put Maritime theatre first and then merge St Lawrence and Loyalists. I would suggest merging the creation of the army and navy. "Forces in Europe" could be merged into the main Cold War Years part; Vietnam could either also be moved there or potentially merged with Korea. Yugoslav and Somali could be merged... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have merged a few sections and made the TOC see less sections. What do you think now? Not the exact solution above but???Moxy (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the article is quite long in general - some of the more detailed material might be better in the more specific daughter articles. Military history of Australia, a comparable GA, is about 40kB shorter
 Fixed - Military history of Canada = Prose size (text only): 66 kB (10768 words) and References (text only): 1655 B vs Military history of Australia = Prose size (text only): 91 kB (14682 words) and References (text only): 1154 B.Moxy (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some American spellings have snuck in and should be "corrected" to Canadian
 Done by Nikkimaria . Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here for dead external links and here for dablinks
 Fixed x2 .. Moxy (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: Source links for File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg and File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg are dead. File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg claims to be PD because author died over 70 years ago, but no author is listed. Since France does not have freedom of panorama, might need to double-check licensing for the Vimy memorial. File:421sabres.jpg needs page number
File:Death_of_General_Montcalm.jpg... replaced - File:Dolphin_(Canadian_Air_Force).jpg.. fixed - File:Battle_of_Saint-Denis.jpg ...replaced - Vimy memorial not sure what I can do. File:421sabres.jpg I guess I will remove as I dont have the book to get the page number.Moxy (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some overlinking: St. John's twice in as many paragraphs, Fenian raids linked in body text when already hatnoted, etc
 Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in which spelling of Algonquin/Algonkian is used. In general, copy-editing needed
 Fixed Algonquin is the term now used all over.Moxy (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid non-neutral phrasings like "age-old tension"
 Fixed found 3 examples.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be some overlap between the Aboriginals section and the 17th century section
 Fixed - I believe my reorder - moving a paragraph to the lower section will help.Moxy (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, militias were developed on the larger seigneuries" - you haven't yet explained what a seigneurie is
Do you think simply linking Seigneurial system of New France would be enough for our readers to read more if they like?Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would help. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trafford is a vanity press, so for books published by them you'll need to be prepared to explain the expertise of the author(s) if/when this goes to FAC. Same with self-published sources
 Fixed - replaced by books/authors from Ashgate Publishing and University of Cambridge.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 59: what's the end page of that range?
Pls explain more.Moxy (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 137: don't use Ibid
 Fixed.Moxy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above points, I'm seeing a lot of prose, MOS and formatting-related inconsistencies that would definitely be raised at FAC (and prose probably at GAN). If you like, I can do some work with those issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the norm your spot on. Yes pls jump in were you like - trim at will. As above I will work on what I can. Copy edit for Canadian vs American is a hard one for me. Refs no problems I can take care of.Moxy (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D I know almost nothing about pre-World War I Canadian military history, so my comments will be focused on the post-1914 era.
  • "Acadia was plunged into what some historians have described as a civil war in Acadia" - repetitive
 Fixed.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the colonial era is largely a summary of the (amazingly frequent) conflicts. Material on the inter-war garrisons/militia and fortifications (or lack thereof) would be useful
Have add maps - this help?Moxy (talk)
  • "the Conservative Party was adamantly in favour of raising divisions for service in South Africa" - did it really want to raise several division-sized units? This would have been a huge contribution.
 Fixed Ref says 8,000 troops so changed to a "of raising 8,000 troops" Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of the Spanish Civil War seems overly detailed
 Fixed I think trimmed out 2 sentences.Moxy (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the First Canadian Army was a multi-national formation
I cant find a ref for this.Moxy (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed}.Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as the forces stationed in Europe, there were fairly significant forces in Canada which would have been deployed to Europe in the event of a crisis, and the Canadian Navy was structured to hunt submarines in the North Atlantic. I'm pretty sure that some Canadian air defence units had US-owned nuclear tipped missiles for a period as well, which you may want to include. More generally, you could summarise the changes in the military's force structure during the Cold War and after it ended.
Thats alot to add - see what I can do. Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of last year's war in Libya doesn't really explain what the Canadian forces deployed to the region did (which I understand was quite significant). PM Harper's claim about the Libyan people having freed themselves should be removed - this is patent nonsense given that the rebels were heavily dependent on foreign air support for most of the war and probably would have been defeated without it
Above striked out minus Removed - there is with a link.. "Canada's contribution included the deployment of a number of naval and air assets, which were grouped together as part of Operation Mobile."Moxy (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Canadian Crown and the Forces' section is much too long. I'd suggest summarising this down to two sections
 Fixed I have removed an entire section the one on the naming of buildings, boats etc...Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's currently no coverage of Canada's arms industry
 Fixed - somewhat fixed add section on expenditures and mention throughout the article of when there are arms increases and decrees (i.e With the election of the Conservatives in 1911, in part because the Liberals had lost support in Quebec, the navy was starved for funds, but it was greatly expanded during the First World War .Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What have Canada's experiences with integrating women into the 'mainstream' of the military been?
Not sure about this one .. Will have to read up on it. Have any suggestions for books,Moxy (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should note that the Canadian Forces have been placing a greater emphasis on operating in the country's north in recent years, and plan to continue this in the future Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed See below (Additions and trimming).Moxy (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per above comments I will look at every point. That said seem to be lots here to add to this over view article pls jump in if you can because size is a concern (I have made more room Prose size (text only): 63 kB (10361 words) .Moxy (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. It's long, but I agree there needs to be a bit more info on CF operations on Canadian soil in general, as right now the 20th and 21st centuries cover actions abroad almost exclusively. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One option would be to split the article into pre and post-1867 articles. The entire military history of Canada is a difficult topic to cover in a single article. The alternative would be to ruthlesslessly edit down the material on the many colonial-era conflicts, which seems to be much more detailed than that on the conflicts of the 20s century (particularly given the much smaller forces involved and limited scope of most of the wars). Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A split would not be a bad Idea. I would prefer to have one parent article that leads to all the others. That said I (i hope others to) will work on reaming points (I have to read up on them). Then see were we stand sizes wise and GA level wise. PS thank you all for taking the time to write your comments for this review, thus helping the article progress in a positive manner .Moxy (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions and trimming

[edit]

Concerns about domestic operations missing from article.Moxy (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added "October Crisis" (1970)
  • Added "Oka Crisis" (1990)
  • Added "Operation Recuperation" (ice storm of 1998)
  • Added "Operation Peregrine" (2003 fires) that also mentions ""Operation Assistance"

Concerns about missing Cold war: like communism .Moxy (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added "Igor Gouzenko"
  • Added "PROFUNC"
Size after trim and additions
The article is smaller then the WWII and Military history of Australia GA articles, so I think we are ok for size.Moxy (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File size: 692 kB
  • Prose size (including all HTML code): 129 kB
  • References (including all HTML code): 26 kB
  • Wiki text: 174 kB
  • Prose size (text only): 65 kB (10664 words) "readable prose size"
  • References (text only): 1711 B

2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's the second time I nominate this article on the behalf of WikiProject Tennis for a peer review. It has been totally rewritten, discussed, shortened to fit in size limit, so basically tried everything to meet the requirements of the previous peer review. Please take your time to read it and give some advises to make it reach FA status.

Thanks folks, Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He didn't lose" Replace contraction. Please check throughout the article.
  • "The Wimbledon Championships and the US Open"
  • "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic only lost six matches, while winning seventy." --> "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic's remarkable win-loss ratio was six-seventy."
  • "43 match" hyphens -- normally they'd be two separate words/numbers, but in this case they're adjectives when working together. Same with "their head to head matchup"; please check throughout the article.
  • "US$12.6 million dollars"
  • "but hit a ineffective" replace a with an.
  • "But Djokovic let Federer to gain control" omit to.
  • MOS encourages the inclusion of alt text.
  • Two dead links.
  • Please follow the "In/on [date], [text]" construction, where the comma goes after the date to separate two clauses.
  • References should go after punctuation.
  • Caption missing for infobox photo.
  • Magazine/newspaper titles should be italicised.
  • "3rd Greatest tennis" Why isn't "third greatest"?

Comments by Lemonade51 – Referencing looks to be a problem. Having said that, prose hasn't done itself any favours - this reads disjointed and can be easily expanded. The worrying thing is there are next to nothing quotes from Djokovic himself. What did he think about winning Wimbledon? Could he have done anything better this season? Does he think he has peaked? What do ex-pros and current tennis stars think about Djokovic's season? Has been answered I see.

  • For any BBC website you cite, you can leave the author parameter blank if not stated anywhere in the publication. Remove 'BBC Sports staff', change publisher to 'BBC' and add 'work' as 'BBC Sport'. I've done an example for you to do with the others.
  • Ref 4 published on guardian.co.uk not The Guardian newspaper. Similarly Ref 30 published on The Observer, not Guardian.
  • "Djokovic met Federer in the semifinals of Indian Wells...Djokovic quickly broke Federer...Djokovic did this...Djokovic likes to hear about Djokovic...", It does read tiresome. You do know you can refer to him as 'he'?
  • Under Miami Masters, "In the second half of March...", is that really the right terminology to use? – Lemonade51 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Virginia earthquake

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the quality of the article from GA status to FA status. I would like edits that would help it attain that status. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jsayre64—
Lead
  • At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "Several aftershocks, ranging up to 4.5 Mw in magnitude occurred after the main tremor." I'd suggest a comma after the word magnitude.
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "…along with a magnitude-5.8 quake on the New York-Ontario border in 1944…" Make sure the dash used here is an en dash.
  • Issue brought up on talk page here
  • Read WP:LEADCITE about how the lead should generally not cite information that's also cited in the main text. WP:LEAD lists other MOS guidelines and suggestions that are necessary for an article to achieve FA status.
note: I've removed all of the citations that I felt I could. Some of the information in the lede is not repeated elsewhere in the article... should it be? In this article, the lede is a description of the 'event' and the remainder of the article describes the causes and effects. Not sure how to procede. Wikipelli Talk 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:LEAD, the body of the article should contain everything discussed in the lead. Honestly, I don't see how this article is even a GA--it lacks MoS compliance throughout (particularly WP:LEAD but also other parts of WP:LAYOUT) and the prose is disorganized and rough in some areas. I suggest these things be reviewed and revised thoroughly before it heads to FAC. Auree ★ 15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the lead could use some expansion. The second paragraph should be more than just one sentence if it is to be its own paragraph. A more detailed summary of the damage and other effects of the quake would take care of this problem.
Geology
  • At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "During the Cenozoic Era, some of these structures have been further reactivated in a reverse sense." I don't understand what the latter half of that sentence is trying to say.
  • A diagram such as File:Nor rev.png would be very useful to illustrate the plate tectonics explained in this section.
Impact
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "Western rock is relatively young, which means it absorbs a lot of the shaking caused by earthquakes." I'd substitute therefore or a similar word for which means.
Virginia
  • When the article mentions a place and how far it away it was from the epicenter of the earthquake, it should specify which cardinal direction it was from the epicenter.
  • Also in the first paragraph, it says, "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage to buildings was reported in Mineral and in Louisa, the county seat." It's redundant to say again that there was damage to buildings in Mineral.
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "The two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station, located 10 mi (16 km) from the epicenter, shut down automatically seconds before off-site power was lost because multiple reactor sensors detected a slight power reduction as a result of vibrations in the reactor or monitoring devices." Break this into two sentences for better prose flow.
note: I took a stab at rewriting that sentence but I'm not wild about it still - if someone would like to take a look at it! Wikipelli Talk 14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Washington, D.C.
  • The last sentence in the third paragraph needs a citation.
  • The first sentence in the fourth paragraph is, "Staff at the National Zoo reported that the behavior of some of the animals in the park suggested that they anticipated the quake seconds or even minutes before they felt it." The animals must have felt it or somehow sensed it. They certainly can't predict earthquakes.
Though I'm not ready to say they 'certainly can't predict earthquakes' ;) Wikipelli Talk 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not quite done reviewing the article, but it's looking great (none of these is a major content issue). Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the lead's second paragraph could be stated again in the Geology section and the information in the third paragraph of the lead is also suitable for the second paragraph of the Impact section. Then you would be able to eliminate all of the citations in the lead. As for the third issue I brought up regarding the Virginia section, it reads just fine now. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia
  • At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "The 1740 Mt. Calvert mansion, historic site and museum located on the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro, received substantial structural damage…" Why not state and link to the name of this specific landmark?
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "In Dover, fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout the capital city." A more well-worded sentence might be: "Fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout Dover, the capital city." Same thing in the next sentence, which speaks of Georgetown, the seat of Sussex County.
  • At the end of the third paragraph, link to Patriot Coal.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York
  • In the first paragraph, it says, "The Three Mile Island nuclear plant south of Harrisburg continued to operate during the earthquake." Since the four sentences preceding this one talk about damage and people evacuating buildings, it would be nice to include a however to differentiate from this sentence.
  • The second-to-last sentence in this paragraph is, "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation conducted inspections on bridges across the state to check for possible damage." I propose slightly less wording: "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation inspected bridges across the state for damage."
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "In Burlington, Temple B'nai Israel's 1801 synagogue building sustained some water damage…" Be a bit more clear about this water damage.
New England
Midwestern states
  • Link to Columbus, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan in the same style as the wikilink to New Haven, Connecticut in the previous section.
  • In the second paragraph, it says, "Tremors from the earthquake were also felt in Detroit, Michigan as far north as Saginaw, and as far west as communities on Lake Michigan." Saginaw isn't that far north in Michigan, so I wouldn't stress its geographic location. Also, there needs to be a comma after "Detroit, Michigan."
Canada
  • In the first paragraph, be a bit more specific about the "precautionary measures," eliminate the extra space after "Sudbury" and cite reference 88 at the end of the paragraph before citing the other two references.
  • Since the second paragraph is only one sentence long, it should be combined with the first paragraph. Also, avoid beginning a sentence with a numeral.
Internet activity and social media
  • I believe there is no hyphen needed in the first sentence, and I think web site is one word.
  • In the second paragraph, there is no need to state the years of events that also occurred in 2011.
(Applies to whole article)
  • Be sure to use the WP:NBSP when the manual of style recommends using it.
  • FAC reviewers are quite particular about citation formatting, so you should use a standard method for access dates; ex. the day before the month or the month before the day. There are other minor inconsistencies, such as writing the publisher's name in italics, as well. Most of these are pointed out during the FAC and can easily be resolved then.
  • In the last paragraph of the Geology section, where the United States Geological Survey is mentioned, add the acronym USGS in parentheses and refer to the agency as such in the rest of the article.
  • More links could be added to the External links section, unless most relevant sources have been cited in the text.
  • Use the toolbox on the right-hand side of the top of this page to hunt down and resolve other issues.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)


Best of luck at FAC. I hope these suggestions help bring the article closer to achieving that FA star. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena singles discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take the article to FLC very soon. Also it has been c/e by a GOCE member.

Thanks, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 12:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This reads well - glad it got a copyedit already. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One dab link here - circular redirect I think here
  • I looked at the most recent discography FL (which is 50 Cent discography) and the lead here seems way more detailed than that article's lead. It might help to trim the lead here a bit.
  • One thing I noticed that seems strange is that there is a lot of material on Mexican chart performance in the lead, but the only charts shown in the body of the article are the US charts - no Mexican charts are listed / shown. I think the lead should be consistent with the article - either the Mexican charts should be in the lists or they should be removed from the lead.
  • Needs a ref It peaked within the top 10 on the Hot Latin Tracks and Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts.
  • This needs to be qualified "Amor prohibido" and "No me queda más" became the most successful singles of 1994 and 1995.[19][20] - most successful in the world? in the US? in Mexico? in certain markets? what?
  • Also needs a ref "No me queda más" peaked at number one on the Hot Latin Tracks and on the Latin Regional Mexican Airplay charts, giving Selena a second number one single from Amor prohibido (1994).
  • New Zealand chart also in the lead, but not in the article body - again should be consistent (both or none)
  • Also true for the French and Spanish charts (in lead only)
  • Tense is wrong here - should be "had" not "has" As of 2005, "Dreaming of You" has sold over 254,000 digital copies. " This also seems like it needs its own ref
  • A lot of the awards seem like the do not belong here (but in the awards article / list) - 50 Cent discography does not list awards in its lead.
  • Canadian and UK charts in lead, not in list.
  • I did not check any refs, but I do see that there are no dead external links.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed chart positions coming from off-line sources, everything else is fixed. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinian theodicy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After bringing this article to GA status in December, I've recently begun editing it again. I am hoping I can get it to Featured Article quality in the future. My two main issues with what I had previously done were was sourcing (a lot of the references were unreliable) and the prose (it wasn't written as well as it could be). It would be good to get feedback on both of those areas, as well as any general comments that could help it reach FA status.

Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • Make explicit that this is a Chiristian perception of evil/God. OR is it sectarian??
  • " first developed by Augustine of Hippo", " was supported by Thomas Aquinas", " Alvin Plantinga's free will defence" etc. add dates in lead to a sense of history
  • More context. The article needs 2-3 lines about "evidential problem of evil". Without understanding the problem, it is impossible to grasp its response, the theodicy.
  • "Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" Who is John Hick? date. Give a short summary for all historical figures eg. "the 13th century theologian and priest Thomas Aquinas" in lead, "in which Paul" -> the apostle Paul
  • jargon like "ex nihilo" needs to be linked
  • "Reception": either have the Organization concept-wise or person-wise. John Hick has his section and then his ideas are repeated in "concept of Hell"
  • Any modern scholarship on this issue??

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I'll look at making those changes now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done most of what you've recommended from points 1 to 5. I plan to re-write the lead tomorrow when I'm less tired, as I've neglected that. I also need to take another look at the reception section, as you said - I'll try and categorise those by thinkers, which should then help find more recent opinion. Thank you again for your feedback - I appreciate it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the reception section, I have removed the section of Hell (which simply repeated the section on Hick) and renamed one of the sections after the philosopher. I have retained 'process theology' as a section, because it encompasses the view of a school of thinking, rather than a specific person; I have also maintained the 'scientific implications' section as it is, because it is not an argument from a philosopher, per se, but a summary of the scientific issues the theodicy has, proposed by numerous thinkers. Would that be ok? I plan to have a look at the section on Plantinga and determine whether it should be included in the development or the reception section, with reference to how the sources refer to his arguments (as a response or a development). I will then look for contemporary opinion and finally look to readdress the lead. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to read more about the primary sources of Augustinian theodicy. What works of Augustine et al have the theodicy? or is it an oral tradition?
  • What is the official position of the Church or sects??
  • Add dates for all people mentioned in all sections
  • After reading the article twice, I still think it is difficult to flow, mainly due to the fact that there are no many concepts to understand. May be a reorganization with logical grouping of the concepts, would help. Not sure, an expert in Christianity may suggest you something better. I suggest the following:
    • Development/History: Names of works and authors who advocated the theodicy. Emergence of rival theodicies in chronology
    • Outline: The problem of evil and sections on the major ideas of the theodicy. Any examples given by the authors to explain the arguments
    • Opposition: arguments against

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your comments; they are very helpful. I plan to work on the article tomorrow; Redtigerxyz, your structure looks decent. I might retain the sections already in place, but expand upon, especially the outline section. Perhaps if the key ideas are presented in the outline, they will then be easier to follow, both in the development & reception section. Mark, thank you for that source - it looks very helpful. I shall try to find where in Confessions and City of God Augustine's main argument lies, as well as take a look Aquinas' and Calvin's view. When it comes to the reaction of church bodies, should that come in the development or the reception section, do you think? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback, I really appreciate it. I've now closed the review. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bambusa vulgaris

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this to the status of a good article at least, if not a featured article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of great info and well referenced, so great job!

  • If you're working towards GA, then you might start at with the bones of the article, the basic structure, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. You'll want to rearrange/rename some of your sections to match that. It will also point out a few areas that the article may be weak in, like the physical description, natural ecology, & taxonomy. Generally the article needs, IMO, to lean back some towards the natural species, natual ecology, nat. description, etc. All that great culture info should be in balance (in qty.) with info about the natural species.
  • Also see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Foreign language common names I agree with them that these lists of foreign common names are not desirable.
  • Some of your refs can be moved to the end of sentences or paragraphs to improve readability. You might also possibly be able to use Bundling if the refs are getting too thick.
  • In your list of varieties, I wonder if Commons would have pics of some of these you could link the names to. Might be nice to see examples with Commons links on some of them. Keep up the good work! --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I hope I have managed to adress Tom Hulse's issues to some degree. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Toxicity" section says that the plant "harms the soil", but provides no details about how this is supposed to occur. It is also an entire section for a single, short sentence. I would expect there to be at least some information about a toxin, based on the section title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's one concern. I have posted it to the article talk page (here). A solution there would help tremendously in expanding the description section. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Varieties" don't seem to be botanical varieties but largely cultivars. I would move most if not all of this material to under "Uses" in cultivation. Only true botanical varieties should be dealt with in the "botanical" sections of the article. Are there any recognized botanical varieties? The Flora of China seems to treat them as cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Dieter Ohrnberger (Bamboos of the world) these are all botanical varieties, not just cultivars. Moving the "use" parts to "uses" section. Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. This source clarifies them as cultivars. I am putting them in the right place. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review that first paragraph in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy again. Right now you have mostly "Description" material in beginning of the "Taxonomy" section. You also still need more focus on the wild species. Terms like "ornamental", "boiled in water", "cultivated", "used for", etc. go only in the "Uses" and "Cultivation" section. Also, all variety names that are not natural growers in the wild (e.g. a variegated cultivar only occuring in nurseries) need to be separated away from the natural taxa; perhaps in a paragraph about cultivars. For a good example of what they want for a Taxonomy section, see Peter's Schlumbergera#Taxonomy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moving "use" parts to "uses" section. Is there any example of how I can deal with cultivars? Also, I have been looking for an article that gives me good example of how to deal with the taxonomy of a species. Taxonomy of a genus deals with much historical information, and list of specieses within the genus. Any suggestion? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in "Category:FA-Class plant articles" would be a good place to look? Allens (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link Allens mentioned: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Look under the Biology section and start clicking on plant names such as Adenanthos cuneatus. You might be able to approach GA status with a simpler taxonomy section such as Commelina communis or Schlumbergera opuntioides. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I was mentioning (and finally managed to get the link working for) is FA-class WikiProject Plant(s) articles; thanks, though! Allens (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a slight bit of grammatical cleanup (check to make sure the commas-before-and is consistent throughout the article, one way or another; it was inconsistent in the paragraphs I was looking at), and noted something needing clarification: Are the bitter shoots older ones, or what? They're apparently not used for food, unlike the young shoots? Allens (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of grammatical cleanup, I'm spotting quite a few lacunae in articles ("the", "an", "a") and a few other grammatical errors; I'm trying to correct these, but asking the Guild of Copy-Editors to take a look may be a good idea. In addition, I'm putting a number of unit conversions in using the "Convert" template. Allens (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another area that can use some work (I'm trying, but I'm not a botanist!) is linking in, explaining, or replacing various botanical terms; for instance, what are "pseudospikelets"? Allens (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm continuing to work on grammar/style, but I am noting quite a few places needing clarification. I'm guessing that, in the "Food" section, 0.0 grams of carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of dietary fiber mean 0.0 grams of digestible carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of insoluble fiber? That's how I've modified it to read. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regard to "cultivation", the mention of problems with meiosis should really be right after the "no seeds" statement, if that's why there aren't any seeds. "When a stem dies, the clump usually survives" - this refers to the stem dying after (uselessly) flowering? Some comment that this sort of thing is common among bamboo may be a good idea. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for attempting to explain "pseudospikelets", but the explanation is close to non-comprehensible to a non-botanist like myself (and I am a biologist, with my dissertation research being partially in phylogenetics, so I have some experience with plant terms insofar as they show relatedness between organisms). Also, exactly what is meant by "In Bangladesh, is carrier for deadly bamboo blight for the common bamboo"? What is the carrier for deadly bamboo blight for this bamboo (which is said to be "common bamboo" in the first paragraph)? Allens (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote the explanation of pseudospikelets, check if it works. The Bangladesh pathogen is named (that was a silly mistake). Still trying to determine the color of the shoot, and consistent information on its bitterness. I have worked on most of your concerns, though "cultivation" and "toxicity" would require more work. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better on pseudospikelets, thanks! Understand on cultivation and toxicity, etc. Allens (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on cultivation and toxicity. Please, check. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Worked on most of the issues raised, and working on the few left. The biggest concern now is the "taxonomy" part. Apparently I can't get across to the kind of information that's supposed to be there. Can someone actually lend a hand? Even a couple of online sources would do, as I'll be able to extract information from those sources. Also, it needs to name appropriate synonyms, not the mistake that was there earlier. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]
I'd place the information in footnote 2 into the text proper. In most of the Featured Articles I write, I give a summary of the history, so Banksia marginata and Noisy Miner (currently at FAC) are two examples.
Any extra information on cultivars so it doesn't look so listy
splitting the prose into many small subsections can make the whole article look a bit choppy. I'd combine some subsections - particularly in the uses section which has information split up a bit. I'd take out the section subheaders and place all the like information together there.

Comment. I kept those small sections so that it remains easier to expand. I believe a lot more expansion needs to go into each of those sections. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good point. I'll see how it looks later. The other thing to consider is that the article needs a lead, so any summary-type sentences are good for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting to the issues. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Abraham Rosenberg

[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 passed Good Article and I'd like to try to improve it further if I can. It's a fairly short article and there isn't much in the way of available source material that I can find, so I'm not sure if Featured Article status is attainable. I might like to give it a shot though, so a general peer review would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

This looks pretty good overall. I don't think the length of the article or the paucity of source material would stand in the way of FA status if the article is comprehensive.

  • "In the mid-1880s, Rosenberg traveled to Hawaii and become popular with locals, leading to his introduction to King Kalākaua by 1886. He claimed to be a fortune teller and began making predictions about the king's future.": Did he become popular as a fortune teller or was this role claimed after he met the king? I think this should be made clearer.
    • Rephrased, hope that it's clearer.
  • "By the fall of 1886, Rosenberg had left San Francisco for the Hawaii": It may be better to be more precise in dating this, per WP:SEASON. Also, should it be "for the Hawaii"?
    • It's a bit tricky for me to figure out how to write this, it's unknown when he arrived, but it is definitely know that he was there by November '86. Fixed "the".
  • Do we know where the Torah and yad came from?
    • No, I think that's a mystery, there's nothing in the sources about that.
  • ""At that time, Rosenberg had a long white beard and a charming and witty personality": Need to say who thought so to avoid editorial voice.
    • Done.
  • "At that time, Rosenberg had a long white beard and a charming and witty personality. He casted optimistic horoscopes for anyone who wanted one, using his Torah and yad." It is not quite clear which references support these statements and I could not tell from a quick check. Also, how did he use the Torah and yad to cast a horoscope?
    • Good question, I removed part of that bit.
  • "By November 1886, King Kalākaua trusted Rosenberg's skill as a fortune teller": A few points. First, as above, the dating could be more precise. When did he first meet the king? Second, the sentence kind of implies that he did not trust Rosenberg before this, which may or may not be true. Third, is there anything that can explain what made the king trust him?
    • Ok, I took a stab at rephrasing/clarifying all that.
  • "…and two months later, he granted Rosenberg a private audience at ʻIolani Palace": Where and how did they meet prior to this?
    • Looked at the source again, clarified.
  • "Lorrin A. Thurston recalled that after Rosenberg became close with the King, Rosenberg routinely visited for several consecutive days at a time and the pair held long conversations." A little uncomfortable as it stands. Suggest "After becoming close to the king, Rosenberg routinely visited him for several consecutive days… according to Lorrin A Thurston."
    • Done.
  • "This claim encouraged the king as he was seeking to restore aspects of Hawaiian religion and he established a society dedicated to the cause." May be smoother to say "This claim encouraged the king, who sought to restore aspects of Hawaiian religion and had established a society dedicated to this cause."
    • Done
  • "leading to the 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii (known as the Bayonet Constitution)" It may help the reader here to briefly explain how this constitution impacted on the king. It is mentioned later but could be better if it was explained at this point. And could it be dated more precisely to show how it fits into Rosenberg's chronology?
    • Ok, tried to spell out more detail.
  • The start of the paragraph beginning "In late January" about his customs job could perhaps be smoothed a little by merging one or two of the sentences to make it less choppy. Not a huge issue, though. Also, there is perhaps too much repetition of "customs" and "customs office".
  • Changed one.
  • "The gossip columnist of the Hawaiian Gazette alleged that though Rosenberg did no work at the customs office, he collected a regular salary nonetheless": Possibly remove some redundancy: "The gossip columnist of the Hawaiian Gazette alleged that though Rosenberg did no work at the customs office, [but still] he collected a regular salary nonetheless."
    • Done
  • ""His Majesty Kalākaua I to Abraham Rosenberg" was inscribed on the cup and one side of the medal.": Fussy, but for precision it may be better to say "The cup and [one side of the] medal were inscribed with the words "His Majesty Kalākaua I to Abraham Rosenberg"."
    • Done.
  • "The reverse side of the medal featured a profile of the king and there was a gold crown on the side that attached to a blue ribbon." A little unclear. What has the blue ribbon to do with it? I read this as "there was a gold crown on the side that didn't have the profile of the king on it". In this case, this should be put before it says "reverse side" or it looks like the medal had three sides.
    • Tried to clarify the details there.
  • "The king's decision to give him lavish gifts also was criticized in The Hawaiian Gazette." Also is unnecessary as no other criticism is recorded. If you want to avoid a short sentence, perhaps add it to "On June 1, Rosenberg received a gold medal and a silver cup from the king": "On June 1, Rosenberg received a gold medal and a silver cup from the king, a decision criticised in The Hawaiian Gazette".
    • Done
  • "Perhaps foreseeing the future…": Not in the source and reads like editorial opinion.
    • Removed.
  • Is his cause of death known?
    • No, I don't believe any of the sources contain a cause of death. They do note that he hobbled late in life though.
  • How was the Torah lost and recovered? Although not strictly relevant, it would be interesting to have the information here.
    • Found a source, added to article.
  • Are there any "judgements" of him, either contemporary or "scholarly". For example, the "Rogues, Rascals and Villains" article paints him as a fraud. Are there other views which agree or disagree?
    • Added a few, but there isn't much there.
  • I have not performed any spot checks on sources.
  • I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness or source quality of the article. However, most obvious questions seem to be answered, such as a Jewish presence on Hawaii before Rosenberg. Possibly a little more on religion(s) there at the time, or a little more background on the king (although again, most relevant questions seem to be answered). So, with the strong qualification that I am far from an expert and know nothing of the people or period, it looks comprehensive enough for me.
    • Thanks, I mentioned a bit more about religions then.
  • Similarly, I do not know if all the relevant sources and authorities are included but there is nothing that indicates any problems.
  • I'm not sure about the lead image of the yad. It comes from a 1970 article and therefore would not be PD as far as I can see. The licence is almost certainly wrong.
    • Thanks for pointing that out, I've nominated it for deletion at Commons.
  • Although not essential, some other images may help the article, of either people or places mentioned, if available.
    • Added a couple.

I do not usually watch peer reviews, so please let me know of any problems or questions on my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief further comments
  • "Opinions of Rosenberg have been mixed, some see him as a charlatan, but he has also been characterized as a good-natured mystic and is commemorated with a display in a Hawaiian Jewish temple": I'm not sure the main body backs up these opinions of him.
  • Watch out for repetition of "king" in last paragraph of the lead. Also, consecutive sentences begin "The king".
  • I think "remained in the possession" is better than "remained with...".
  • "After they became close, they routinely visited for several consecutive days at a time..." The last sentence was only about the king; I would suggest a slight rephrase, not least to avoid repetition of "they": "After becoming close, the king and Rosenberg routinely visited each other for ..."
  • Fourth paragraph of Hawaii: Too many sentences beginning with "In [date]...": needs some more variety.

I have only had a quick look, but nothing else jumped out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman Empire

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to help it become a GA status article.

Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

I know the GA criteria, but having never been through the GA process, I'm not very familiar with how the criteria are applied in practice. My comments are mainly aimed toward general improvement—which I think is reasonable, because a lot of general improvement will be needed before this article is ready for a GA submission.

Overall

  • Length: There are nearly 14,000 words in this article, whereas preferably there shouldn't be more than 10,000 even for a large topic. See WP:Article size. I have some specific suggestions below about what to cut.
  • Structure: There are a few sections too many, and disproportionate attention is given to some subjects. Probably several sections should be shortened and consolidated. See WP:Manual of Style/Layout. Some detailed suggestions below.

References

  • There are in-line citations, but their placement is very spotty; large chunks of the article lack them. The minimum standard for a Good Article is: a citation at the end of every paragraph, every statement that is likely to be challenged, and every direct quotation. It also looks clumsy and is almost always unnecessary to have more than two or three citations in one place.
  • The reference style is inconsistent. Some of the in-line citations contain commentary rather than just references in support of a statement in the body, even though there is a "Footnotes" section for notes containing commentary. Either the combine the two, or separate them. The references in support don't have a consistent format; for example, book references sometimes provide the place of publication and sometimes don't, and website references often have nothing more than a linked title and an access date. Absolute consistency isn't in the GA criteria, but general consistency is a good idea in any case. WP:Manual of Style/Layout, Help:Footnotes, and WP:Citing sources have a good bit of information on the organization of references.
  • The sources themselves are largely reliable, but many are less than ideal—general reference works like the Encyclopedia Britannica, out-of-date historians like Arnold Toynbee, online scans of Ottoman banknotes. The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journal articles and books written by academics, which, as the "Further reading" section shows, are abundant on a topic like this. Look through the references and further reading, identify the most recent and general of the highly reliable sources, and get your hands on as many as you can. Then use them to support as much of the unreferenced content, and the content with the weakest sources, as you can. If you use sources that are now in the "Further reading" section as references, move them from one to the other; that section is oversized.

Images and templates

  • It's not in the GA criteria, but I really feel there are too many, or at least too many in the same places. The images are bunched together in many places, looking cluttered, while other sections have no images at all. Look through the clusters of images and decide which are most relevant to the text at hand. The templates aren't as bad, but there are some places where they and the images are really crowded, like the start of the article body and the very bottom of the page. Some of them might be better removed.

History section

  • A lot of the article bloat is here. With sub-articles for so many of these sections, a lot of the detail can be removed, in accordance with WP:Summary style. The "Decline and modernization" section is particularly oversized. For example, the "Modernization" section contains very long lists of the reforms during the Tanzimat period, which surely can be summarized; the first paragraph of the "Crimean War" section is mostly irrelevant to the Ottoman Empire; and the detail about the Congress of Berlin is terribly disproportionate to its overall significance in six centuries of Ottoman history. I want to emphasize that these are only examples, and a lot of cutting is needed in a lot of places. When that is done, several of the sections can be combined, making the article body and the table of contents shorter.

Fall of the Ottoman Empire

Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire

  • In contrast, this section should be expanded, although not hugely.

Economy

  • This part is missing some fundamental things like currency. It should look more like an overview of all the topics in the main article on the Ottoman economy.

State

  • I can't really judge whether this is a good overview of the topic without seeing the relevant sources, but it doesn't look bad at a glance. I question the relevance of the last paragraph, though.

Society

  • This part might better be titled "Social structure", like the corresponding sub-article, to make clear why there's a section separate from "Culture". The section doesn't feel cohesive in its organization, and some parts, like the bit about plague, seem to have been thrown into it as a catch-all section. It might work better if it mentioned the aristocracy, like the sub-article does, and moved down (or up) the social hierarchy.

Culture

  • On the surface, it looks decent. The paragraphs on different aspects of the culture don't connect very well, but that's hard to do with such disparate subject matter.

Demographics

  • The sections on "Language" and "Religion" look fairly decent (although "Religion" has a tag complaining that it doesn't give enough attention to Islam; with a little expansion on the subject, the tag should be removed). The strange part is "The Ottoman Empire, Turkey, Iraq and Kurdistan" and its single subsection. The section is all about the views of one scholar and should probably just be removed. In its place, I would recommend a section on "Ethnicities", about all the peoples within the empire. The views of the one scholar might be useful as a source for that section but don't need nearly as much weight as they're given now.

Law

  • My thoughts about this section are much like those about the "State" section.

Military

  • Fairly decent, but, like the History section, it seems to give disproportionate attention to more recent times, including a very short-lived air force. The Ottoman military must have been far more famous when it was the terror of Europe, and more needs to be said about that period.

There's a lot of material to work with in this article, but it's much in need of somebody to reorganize and streamline it. I wish you well in that effort. Let me know if you need any other help. A. Parrot (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppy Meadow

[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…

Thanks, MayhemMario 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my nomination at FAC, the article may have plagiarism and mis-attribution, per an editors comments at FAC, and this is how I can get it up to FA level. Also a general sort out of the Reception section. This was brought up later here. Thanks, MayhemMario 20:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is! I did some edits, checked the sources, etc. MayhemMario 15:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ebe123, could you re-explain that? And  Done alt text! MayhemMario 17:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pain fitzJohn

[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 take this to FAC, and it desperately needs attention from someone in terms of prose, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility by the non-specialist. The more the merrier! All serious comments very much welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief but srs comments from Nikkimaria
  • "One historian, Bruce Coplestone-Crow" - the same one mentioned a couple of paragraphs earlier?
  • "Pain endeavoured to secure more lands around Ludlow in order to secure his hold" - can we avoid repeating "secure" here?
  • "Pain was killed by the Welsh in an ambush,[12][notes 8] from a javelin blow to the head" - suggest moving the javelin blow to before the ambush
  • Gilbert Lacy or Gilbert de Lacy?
  • "19th century accounts" -> "19th-century accounts", or preferably "Nineteenth-century accounts" since it's the head of a sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments

This looks very good to me - here are a few niggles I found on reading it. They are almost all concerned with providing more context to the reader

  • In Early life, I think it would help to explain the last name (fitz = son of) explicitly - only needs one sentence or phrase added
  • In Marriage and lands, I assume de Lacy died and his daughter / niece (our hero's wife) inherited much of his land - could this be made clearer? Pain did not receive the entirety of the lands of Hugh de Lacy; some went to Jocelin de Dinan and others went to Miles of Gloucester.[20]
  • What are knights fees?
  • I see that the third paragraph of Early life addresses some of the issue raised above (inheriting de Lacy lands). Perhaps the material should come earlier in the section?
  • Under Henry I, any reason not to include an image of King Henry?
  • I would add Henry's accession date to Pain was too young to serve King William Rufus, but there is evidence that he may have been a chamberlain, one of the officials in charge of the royal household, for King Henry I.
  • clarify or link body servant?
  • In Under Stephen, could the whole Stephen vs. Matilda succession issue be made somewhat clearer - it is alluded to but never explicitly explained
  • Death - Agree with Nikki on the javelin blow wording
  • Can anything be added about Agnes and her two marriages?

Could a map showing important places in his life or his significant holds be added?

  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death panel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was recently delisted as a good article over concerns about prose quality and stability. I'd like to make sure it meets the good article criteria.

Thanks, Jesanj (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comment: A main problem with this article is the question of its title. I have read the discussion on the talkpage, and find the arguments in favour of retaining this title unconvincing. This is not a neutral title; it was invented by Palin for a purpose, but even she conceded that it was meant figuratively, not realistically. Leaving the title as it is lends credence to the actual existence of such panels. The article is about a political controversy, and should be indicated as such. Either "Death panel" controversy, or even just "Death panel" would avoid misunderstanding. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I start a discussion at the talk page and throw out multiple ideas? (I favor myth as I show here: User:Jesanj#Myth). Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "Death panel" would be simple/uncontroversial so I moved it there. Jesanj (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm new here in Peer review, so maybe I'm stepping out of order. I'm wondering if this term, used by Palin, deserves a whole article by itself. Shouldn't it be integrated into another article about her campaign stances? It's given too much weight, IMO, in this article. It's just one of her many positions on this and related issues. P MathewTownsend (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. But I'm not sure what you mean by articles giving themselves too much weight. Perhaps you favor Garber's opinion when she wrote (about Wikipedia) "And, significantly: missing from the discussion is talk of Sarah Palin and her fictional-fantastical 'death panels.' ".[3] Jesanj (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know who Garber is, but her piece, written August 18, 2009, makes sense to me and the Columbia Review of Journalism is a credible source. She is complimenting Wikipedia for not distracting the political discussion on health care with talk of "death panels" and "YouTube-tastic sideshows that the mainstream media—again, both traditional and digital—have found so irresistible in covering the health care debates. Missing,[from Wikipedia] in general, are the frustrating and distracting little dramas that, overall, have taxed attention, promoted misinformation, and stifled true conversation." In other words, she compliments Wikipedia: "Wikipedia provides, essentially, what traditional news outlets, both in print and online, have been trying—with varying degrees of success—to create: a thorough, comprehensive, and vitriol-free examination of the health care conversation. One that defers to information rather than sideshows."
Isn't that good? Or am I missing the point? MathewTownsend (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. There are 5 dead links in the citations. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Garber didn't have the benefit of hindsight. Some sideshows become notable, and analyzing them is presenting information (see Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories). Thanks for finding the dead links. Jesanj (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks. Jesanj (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 12)

[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… to help get read for WP:FL. Any suggestions on satisfying the FL criteria are encouraged.

Thanks, —Mike Allen 03:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm not accustomed to reviewing lists about TV series, but I thought I'd give it shot since this one has been languishing for such a long time with no comments. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

Structure

  • It seems a little odd to me to put cast changes before "Cast". I'm not sure there's any standard arrangement of the sections in series lists, but I was surprised to read about changes to a cast that had not yet been introduced.
  • The "Cast changes and cast changes section and the "Guest stars" subsection seem longish to me in something identified as a "list". Thumbing through some of the featured lists about series (found at WP:FL#Media), it looks to me like the ratio of text to list is on the high side in this article. I would think about trimming "Cast changes and recurring characters" and "Guest stars" to include far fewer quotations, many of which are wordy but impart little in the way of information. An example of this is "Matteo said in an interview that she had not read the script prior to accepting the role and explained that, 'I just knew that they wanted me to do something on the show and I'm a fan of the show, I was really excited to be on this show. This is like a New York staple. It's part of our culture here'." This takes up space without adding anything substantial.
  • It's often helpful to look at featured lists to see how other editors have handled similar materials. At first glance, Highlander: The Series (season 2) looks good to me, for example. The lead is compact and pithy. The three text sections are informative without overwhelming the list of episodes. The images fit nicely within the sections they illustrate.

Lead

  • "The twelfth season of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit aired on NBC from September 22, 2010, to May 18, 2011." - Three things:
(1) "Twelfth" should be "12th" since it's bigger than nine, per the Manual of Style. You have it both ways (12 and twelve) here and there in the article. I recommend 12 throughout except when "twelve" starts a sentence.
(2) To avoid double-bolding, which the Manual of Style advises against, it's OK not to bold the title words in the lead. See The Office (U.S. season 3), a featured list, for example.
(3) Add "in the United States" after "aired" unless "North America" or something else is the case. You mention Australia in the first sentence of the main text, so maybe it aired there too? Not sure.
  • "resigned his position as showrunner" - Link showrunner?
  • I think it would be helpful to add a one- or two-sentence description of the series to the lead. Not everyone who reads the article will have seen any episodes. Something like this might get them up to speed: "The series is a set of police procedurals set in New York City and involving crimes of a sexual nature." You know the show better than I since I have never seen it, so you can probably figure out what to say better than I.

Cast changes and permanent characters

  • "show, as a permanent ADA" - This should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use. I'd also link to district attorney, especially for foreign readers who may have no notion of what an ADA might be.
  • "TV Guide later confirmed" - TV Guide needs italics.

Production

  • "to meet LAPD Detective Rex Winters" - Spell out LAPD as well as abbreviate on first use.

Cast

  • The Manual of Style recommends using straight prose rather than bulleted and numbered lists where feasible. I'd look for a way to compress the cast list into several paragraphs of straight prose. It's possible that this material could be merged with the "cast changes" material to make a single succinct prose section.

Guest stars

  • " 'They have been branded and sodomized by someone,' reveals Baer... " - Nothing should be linked inside a direct quotation, per the Manual of Style. "Sodomized" should be unlinked here. If you really want a link to it, try paraphrasing instead of quoting. Something like this: ...played two of a trio of rape victims who had been branded and sodomized.
  • I don't mean to sound negative. I think you can re-work this material to produce a featured list. The essence is there, but it needs rearranging and polishing. Shorter and more to the point would be an improvement, I think.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We Found Love (music video)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to make this article an FA. If people who are very familiar with the FAC process could comment, in addition to anyone else, I would be grateful.

Thanks, Calvin • Watch n' Learn 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from Nikkimaria
WP Comments

Per request at talk page. I'm copy editing the article as I go and will be listing issues by which I am confused, here.

Lead

  • As you can see, I have trimmed the lead as it was quite long. Yes, I know this is a good article, but too much was there. Waffle was reduced as well. Just throwing that out.
  • "Residents driving around the location of the set informed BBC that traffic in the area was congested as drivers wanted to see the singer." - "Resident" is awkward here: residents of what? Why not "People" instead?
    Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "Most critics agreed that the way in which the video had been shot was reminiscent of being a film" - unclear what this sentence means. Rewrite in simple and clear English?

  • Done. I guess because I'm a film student, that line makes sense to me. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    I can understand what you were trying to say, but the sentence needed to be re-worded. By the way, music videos are short films by definition. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some critics also compared the controversial content to those of Rihanna's videos for "S&M" and "Man Down". The video caused controversy from activist groups, including The Rape Crisis Centre in the UK." - Okay, order needs to be revised here. You discuss the controversial content comparisons before actually saying that the video caused controversy?

  • Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "Christian youth pastors Brandon Ward and John Colonnello as well as Ulster Cancer Foundation, for Rihanna's portrayal in the video of having sex whilst under the influence of illegal drugs, not being a role model to young girls and women and for smoking." - Does not read like a proper sentence. Missing word maybe?

  • Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "As a result, the video was banned from being shown before 10pm on French television due to it's controversial content." - Isn't it redundant to say both "As a result" and "due to its controversial content" in the same sentence? Maybe remove the latter?

  • Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Remove all occurrences of "whilst" throughout with "while". They mean the same thing, only one is too formal for Wikipedia.
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Revise article throughout for your incorrect usage of "It's", when "Its" should really be there. "Its" represents possession, while "It's" is a contraction for "It is".

WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • "The video was filmed in a field in the town of Bangor, County Down, ahead of Rihanna embarking on the European leg of the Loud Tour (2011) and was directed by Melina Matsoukas, who had previously directed the videos for "Rude Boy" (2010), and the controversial "S&M" (2011)." - I do not understand the Loud Tour part of the sentence and how it is relevant. Also, missing comma after "(2011)"? Sentence needs revising.
    Done. It's background info about it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "a red bandana top, long flannel shirt, and dirty denim"" - Quotations are used for quality and special wording. This does not need quotation marks (maybe the "dirty denim", but not the rest.)
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • ""an American flag bikini, denim vest, and ripped jeans"" - same here. This needs some slight paraphrasing. Maybe "A bikini with the pattern of the American flag, as well as a denim vest and ripped jeans".

  • Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • ""When the filming did become to my mind unacceptable I requested the filming to stop ... it became apparent to me that the situation was becoming inappropriate and I requested them to stop and they did"" - this is almost repeating what you said in your own words. Trim it down.

  • Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • "It was reported that extras were not told about what was expected of them until a very short time period beforehand, in order to keep the content of the video as secret as possible." - WP:WEASEL word. Who reported this? Also, by who were they not told of their expectations? The "until a very short time period beforehand" - needs to be re-worded. It's a bit awkward. I can't think of anything clever at the moment, but maybe "until the last minute"?

  • Done. I don't know who told them that, someone on set most likely. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • Could we elaborate on what this violent experience she had? It's vague right now.

WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

References to popular culture

  • Not a major issue, but comparing the two lead sentences: "The video for "We Found Love" references popular culture in the form of films." versus "The video also features multiple popular culture references to other artists in the music industry." They are worded a bit too similarly. I think the second could be worded a bit more creatively. Something like "Elements of the music video have been compared to the works of recording artists Britney Spears, Eminem and Madonna." It's a little more fresh , "wow" and interesting. My suggestion you don't have to follow, because I know you can write better.
  • Actually, overall, I think the whole section could use some copy editing to make the wording more variant and compelling. It's slightly repetitive now. This part of the article has a lot of potential as an interesting read. I see a lot of the same "The video features this, which is a lot what this film/song does." As a challenge, try and be creative. This will obviously be difficult, let alone for FAC, but it will vastly improve the overall flow.
  • "Spears is shown as a successful singer constantly hounded by the media and" - maybe the word "hounded" is a bit colloquial. Maybe something like "bothers"?
  • Also, may I add that this isn't actually reference to music, but other music videos? A video can easily illustrate the lyrics of another song, but this isn't what is dicussed in this section. So there may need to be some re-naming. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done all. Aaron • You Da One
  • Another point: I think the section jumps from comparison to comparison a bit too quickly. I think elaborating on each reference will make the article flow a lot better. It's a bit choppy and list-y right now. See if you can dig for more discussion from the sources. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just made it one section. Aaron • You Da One
    Can it be expanded? And what's the difference between this and the Comparisons section? Both are comparison sections really. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it to the Britney/Chris section as one seciton. Aaron • You Da One 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release and reception

Controversies

  • "The video also came under fire from Brandon Ward," - can this be more formal?
    Reworded, used "scrutinized" Aaron • You Da One 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The negative reaction to the video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to be criticized by various organizations" - Rihanna had the negative reaction? Re-word. You mean "The video is the third by Rihanna in 2011 to receive a negative reaction from organizations"?
    Yep :) Aaron • You Da One 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""S&M" was the first, and was banned from eleven countries around the world due to its explicit sexual content,[3][4] while "Man Down" attracted media attention when the Parents Television Council (PTC), a non-profit organization that advocates responsible entertainment, criticized Rihanna for "cold, calculated execution of murder" in the video and for portraying a scenario of rape.[5]" - this is dragging into too much unnecessary detail
    Shortened Aaron • You Da One 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you even talking about the promotional picture? It's not related in any way to the video. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons

  • "Among the similarities, critics ..." - critics were among the similarities?
  • What's "bad boy archetypes"?
  • "that is also against guns that politicians felt the need to talk about it." - guns?
  • "According to her, the videos continue with a xenophobic portrayal of British people as villains by American pop culture." - not sure where the "by American pop culture" fits here? What about them? Clarify.

I guess I'm done then. Ping me if you need help. Great job on the article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My love is love comments

This article isn't complete; The year-end lists of the best 2011 music videos should be added. I've seen "We Found Love" on some of them. I think Pitchfork Media, AOL, Consequence of Sound, Slant Magazine etc. Plus I've seen this on the talk page and it isn't added in the article. So, first add everything you'll find about the music video and then nominate it for an FA. My love is love (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I haven't forgotten about this. Will make the changes after the blackout on Thursday. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 01:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because, I would like to make this article an GA.

Thanks, Zeeuwsebad (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Review closed. The WP:PR page states very clearly that editors are limited to one active review. Brianboulton (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21 (Adele album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I desperately need some fresh pairs of eyes to look it over. I'd love to take it to FAC soon, and wanted to make sure that it was up to standard before I nominated it. My major issue right now is the prose. Also, the article could use a bit of trimming, but I've grown too emotionally attached to edit it down. Any help or suggestions welcomed.

Thanks, Orane (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by Lemonade51

Thank you for your work on this, not the biggest fan of Adele alas but I don't think anyone can deny that her voice is magnifique. This is a very well produced article so kudos. I won't go into much detail on prose unfortunately nor haven't checked for Oxford comma but skim reading this, here is what I have found (of course if I find anymore I'll let you know...)

  • "The media scrambled to ascertain the...", is scrambled the word you are looking for?
  • In 'Titling' you use the word 'symbolized'. Should that be 'symbolised' because the majority of the article looks to be written in British English?
  • Under 'Promotion', it states "The singer underwent vocal surgery in November 2011". Perhaps there needs to be a short addition about the result of the surgery, that it was a success? Doesn't have to be a lot of sentences because it has nothing to do with the article, few words in that already constructed sentence would do.
  • "...performing on Britain's Royal Variety Performance on 9 December 2010, BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge on 27 January, and on the finale of reality singing competition The Voice of Holland, on 21 January 2011", Voice of Holland should come before Live Lounge.
  • "Switzerlandand", spacing.
  • Ref 70 was published on The Observer, not its sister publication The Guardian.
  • Ref 139 states the work as 'BBC Online'. I believe Newsbeat, the news platform for Radio 1 is a division of 'BBC News'. So maybe BBC News should be the work?
  • Couple of dead links which should be the least of your worries considering you are looking for prose checks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade51 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you so much for the input. Will set about implementing your suggestions immediately.
  • "Scrambled" was the word I was looking for (the idea of a media frenzy and journalists tripping over themselves to come up with reasons to explain the album's success), but I'll remove it since it's syntactically awkward. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for the comments. Orane (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Jivesh
  • Before I start, I need to know whether you are using "the owner" (according to WP) or the "the publisher" (according to WP) in the publisher parameter in your citations? This can be problematic. For consistency, I will advise you to use the owner (which in most cases is the publishing company) in each citation. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the template specifications, the publishers for British newspapers are the owners, while the publishers for American newspapers are individual persons. So, I used the "publisher". Orane (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong but this sentence Released on 24 January 2011 in the United Kingdom and most of Europe, and on 22 February 2011 in North America, caused me ask myself, isn't the UK in Europe?
  • in the U.S. --> US
    • Hi Jivesh, MOS:ABBR allows for either style of USA as long as the writer only sticks to one. "UK" on the other hand should never have periods/full stops. MOS only asks for consistency amongst the US abbreviations. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read such a lead. It is perfect. I as moving to the other sections. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Done
  • It's actually not the same magazine. This one is an American teen mag; the one in the article is a British Magazine.
  • Done
  • FN 61: Not sure about Soul Culture
  • Will look into it.
  • FN 105: Grammy.com has an article.
  • FN 111: Correct the work parameter and unlink the publisher
  • FN 128: Should be The Official Charts Company
  • FN 133: Same
  • FN 135: Same
  • FN 140: Unlink
  • FN 141: BBC Online has an article.
  • FN 142: Should be The Official Charts Company
  • FN 147: Unlink MegaCharts
  • FN 149: State is a magazine and it is published by Roger Woolman.
  • No longer an magazine. Ceased circulation. Now an online publication.
  • Waayyy past my bed time, but I just want to say 3 things: 1. I love-love-love your suggestions. And 2 It's actually "Official Charts Company" (without "The") :). 3. I made an edit and screwed up the refs. So the ones you listed here aren't the same ref numbers that appear in the article. But I know which ones you are talking about. Anyway, gotta run, but thanks soo much. Orane (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Think I got 99% of it. Will try to see about a couple sources, like the blog etc. Orane (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have not finished yet with the references. This is my favorite part. :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I see that you have already fixed most of references from FN 151 onward per the above comments.
  • FN 199: Over-linking of Ultratop
  • FN 202: Over-linking of MegaCharts
Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Legolas
  • I think the approach that you have chosen for listing the locations of newspapers which are unobtainable from their names, is brilliant and on-par with the citation templates. At a first glance I did not see any discrepancy in the citations. I will inspect it more now and go citation by citation. By the way, some of the references miht be questioned at FAC. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Status

I have nothing to add to this review (sorry), but I just wanted to say how good this article is! You've done some great work here! I personally could never handle something this big! Takes a real good editor! — Status {talkcontribs 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sp33dyphil
  • MOS calls the inclusion of alt text.
  • Four references are dead.
  • "album's enigmatic popularity" Why enigmatic?
  • "an overtly sexual and sonically bombastic music industry." Are all those industry jargons? No idea what they mean.
  • "Adele had met Ryan Tedder at the Grammy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles and had approached him about" --> "Adele had approached Ryan Tedder at the Grammy Awards ceremony in Los Angeles about"
  • "the lyrics towards her recent experiences." --> "the lyrics to reflect her recent experiences."
  • "the "'long tail' sales theory"[66] in order to shape"
  • "stops in New York, Minneapolis, as well as an exclusive" --> "stops in New York and Minneapolis, as well as an exclusive" I'm not 100% sure about this, but the same issue had been raised during my previous GA/FA promotions.
  • twitter should be capitalised.
  • "a vocal hemorrhage that caused "internal bleeding near her vocal chords"." A vocal hemorrhage *is* internal bleeding near her vocal cords, not the cause of it. It's like saying "The car crash resulted in two cars crashing into each other." You should either get rid of "vocal hemorrhage that caused" or "that caused "internal bleeding near her vocal chords".
  • Wikify "Flanders".
  • Be consistent whether to include serial commas or not.
  • "score of 76/100 based" Given that you've mentioned Metacritic's rating system to be out of 100, I find this redundant.
  • "Where 19 was" --> "Whereas 19 was"?
  • There's a Citation needed template.
  • "certified 14-times platinum" --> "certified platinum 14 times"
Hmm, I see what I've missed now. Thanks for the tip --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS I really like "Rolling in the Deep", so I can relate to the album :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so very much for the comments and suggestions. Will begin implementing them as soon as I can. And yes, "Rolling in the Deep" is amazing, isn't it?
  • PS: "an overtly sexual and sonically bombastic music industry". No, these are not jargons. "Overtly sexual"--> hyper-sexualized, and "sonically"-->relating to audio/sounds/the ear, "bombastic"-->flashy; (i.e music that is showy and excessively flashy). The comment was about the album's success, and how it was radical to the overly sexual and flashy dance music that now saturates the music industry. It's expanded in the "Impact and response" section. Orane (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't Stand the Weather Tour

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to make this a featured article. I don't believe there's too many examples of featured articles on concert tours, so I'd like to make this one of them. I'd appreciate if somebody would provide some suggestions and assistance in perfecting this fine work in progress.

Many thanks, User:Alanbarrybush

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, which I found interesting. I think it would need a fair amount of work before it could be a FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • I agree that a model article is a great idea for examples to follow. I am not sure that Mozart family grand tour is the kind of model you have in mind, but Zoo TV Tour is a FA on a fairly recent rock concert tour and seems like an excellent model article.
  • The current lead is too short - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. The total number of shows is in the lead and infobox, but not explicitly in the article (could count them up, I suppose)
  • The lead needs to be expanded, My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another way to think about it is to suppose someone could only read the lead - what are the absolute essentials about the tour you would want this reader to know?
  • Make sure to provide context to the reader - there are allusions to Vaughan's death in 1990, but it is not clearly explained - an uninformaed reader would ths not understand "posthumous release" (and since the tour was by the band and not the man, is posthumous really the best word choice?). See WP:PCR
  • The Background section should be about the background of the tour - the previous album and tour are OK, the album this tour was in support of is OK (in fact I would incluide more about the album - there is very little on it here). However, sentences like With Couldn't Stand the Weather selling over a million copies, the group toured Scandinavia and much of the United States. are not all background - the tour of Scandanavia and the US is THIS tour.
  • Ditto with the whole hiring an extra guitarist and singer and letting them go during this tour is not background.
  • The language is OK but not great - to make FA, the article will have to have a professional level of prose (this is usually one of the most difficult criteria for articles to meet at WP:FAC). One problem sentence as an example Their preceding Texas Flood Tour visited Germany for the first time and made many appearances on television. What does it mean that the tour went to Germany for the first time? I think that what it meant is that the band went there for the first time. Similarly, the tour can't really make a performance on tv or anywhere else, it is the band that performs (on tv or on stage), here as a part of a tour.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKING - common words like United States are not linked as almost every reader will know what the meaning is. Similarly, there is no need to link their previous tour twice in two sentences! The rule of thumb is to link once in the lead, and once in the body of the article, each on first use. Extra links can be in captions or notes
  • Another FA criterion is comprehensiveness - I have read the article but still have a lot of questions. Who organized the tour? How much did it earn? Who was the opening act or were the opening acts?
  • I notice that although there is the story about the extra musicians being hired and the guest musicians at Carnegie Hall, the other members of the band (Double Trouble) are not really explicitly identified (though they are mentioned). Again the average reader who does not know who the band was will have trouble here.
  • Article kind of sounds like Carnegie Hall was the end of the tour, but it looks like there were about 30 shows after that.
  • Identify obscure newspapers somehow by location - Many critics published favorable reviews about the tour; The Ledger said that the band didn't disappoint [in its Lakeland, Florida show], ...
  • The connection between the WC Handy awards and the tour is not clear - did SRV win them for the tour? The album? Make this clearer (and if the tour did not lead to the awards, then it should not be in this article)
  • I am not sure the image File:SRV Carnegie Hall.jpg meets WP:NFCC - SRV is already pictured in the tour poster (infobox image), so the reader already knows what he looks like. Please read WP:NFCC - fair use images can't be used just to illustrate and must increase the reader's understanding of the subject.
  • Even if it is OK under NFCC, the image needs to be scaled down (made smaller)
  • I would add info to the table following the Zoo TV Tour article - more on legs to the subheaders, add opening acts if known.
  • 21 of the 32 refs are to a single source (Hopkins) - this may be a problem at FAC.
  • I would work to reorganize the article so it tells the story of the tour in a more coherent manners - expand as much as possibel (again the Zoo tv tour is a good model). Once this is done, have someone look over the prose and copyedit it.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there seems to be great divisions about what should and should not be on this page moving forward. The page is clearly lacking, but some basic comments on each section should help out a great deal to point out what should be the obvious.

Thanks, Dsetay (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil

  • The lead should be expanded.
  • There are various improperly-formatted {[Cn}} templates and lots of unreferenced paragraphs.
  • MOS calls for the inclusion of alt text.
  • There are various bare URLs and at least one dead link.
  • "Law and government" and "Politics" should somehow be merged.
  • "Culture" should come under "Demographics".
  • There are lots of issues here. I suggest having a look at other GA/FA geographic articles before improving Montana in your user space. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this important article. Here are a few suggestions for improvement, some of which overlap with what Sp33dyphil says above.

  • Most importantly, the article needs inline citations to reliable sources in order to meet WP:V. Entire sections of the existing article make claims that are not supported by any source(s). The "History" section is an example, but there are others. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every unusual claim, every set of statistics (including dates), every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If one source supports an entire paragraph, the citation should be placed at the end of the paragraph.
  • When the article is fully sourced and the final form is pretty well settled, the lead should be rewritten to be an inviting summary of the whole article. Nothing should appear in the lead that is not discussed in the main text sections, and all of the main text sections should be mentioned in the lead in some way, if possible. For a long article like this, a lead of four paragraphs would be normal. WP:LEAD has details.
  • To avoid a choppy feel and look, it's best to avoid extremely short sections or subsections like "American Indian reservations". The two main possibilities for fixing the problem are to expand or merge. The reservation material would probably fit nicely into the "History" section, for example.
  • Try to place images entirely within the sections they illustrate. Avoid displacing edit buttons or heads with images or allowing them to overlap section boundaries. Avoid creating text sandwiches like the one in the "Economy" section.
  • Lists are sometimes useful, but the Manual of Style recommends using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists where feasible. The short lists of sports teams could easily be rendered in prose, for example.
  • Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, URL, date of publication, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. Since many of the citations use the "cite" family of citation templates, you should stick with that format for the rest.
  • The link-checker tool at the top of this review page finds seven dead or suspicious URLs in the citations.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

[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 need advice for improvements, since I got it to GA, and now my goal is FA!

Thanks, Khanassassin (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few things, not a full review by any means:
    • The automated check found some things that need fixing.
    • The alt text checker also found some pictures without alt text.
    • The text is somewhat wordy; I fixed a few things in the lead, but I'm not the best person to spot this (being wordy myself!), so I would advise checking with the Guild of Copy-Editors, unless someone (else) here at peer review goes through the article and copy-edits it.
  • Allens (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm going to give copyediting it a try. Allens (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still copyediting it, along with a few other articles, but you might want to take a look at expanding "Setting and characters" the same way as you and I did for Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon. Similarly, a screenshot would be nice. Allens (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've put in some requests for clarification; thanks for taking care of some of them! I do have to wonder who "Todrick" is - he/she is only referenced as being the one that told George where the guy was staying. Thanks! Allens (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I mis-spelled "Todryk", and I have explaned who he is on the begining of "Original Story" :). I will try to expand "Setting and characters". I'll add the screenshot to the Plot section - IF that's the righ place? Is it? :) --Khanassassin This user is a featured adventure gamer. Click here for more information. EMINƎM 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what's customary for video game articles; the Plot section sounds fine to me, since there are already photographs for the other logical section (that about the making of the game and the artists involved) - good job in finding those! Allens (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd like to add that the "Circle of Blood" Metascore is removed, since is only an agg. score of "Circle of Blood" reviews (American), not "The Shadow of the Templars" reviews (rest of the world). May I add, only one of the reviews (GameSpot, which was "critically-acclaiming") is actually avalaible online. Most of "The Shadow of the Templars" reviews are critcally acclaiming. Almost all of the reviews avalaible for "The Shadow of the Templars" are critically acclaiming. The only review that is mixed is the PlayStation review from GameSpot, Score: 5.8/10 (who, migh I add, gave the PC version a 9.2/10) and Game Revolution mentioned in the Metascores for "Circle of Blood", which, might I add, isn't even avalaible. On its release, almost all gaming magazines acclaimed the game. I didn't even know there was a Metascore for this game, because I never searched for "Circle of Blood", but "The Shadow of the Templars", but I remembered that Metacritic is American, so they call it "Circle of Blood". I'll make the original release "critically acclaimed" and the Director's Cut "near critcally acclaimed", because the Director's Cut PC, Wii, iPad and DS versions did receive highly positive reviews from critics, only the iPhone version was critically acclaimed (according to Metacritic). So, I'll also remove the Director's Cut Metascore, so it won't look weird that only the Director's Cut had one :-) Best --Khanassassin This user is a featured adventure gamer. Click here for more information. EMINƎM 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah. Metacritic had listed only the older PC version as Circle of Blood, while they listed the others as the Director's Cut version. I hadn't included the Wii version from Metacritic because it had fewer reviewers and because I thought it not fair to the game (I'm not sure why one would make a Wii version of a point-and-click adventure game in the first place...). When doing the FAC process, people may well want the Metascore back in there - that's why I'd wanted it in in the first place - but we'll see what happens. I'm not sure what you're meaning by "only one of the reviews ... is actually available online", BTW. I'll work on a bit of paraphrasing in the reviews section, since people may object to it having too much quoting, judging by other material quoting reviews that I've copyedited and the responses from the Wikipedia copyright people. Allens (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • With "only one is avaliable online" I meant, only one link isn't broken... :) - Well, we'll see what'll happen when the article will go through peer review. If it will be a must, I will add the score back (though it's unfair). :) --Khanassassin This user is a featured adventure gamer. Click here for more information. EMINƎM 14:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The new game will be in 2D, because most fans prefer 2D. They're "going back to 2D". Since somebody might jump to "Legacy", I think the statement about the director's cut should remain there. Revolution confirmed everything about the new game (2D etc.) plenty of times on their official facebook page, but since Facebook can't be used in the refs, I think an external link is enough. Also, point n click games are pretty popular on the Wii now a days, and work quite well. :) --Khanassassin This user is a featured adventure gamer. Click here for more information. EMINƎM 16:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I'm about done with copyediting it - do check to make sure my interpretation of what happened with the cafe is correct! I realized that the original title didn't have "The" before "Director's Cut", so I changed the titles with "The Director's Cut" to "Director's Cut edition" to conform with WP:MOS regarding titles. (Is something other than "edition" preferable for video games, like "version"?) Allens (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. There was one further thing needing clarifying, regarding the phrase "direct control mechanism" - if this is correct, then perhaps a wikilink could be located to help clarify it for the reader? Thanks! Allens (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sounds like an interesting game - thanks for your work on it. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs that are on video games and would be useful models.
  • Since it is an alternate name, shouldn't Circle of Blood be in bold too? Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars (known as Circle of Blood in the US) is a point-and-click adventure game released to the PC on November 5, 1996.
  •  Done
  • Why is George Stobbart in quotes sometimes and not in quotes other times? I think it should be consistent throughout the article.
  •  Done
  • The MOS says that generally a person is referred to by their full name on first mention and then by one name thereafter. For real people this is usually their last name, but for fictional characters it can be a first name. I would pick one name to use for George Stobbart and follow that (is he George? or is he George Stobbart?) I think it is OK if he has not been mentioned in several sections to re-use his full name to remind the reader.
  •  Done
  • Also watch WP:OVERLINKing - Stobbart isl inked twice in the body of the article, but the rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, each on the first use.
  • Also make sure links are on first use - Paris is linked on the second use in the Setting and characters section, for example
  •  Done
  • WP:HEAD says that an article cannot have two sections with the exact same title - it causes confusion with edits to sections, for one thing. I recently reviewed The Secret of Monkey Island and they dealt with this same problem.

 Done

  • I would read WP:WAF carefully - the plot section seems to me to be overly detailed - is the mime really important, for example?
    • Actually, the mime is one of the main characters in the new section (the mime is actually Khan) and he kills both Pierre and Imelda Carchon. Well, he isn't dressed as a mime when he kills Imelda Carchon...
  • The whole Setting and characters section seems unnecessary to me. The settings are all mentioned again in the plot that I could see, and the list of characters tells me nothing (I do not know the game). I believe all of the characters are mentioned later on anyway (did not check them all)
  • Accolades section is very short and all about the Director's Cut. Could it be combined with the previous section?
  •  Done
  • MOS says to use "double quotes" for almost all quotations, and only use 'single quotes' for a quote within a quote.
  • MOS also says to spell out abbreviations on first use - so GBA is one example
  •  Done
  • I used the prose size tool and the Director's Cut plot seciton is 1902 B (335 words) while the Original story section is 6744 B (1153 words) "readable prose size" - nearly 1500 words on the plot seems a bit much to me/
  • The prose could be tightened so Todryk tells George that Khan is staying in Hotel Ubu, so he goes there; while he is outside, two gangsters (Flap and Guido) search his pockets.[28] George obtains an ancient manuscript that Kahn had deposited into the hotel safe. could perhaps be condensed to something like Todryk tells George that Khan is at Hotel Ubu, where gangsters Flap and Guido search his pockets,[28] and George obtains an ancient manuscript Kahn left in the hotel safe.
  •  Done
  • Real people are also usually referred to by last name only after their introduction - so Charles Cecil on first introduction in the lead and perhaps in the body, then just Cecil therafter (unless it is in a direct quote or caption or note)
  •  Done
  • This needs a reference. It should also give some sort of time frame (year) Revolution has confirmed that there will be a new Broken Sword game in the future – in 2D, not 3D – but did not confirm they are currently making one.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian mythology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC, and it should have at least one other pair of eyes first. All my sources are Egyptologists, and I would particularly like input on what other perspectives might need inclusion.

Thanks, A. Parrot (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Redtigerxyz

I am not a specialist in Eqyptian mythology,

  • More images needed
  • Who is John Baines or Jan Assmann? Give a brief description to let the reader know why his views are noteworthy
  • Topics which may be needed, if available: Syncretism of myths, Influence on other mythologies, Origin theories, Modern interpretations, retelling/art depiction in other cultures or modern times

--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks an interesting and well-produced article which I hope I shall enjoy reviewing. It may take me a little while as it's quite long, but I will post when I can. As a starter, here are some comments on the lead:-

  • Readers may wonder what you mean by "understanding the cosmos". Do you mean by this the ordered universe, or any orderly system?
  • The language is at times too academic and obscure for a lead, part of the function of which is to draw readers in. The lengthy sentence beginning "The rarity of..." should I think be simplified or omitted. The second senetnce of the second paragraph ("The events of this mythic past...") lost me, I'm afraid. Simpliication requested.
  • The first sentence of the second paragraphs is grammatically flawed. Possible fix: "Inspired by the cycles of nature, the Egyptians saw time in the present as a series of recurring patterns, whereas they perceived the earliest periods of time as more linear". On further reflection I would lose the qualifying "more".
  • "Egyptian religion" should be rendered as "Ancient Egptian religion", as is the linked article. Most people interpret "Egyptian religion" as Islam.
  • A few words could be linked which aren't, e.g. "cosmos, "amulet".

More will follow Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are comments on a few more sections:

Definition
  • This section does not seem to lead to a "definition". Rather, it outlines what appears to be an unresolved debate, so perhaps the section heading should change.
  • The formulation "scholars like Vincent Arieh Tobin and Susanne Bickel" is odd if you actually mean Tobin and Bickel. I would say, e.g. "However, recent scholars including Vincent Arieh Tobin and Susanne Bickel..." etc
Content and meaning
  • a tenses conflict arises between "believed" and "govern" in the second sentence. There are other instances of this through the article.
Sources
  • Some of the sentence constructions are a bit awkward and hard to follow. An example is "Among these papyri are hymns, which in the course of praising a god may allude to the god's mythological roles, and texts describing temple rituals, many of which are based partly on myth."
  • Is there a suitable link to "Greco-Roman period"? There seem quite a few possibles but I don't know which is best.
  • There is some tendency to write in declarative sentences, e.g. "It is unclear that..." This wording suggests an editorial judgement rather than the summary of a source.
Cosmology
  • "The earth is a flat piece of land, the god Geb, over which arches the sky, usually represented by the goddess Nut." There seem to be words missing from this sentence. I assume the meaning is "The earth, personified by the god Geb, is a flat piece of land over which arches the sky, usually represented by the goddess Nut".
  • "Egyptians saw even stories that were set in that time as being perpetually true." I imagine that should be "even saw"?

Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boycott

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, after a successful GA, a failed FAC, and 2 x PR already, perhaps it is time for another stab at FAC.

Thanks, S.G.(GH) ping! 10:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reused it in the stats section though seemed fairly redundant. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brief comments
  • You have the 'wikiquote' template twice in the article. Remove one—or both, replacing it with the 'Sister project' template.
  • For references 'BBC Sport' and 'BBC News' are the work, BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is the publisher. I have corrected one reference to demonstrate what you need to do for the others.
  • Ref 192 is published on guardian.co.uk, not 'The Guardian' newspaper as it was a blog.
  • Ref 194 needs first and last name of writer.
  • For the sussession box, where it says '(deputised 1977/8)' you need to replace it as '(deputised 1977–78)'
  • In 'Test matches' under records, would you say the list could be developed as a paragraph rather than a list? – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done as suggested S.G.(GH) ping! 14:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro1: I'm being rather nit-picky here, and feel free to disagree or argue. The article is looking very good overall, and the prose is pretty good. However, it's a long article and so there are bound to be slips that would be picked up at FAC. If I don't drive you to blind rage by my first lot of comments, I will add more later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: Maybe more of an overview of his career is needed here. For example, his self imposed exile from the England team, his captaincy of Yorkshire (and England), and a bit more about his success on the playing side. Whatever his faults, he had a very impressive batting record but this does not really come across in the lead. Similarly, his successful years in the 1970s were clouded by accusations of slow-scoring and selfishness. Apart from one comment saying he was not selfish, this does not come across either.
  • Maybe say when he averaged over 100? And 100.00, although I know why it is there, looks strange here and a simple "averaged over 100" would be enough.

 Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was the eldest of three sons of Jane (14 November 1915–1978)": Are her dates necessary?

 Done removed S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "chest by the handle of an unturned mangle": What is an unturned mangle and how would this affect his injury?

 Done wikilinked S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure the fate of his father is entirely relevant.
I personally find it interesting and relevant that his father died when he was quite young and in the midst of his playing career, but happy to remove it if other people concur. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, playing cricket…" Not sure "playing cricket" is needed. If there are any worries about ambiguity (I think it is obvious which sport we are talking about), the end of the sentence could be tweaked to "…in a school cricket match".

 Done S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "demonstrating "outstanding ability."": This needs in-text attribution per WP:INTEXT.
  • "he began to have difficulties reading the blackboard": Perhaps too specific; maybe "difficulties with his distance vision"?
I would personally rather leave this included as, according to the biography, it was the event of his difficulties reading the blackboard that led to the realisation that he needed glasses. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At first, he played poorly at school in fragile spectacles before a more robust pair was fashioned for him at the behest of his uncle—a strong influence on his early game—similar to those glasses worn by cricketer Roy Marshall.": Too much going on here; the uncle part should go elsewhere if it is important, and the rest is a little too detailed. Was it the quality of the glasses, problems with their fragility, or just worry that they would break that affected his performance? Maybe something like: "Initially, his cricket was adversely affected by his new spectacles [give reason?], until he acquired a more robust pair."

 Done reworded. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In the summer he played for the Leeds United under-18 football team alongside Billy Bremner and attracted the attention of Leeds United scouts." Was this one summer only?
That summer only, reworded. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the winter he played cricket in the nets at his uncle John Lawrence's house,[24] and was invited to the winter nets for Yorkshire Cricket Club by Clifford Hesketh.[25]": This repeats the previous mention of what happened in the winter; could the two mentions be combined?
Reworded. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also played for the Yorkshire Federation's Under-18 team, and for Barnsley, where he was noticed by Clifford Hesketh, a member of Yorkshire's County Cricket team committee.[26]": This seems to contradict the earlyer mention of Hesketh.
It's a jumble in the chronology, fixed. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last para of Early Life: Consecutive sentences begin Boycott, He, He, He.
Swapped one. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boycott began playing for his home county in 1962 after topping the averages for Leeds, Yorkshire Colts and Yorkshire Second XI.": When did he play for Leeds? Or does it mean a Leeds league? And I don't think the Colts are mentioned anywhere in this section or the previous one.
  • "Early years" is a little similar to "Early life" and maybe a better title could be used?
Renamed. S.G.(GH) ping! 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of Early years is a little quote heavy for my liking. The quote from Foord (needs a ref) is a little weak in my view (he was hardly a flashing player as this quote would seem to suggest), and I'm never entirely taken with Dickie Bird as an authority on other players. Although I would not insist anything had to be done here, I can't help thinking that the section would flow just as well if the quotes came out and the first two paragraphs were combined.
  • Maybe suggest how his second XI form earned his first team place in this section, rather than in the introduction to his county career.
  • "he scored six and 21*": Only cricketers will understand the asterisk, and it is better to say (and link) "not out".
  • I seem to remember he did not open the batting in 1963, and may have been promoted to opener during this season. Worth mentioning? (I think there is a reference in the 1964 Wisden which I may be able to dig out).
  • "According to captain, Close, at Lord's after Yorkshire had slowly reached 22/1, he Close promoted himself to number three in the batting order so that he could urge Boycott into action.": Not sure what has happened but this sentence seems a bit messed up.
  • "Boycott subsequently hit 15  fours and three sixes,[37] even though the modern-day fielding restrictions, which facilitate rapid scoring, did not exist in 1965.": Why mention modern fielding restrictions?
  • We go from detailed accounts of his first seasons to barely mentioning some of the later ones in the 1960s: one innings (albeit an important one) from 1965, one match from 1966, one innings and his place in the averages from 1968, one innings 1970. Five innings in six seasons and nothing else. Even a brief summary of his performances would help. And maybe a new paragraph after the Gillette innings (I agree it needs quite a bit on that one innings, and I believe he once described it as his best innings).

More to follow if desired, and I'm up to the end of "Early years" so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments always welcome, though I'll have to get stuck in to them tomorrow - 12h shifts are a killer. Zzzzz. S.G.(GH) ping! 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments up to end of Later years
  • "Boycott captained Yorkshire for eight seasons from 1971 to 1978, having been appointed following the sacking of Brian Close in 1970.": Already mentioned at the end of the previous section and I don't think it is needed again. The next sentence is a little similar to the end of the previous section as well. To be honest, I'd be inclined to leave these parts here and cut the captaincy bit from the previous section instead.
  • "He also caused strife between his fellow players, including a reciprocated dislike for Richard Hutton, with many players leaving the club citing personal differences with Boycott as the reason for their departure.": Not sure about the phrasing here. Strife between suggests that he caused other players to fall out; is this correct? Also "with many players leaving" is not the best construction at FAC. Maybe something like "He also had difficulties with his fellow players, including a reciprocated dislike for Richard Hutton, and many players left the club citing personal differences with Boycott as their reason."
  • Part about Transvaal is odd. Aside from the isolation question, if he went to play for them, why only play one match?
  • "low in the Championship table": Not every season; e.g. 2nd in 1975.
  • Without context, Trueman's criticism does not really make sense. On paper, his record was outstanding; it was the pace at which he scored that was controversial and this was blamed by some for Yorkshire's lack of success.
  • "In 1974 Boycott's form dipped, when he scored only 75 runs in the first innings of the season, other than a non-championship century against Cambridge University." This doesn't quite make sense.
  • "He did, however, score 152* against Worcestershire on 15 May to complete his tour of centuries against every first-class county.": Again, the use of * may not be a good idea, and "tour of centuries" is slightly odd phrasing.
  • "A poll of the dressing room showed that 95% of the players wanted a permanent change in the captaincy.": Seems an oddly round figure! If possible, actual numbers may be better or it seems like pro-Boycott propaganda from the time.
  • Passing Hutton's record of centuries makes sense to me as a dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshire fan, but may seem a little arbitrary to those not "in the know"!
  • "He would experience growing friction with Hutton's son, Yorkshire's Richard, as well as with later Yorkshire captain John Hampshire.": Not sure about the phrasing and we are getting into repetitive "He... he..." sentence structures. Is this different "friction" from that mentioned earlier? If so, why and what caused it?
  • "In the early 1980s Boycott continued his run of form, although a slow 347-ball knock of 140* incensed captain, Ray Illingworth, and created friction between Boycott and the rest of the Yorkshire Committee.": Repetition of "friction" and I think a date is necessary for this innings; why did it cause friction? And if it is the "rest" of the committee, who are the other members involved? Boycott? Illingworth? I think it should be made clear. And I think the asterisk needs to go.
  • Are we giving batting figures here or not? They are given in 79 and 80, but then only single innings are mentioned later. Any particular reason? My inclination is to include them, but I am a sad completist so I would not insist on it. But the change in style does not seem to have any obvious reason.
  • And another "friction" in the next paragraph.
  • "while Boycott in his biography ": Presumably this is McKinstry's book, but this looks like it should say autobiography. Maybe something like "while Boycott told Leo McKinstry..."?
  • "Of the replacement members, 17 were from the Members 84 Group": Maybe make it clear there was an election for members?
  • "This was coupled with continued friction": Another friction
  • "In particular, Boycott's place on both the team and the committee led to feelings of distrust from both – though Boycott denies this – which led to the loss of support from long-term ally Sid Fielden.": A little unclear; presumably distrust (or is it mistrust?) of Boycott, and what is Boycott denying? And why should this article be right and Boycott wrong? If we are including Boycott's denial, then it should be made clear who is making claims of distrust?
  • "1986 saw Boycott score 890 runs": I'm not a fan of starting a sentence with a year or the use of "saw" in this sense, but those are only my opinions.
  • "Both Brian Close and Ray Illingworth increasingly advocated his removal to Yorkshire's committee": Missing word?
  • "He suggests that Close and Illingworth feared his popularity.": The previous sentence was written in the past tense, this is in the present.
  • I seem to recall reading that he had the highest career average of a player based in England at the time of his retirement, passing that of Ranji. I may be able to dig out the reference if you want it.
  • I think the official Yorkshire history has a bit more on his removal as captain and his feud with Hampshire. I'll try to dig it out and see what it says, but I seem to remember promising this before and failing to deliver!
  • Watch out for too many sentences beginning "In" or "On".
  • I fixed a few missing commas in 4 digit numbers, but may have missed some. Maybe check for others.

More to come if this doesn't finish you off! However, most of my comments are minor and this is looking good so far: probably just needs that last polish to make it ready for FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

[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 recently delisted GA needs feedback from experienced editors here at Peer Review. Comments on how to treat Mother Teresa's reception are particularly welcome:

  • Should the article contain a "Criticism" section, or should praise nd criticism be woven together? I've noticed that few GA- and FA-class articles have criticism sections, but there's no set policy. Feedback from experienced GA and FA participants/delegates is appreciated since this article will hopefully be renominated next year
  • Suggestions on how to handle spinoff articles dealing with critical comments, such as Christopher Hitchens' critiques of MT
  • Thoughts on which praise and which criticism to include. Rival cottage industries churn out books, websites and blogs extolling and condemning MT; some of them aren't noteworthy and others are shameless rehashes of others' work; do all of them merit inclusion?


Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


After a quick glance at the article there are a number of dead linked references. Plus a quick note about point 3, anything that doesn't past as a reliable source shouldn't be included. Mattg82 (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have read though the article with interest. I have not carried out a detailed prose review, though there are clearly issues there; I have noted a few of the prose-related problems at the end of this review. More general problems which in my view need attention are:-

  • Basic article construction: Biographical articles tend to consist of "life" sections (largely chronological) and "assessment" sections. Your article conforms to this. Typically the "life" sections will occupy most of the text—two-thirds or more. In your article the text is about 5200 words, not counting the lead, of which the "life" sections account for a mere 1785 words, or just over a third of the article, with the remaining two-thirds concerned with "assessment". This is the reverse of the usual proportions, and makes me wonder if the "life" sections are detailed enough. The impression I got reading them was that they were skimpy compared with the amount of detail in the later sections. I would ask you to look again at the first four sections, that deal with Mother Teresa's life, and consider whether these do represent a full and comprehensive account. (It may be that some biographical material has strayed into the "assessment" sections and should be relocated).
  • Another "construction" point: the lead at present is too short to fulfil its required function to provide a general overview of the whole article, touching on all the major aspects covered in the main article's text. It needs to be lengthened.
  • The article is considerably under-cited. There is one "citation needed" tag in place, but there could be many more. There are uncited quotations and other statements at the ends of numerous paragraphs, which is particularly noticeable. A rule of thumb is to ensure that every separate paragraph ends with a citation.
  • "Legacy and depictions in popular culture" section: The name is a misnomer. A partial list of commemorations is not a legacy, and the details given of films aren't worth elevating into a separate subsection, though they could be woven into the main text. As to "legacy", ask yourself: "What did Mother Teresa leave behind for the benefit of later generations?" That should be the substance of a legacy section; the list of commemnorations can be left to the link.
  • There are various format errors/inconsistencies in the citations, including "pp." for single page refs, use of "page" rather than "p.", different formats for retrieval dates and for ISBNs, etc.
  • Too many external links, and a very lengthy further reading list, might suggests that the article itself is not comprehensive and needs to be supported by other material. I suggest you prune these; they are bound to contain considerable overlaps of material.
  • Nobel Peace Prizes are not offices whereby the holder is either "preceded by" or "followed by". They are lifetime awards; it is irrelevant who won it the year before or the year after. Suggest you delete this pointless information.
  • Prose often lacks flow, and particularly in the "life" sections tends to be jerkily written in short paragraphs. There are also some oddities of phrasing; examples:-
    • "Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly stemming from Prizren, Kosovo" - "stemming from" not idiomatic English (you could simply leave out "stemming")
    • "She never again saw her mother or sister" (normal phrasing would place "again" at the end of the sentence"
    • "Dr. Fox makes it a point to contrast hospice, on the one hand, with what he calls "Mother Teresa's Care for the Dying" on the other hand; noting that, while hospice emphasizes minimizing suffering with professional medical care and attention to expressed needs and wishes of the patient, her approach does not." The word "hospice" is not a mass noun that can be used in this way. In each case you should say "hospices" (plural).
    • Not strictly a prose point, but you should use a better location description for Darjeeling than "near the Himalayas" - that's far too vague.
    • You should also clarify why "Sister" Teresa became "Mother Teresa". All you have is a quote: "Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa". Why was this so?
  • I would recommend a top-to-bottom copyedit.

I hope these points will give you a basis for beginning to improve the article. If you need to discuss any point with me,please leave a note on my talkpage. Note: I have not considered the "dead link" points raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's comments
  • Lead: I would start with "Mother Teresa (born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu) ... ". First common name, then birth name.
  • What is Missionaries of Charity should be explained in lead. The "religious congregation" part should be included
  • Similarly "Bharat Ratna" should be explained as India's highest civilian honour
  • The article needs a copyedit. Odd constructions like "She never again saw her mother or sister"
  • Explain jargon. Give some context. Eg. "Bengali" -> the Bengali language
  • "Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister," Which prime minister? Nehru???
  • All quotes need references "the hungry, the naked...."
  • WP:OVERLINK: Calcutta is linked thrice in "Missionaries of Charity" Done

--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, Arkansas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently overhauled this page and would like to know where to go next. I sincerely appreciate your time and comments.

Thanks, Brandonrush (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. It's a good start, and the illustrations are fetching. The potential is here for an article of at least GA quality. I have several suggestions for further improvement.

  • It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar materials. You'll find a list of the featured articles about towns and cities at WP:FA#Geography and places. A featured article about a town of similar size to Wilson is Stephens City, Virginia.
  • The history section should include the history of the area before 1886, if you can find sources. Who lived here before the town existed? Who lived here before European explorers visited Arkansas? Probably something about the Nodena site belongs here, but there must be more to say than what appears in the "Tourism" subsection.
  • Generally, every set of statistics, every unusual claim, every direct quotation, and every paragraph needs an inline citation to a reliable source. If one source supports all the claims in a paragraph, the citation should go at the end of the paragraph. In the existing article, the first paragraph of the "Geography" section includes unsourced claims. The first paragraph of the "Economy" section lacks a source or sources.
  • Avoid overlinking. Generally, it's sufficient to link special terms no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text. For example, "cotton" should not be linked three times in the "Economy" section, and common words like "museum", "village", and "religion" should not be linked at all. WP:OVERLINK has details.
  • Rather than using tiny superscripts and abbreviating all of the units, try this: 2.8 square kilometres (1.1 sq mi). I used the {{convert}} template for these, but you can do them by hand if you prefer. The convention in Wikipedia articles is to spell out the primary units and to abbreviate the secondary ones (metric in this case). The convert template does this automatically. A hyphen can be added to the template with the |adj=on parameter. It's quite a versatile template that can do lots of other things like convert temperatures.
  • Use consistent date formatting throughout the "Reference" section.
  • The dab-checker tool at the top of this review page finds two dabs, here.
  • When you have finished making other changes and feel that the article is nearly complete, you should revise the lead to make sure that it summarizes the entire article. My rule of thumb for inclusion is to try to at least mention each of the main text sections in some way. WP:LEAD has details.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. 18:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Dorset

[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 we have ambitions to take the article to FA status.

Thanking you in advance--Ykraps (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark
  • The external links tool shows a number of dead and suspicious links. These need to be fixed, or alternative references found.
  • I recommend archiving web pages at a site such as WebCite to protect against link rot.
  • - Done
  • Images should have WP:ALT text for FA.
  • "The flag is often unofficially named St Wite's Cross". This is not verified by the source which merely says that their own website used to call it this. Also, why is this site considered a RS?
  • In principle, facts in the infobox do not need citing if they are also in the body of the article, although many articles do. Before nominating for FA, you should at least thoroughly check that all facts are consistent with the article body and have a citation in place there.
lede
  • Poole and Weymouth are linked multiple times (there may be others, please check). It is acceptable to repeat a link in the lede and body, but not usually otherwise without good reason.
  • - Done
  • "...delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for up to 150 years" (two places). Slightly odd phrasing, would "delayed the Saxon conquest of Dorset for nearly 150 years" be just as accurate?
History
  • "The first human visitors to Dorset were Mesolithic". An expert archeological source is needed for this, it is unlikely to be true.
  • - Done Added a second source although I'm not sure why you find this unlikely. There is archaeological evidence of Mesolithic settlement at Portland, Dewlish and Cranborne. Cullingford is a professional historian with a first from King's and later while at Merton, specialised in the History of Dorset.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 600BC space needed. If desired, spaces can be prevented from breaking between lines with a non-breaking space (html code &nbsp;) or the template {{nowrap}}.
  • In the 12th-century civil war" the link is piped to a list. This should be disambiguated with a link to the intended target.
  • "The flagship San Salvador..." It does not appear to be true that she was a flagship, see here for instance.
  • - Done Changed to 'Spanish galleon' although it appears to be a moot point. The Wikipedia article also claims she was a flagship and, as one of the largest and most heavily armed, it seems likely she was.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Apparently the latest thinking is that she is not the San Salvador. I have updated the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is the second important error cited to Cullingford found so far. I would recommend finding alternative sources, or at least minimising use of this source to things he seems to have some expertise in.
  • "slighting". This word is obsolete, according to the OED, except in professional historian's jargon. Replace with razing or demolition.
  • "In 1645 some 5,000 angry civilians..." Can we have the location of this gathering please.
  • "74 were executed; 29 were hanged, drawn and quartered" is that 74 were executed including... or as well as.
  • "...was for many years the largest man-made harbour in the world". When did it cease to be so and why?
  • - I believe this was when the Jebel Ali port in Dubai was constructed (1976?). Portland is widely held to be the second largest at the moment although, depending on how you measure it, Zeebruge may also have a claim. Also I believe there is a port currently under construction in China(?) that will soon put Jebel Ali in the shade. I didn't want to put all this in the article because not only would it have been too long but would also have required the reader to extrapolate the information from three different references. Perhaps we should consider changing the sentence to "When built.....", which can easily be referenced from a single source.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portland, Weymouth and Poole harbours were the main embarkation points on D-Day" Another possible Cullingford exaggeration, please check other sources, this map seems to indicate that Dorset was the embarkation point for the Omaha Beach landings, but this was only one of five on D-Day.
  • - It also shows Poole to be the embarkation point for Utah beach. I think 'main' in this context is in reference to the amount of troops, half a million from Portland alone. The harbours in Dorset were chosen as the 'main' embarkation points not just because of their size but also because of their close proximity to the Cotentin peninsula. I will consider how to make this sentence less contentious. Done - Simply removed 'the'.--Ykraps (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bournmouth is multiply linked
Settlements
  • "Bournemouth and Christchurch were transferred to within Dorset" remove "within", it is superfluous and clunky.
Physical geography
  • "...an enormous variety of landscapes determined by the underlying geology." Landscape is not just determined by underlying geology, there are many other factors: glaciation, weathering, river and sea erosion etc. For the same reason, geology of Dorset might be better described as a see also rather than main article.
  • - This means that the enormous variety of landscapes is caused by the underlying geology and not the other factors you mention. I will have a think about how to make this clearer. Done Changed to, "wide variety of underlying geology that is partly responsible for the diverse landscape".--Ykraps (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Almost every type of rock from early Jurassic to the mid-Tertiary..." Jurassic and Tertiary are geological periods, not types of rock.
  • "non-resistant" should be explained
  • Formatting of conversions needs to be consistent. So far I have seen (277 metres / 909 feet), 8 km/5 mi, and 900 mm (35 in). All different.
  • "The county has one of the highest proportion of conservation areas..." Agreement problem
Climate
  • 1541–1885 hours. Inconsistent use of commas as number delimiters.
  • Consider adding a climate chart such as in Essex
Demography
  • In the table, consistent use of periods in abbreviations: C.C., but UA. Also, the abbreviations should be defined somewhere, either as a bracket after first use of the term in running text, a wikilink to the appropriate article, or a footnote. Same problem in Economy section.
  • "...a decline in its population caused by continuing negative rates of natural increase..." A difficult clause to parse and almost a truism.
  • - This really needs to be read in context with the rest of the paragraph. This was, albeit temporary, a complete reversal in trend and (in my opinion) well worth including. A change in population such as this can be the result of a number of factors and an explanation of the cause is necessary. Believe me, if you were into this sort of thing, you would find this very exciting! :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • per 1000. Inconsistent use of commas. This is per 1000 per year and should be explained somewhere, perhaps in a footnote, or perhaps on first use.
  • - There is already a link to the Wikipedia article on birth rates, which explains how they are calculated. Is this sufficient, or do you think it needs to explained in the text also?--Ykraps (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politics
  • "West Dorset, East Dorset, North Dorset, Purbeck, Christchurch and Weymouth and Portland". Serial comma required as there are two "and"s in the list.
  • FN.118 is an unannotated map which requires a degree of WP:SYNTH to interpret.
  • - Are we looking at the same thing? FN.118 is a Daily Telegraph article regarding the 2009 Dorset local elections.
Economy and industry
  • "...increase in permanent grass and land set aside." If set-aside is meant, it should be linked. Does "grass" mean grass set-aside and what is the difference to land set-aside?
  • - Done. Permanent grass is always grass and never cultivated for crops. Because it is never cultivated, it cannot be set aside. I have added a comma and linked set-aside.
  • "...up to £74M GVA for the area." Inconsistent representation of millions.
  • - Done
  • "Dorset has little manufacturing industry, at 10.3% of employment in 2008. This was slightly above the average for Great Britain..." This seems somewhat contradictory - "little manufacturing", but "above average". The Birmingham article puts manufacturing at 10% of employment and this is the city that used to be called the workshop of the world. I wonder if this figure is merely a reflection of the general trend in the country as a whole in recent decades rather than something specific to Dorset. What is more the sources cited are government statistics which merely give the figures without any commentary. Further, the figure given is not supported by the source FN.122 which has 11.9%, seemingly indicating just the opposite.
  • - 11.9% is for the administrative county. When the two U.A.s are included, the percentage of manufacturing for the county as a whole drops to 10.3%. The sum is shown hidden in the text and supported by the three following references. You are correct that there has been a decline in industry across the UK and 10.3% is above average, but that doesn't stop it being a small amount. Comparison with Birmingham, which is a city, is unfair; manufacturing in the West Midlands stands at 13.8%. See also Derbyshire (20.4%), East Staffordshire (20.9%), Cumbria (17.1%). --Ykraps (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above is just one statistic I checked at random because the claim seemed a little strange. In view of that result, it would be a good idea before FA to do a more thorough trawl of the accuracy of numerical data in the article. FAC is very hot on verifying against sources nowadays, especially where the nominator has not previously had succesful FAs. You are likely to have a hard time at FA if failed verifications of that sort are noticed, even if you put them right promptly. Once the error has been highlighted on the FAC page the damage has been done and people will be leaning to oppose more than they would have otherwise.
Culture
  • "Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra which was founded in 1893.[149]" Fails verification
  • "The Dorset County Museum in Dorchester was founded in 1846" Fails verification
  • "Dorset contains 190 Conservation Areas, more than 1,500 Scheduled Ancient Monuments, over 30 registered parks and gardens and 12,850 listed buildings, many of which—over 6,000—are in the west of the county.[157][158]" Fails verification. FN.157 is dead and FN.158 does not seem to contain any relevant information.
  • "Of the 229 that are Grade I listed, 174 are churches or places of worship,[159]" It takes some WP:SYNTH of FN.159 to extract this fact. Also FN.159 appears to be the work of a single individual, and has no official status so its qualfication as WP:RS is questionable.
  • I am stopping the review of the culture section here. Nearly every fact I have tried to verify from the cited sources has proved to be problematic. The whole section needs rewriting from scratch from reliable sources so further review is pointless.
Transport and Education sections
  • Not reviewed. It has become clear that this article needs some serious work on referencing and is therefore likely to change substantially. Further review now would be a wasted effort.
References
  • I have not examined the references in detail for reliability. The many problems found incidentally are enough to show that you should thoroughly review and improve the referencing before submitting for FA.
  • Books which are too old to have an ISBN should be referenced to some other catalogue index. For instance, http://www.worldcat.org/ will provide an OCLC number for most books which can be added with a link via the {{OCLC}} template.

Hawaii hotspot

[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 may just be beating my head against the wall here, but this article is at the top of my list of old projects I never finished, probably soured by my experience with three failed FACs. Alright. Round four. Need advice, and a whole lot of it. ResMar 01:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goal here is to get the content all tidy whist avoiding a rewrite as much as possible. ResMar 04:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just skimming through the article, I'm most concerned about the problem raised in Talk:Hawaii_hotspot#Lack_of_focus - i.e. that there's too much generic Hawaiian volcanism info with no obvious relationship to the hotspot. The whole section on Hawaii_hotspot#Eruption_phenomena could usefully be dropped, I think, along with the ʻaʻā/pāhoehoe paragraph in the preceding Lava section. Alternatively, if these parts have an important connection with the topic (the hotspot) that I'm missing, they could be rewritten to explain the connection. Many of the images also seem off-topic, including both the infobox images. Other images seem misplaced, e.g. the one showing the Loa and Kea trends comes about four sections before this is mentioned in the text. --Avenue (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the offending content, anything else that looks specifically off-topic? ResMar 23:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot better now. I think gaps in coverage might now be a bigger problem than extraneous information. The new lead infobox image is good, showing the hotspot trail (although a tighter crop might be better), but the lower one (showing the bathymetry of the SE Hawaiian islands) still seems essentially off-topic, and its caption is terrible. I'll try to find a better place for it further down the page. --Avenue (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, I just finished chopping things up and now it's too short? Fickle fickle! ResMar 22:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's gaps in the article's coverage, not its length, that bother me. There's a section on the swell, yes, but it doesn't cover the Hawaii's moat-arch structure. Landslides are mentioned briefly, and only in the context of Maui Nui. They are a much more widespread phenonemon than that, and I think they deserve more coverage here. Most importantly, there's no mention of the North and South Arch volcanic fields produced by the hotspot.[5][6][7]
The article seems poorly structured towards the end to me. The Characteristics section seems a bit unfocussed, and the Volcanoes section doesn't seem well integrated with the rest. I'd suggest renaming the latter something broader like "Volcanism and other effects", and moving some of the material from the Characteristics section into that.
The images aren't bad now, but I think the article still cries out for an illustration of the seismic tomography results. I've been searching, but I haven't seen a free picture of that yet. --Avenue (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Landslides I can look through this for, but I don't know what a moat-arch is, and looking at some abstracts from the literature on the north-south stuff, I dare say I hardly understand it. How open would you be to doing it yourself? ResMar 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tackle a new para or two on them with Giant Hawaiian Underwater Landslides (Science vol. 264). The rest, well... ResMar 20:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take this with a grain of salt:

  • The first paragraph in the lead needs to be rewritten for clarity, as it is clunky and difficult to understand for someone not familiar with the topic.
I'm rewriting the lead entirely right now. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, partially rewrote lead, will finish the last para once I get Characteristics organized. ResMar 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure of the lead doesn't make sense. For example, the second paragraph should come first and the first paragraph should come second.
See above. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the article mention some of the problems with the theory? I would have to look at my notes, but I believe Clague & Dalrymple (1987) covered this topic. I see now that some of this is covered in the "Moving hotspot theory" section, but this is also important enough to touch upon in the lead.
Rewriting the lead, yeah it talks about how the theory isn't 100% accepted. ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty unhappy with the lead section. Strangely, it appears to be written backwards. I would like you to pretend that you know nothing about the subject and try reading it with a "beginner's mind". You will then see what I mean.
Rewriting =) ResMar 20:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 42 doesn't support the content. It appears that you meant to cite 43 instead. Please take a look.
  • Format of the references section is a complete mess. You need to choose a single format and make all the references adhere to it
Spent a half-hour doing some intensive reference maintenance, it won't be perfect but it's better now, no? I'm thinking of what to do with the books; I think I'll merge them in as best I can. ResMar 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike the "Hotspot characteristics" section, as it doesn't seem very structured. This might work better as a table or in any format that presents the data to the reader in a logical way. That it has a "number of unique features" is expected and not exactly a surprise. Bottom line: it duplicates the second-level "Characteristics" section. In case you've forgotten, we read second-level headings starting with the title of the article, so it really reads "Hawaii hotspot#Characteristics", which is a duplicate.
I'm going to merge this into characteristics later. ResMar 20:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 21:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ResMar 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bend is obvious, but I slapped on a reference for the "challenged" part. ResMar 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished a lot of work on it, could really use the comments guys! ResMar 16:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
=S ResMar 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awickert

[edit]

Taking it from the top. Of course I won't mention the good things, of which there are clearly plenty. In a number of cases for simple things, I just edited the article myself. Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
  • "caused by a shift in the direction of the Hawaiian hotspot" - I think that those authors claim that the hotspot moved in some way. So "shift in direction of motion" or some more elegant way of saying that would be more informative; as it stands, it could also seem like that the hotspot changed orientation in the mantle or something Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hotspot theory
[edit]

Made a few tweaks, but I think this section is very good:

  • "relatively rapid pace of about 4 centimeters (1.6 in) per year" - make a note of plate velocities here, to show what "relatively" means; will give the reader a better idea of the implications of a mobile hotspot Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ocean Drilling Program (ODP)": name change to IODP in 2004; not crucial, but perhaps good to reflect this here if you can do so without interrupting the flow of the text Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 18:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, these lava samples ... [end of section]": A lot of repetition here; I think that the story can be told: (1) Traditional example of changes in plate motion; (2) what if hotspots move? (3) go test; (4) findings. Awickert (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've removed the stuff that basically goes "bend again". ResMar 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History of Study
[edit]
Ancient Hawaiian
[edit]
Modern studies
[edit]
  • I removed "...the most detailed manuscript of its day..." as that is hard to prove and doesn't relate well to the source. Awickert (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decker et al.: you are citing the editors as the authors. You should cite it as a section / article in a book, (so title = article title, authors = article authors, IN <book>, edited by <Decker et al.>. There should be a template for that. Awickert (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, it doesn't seem that bad. ResMar 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong. You are citing it to the people who didn't write the article. I know what I am doing in this... which is why you ask for my help...? Awickert (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added Various authors to the citation. I'd try to do "blah (blah) in blah blah blah" but trying to load the PDF crashed my web browser. Twice. Um...ResMar 15:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sucks! Maybe try to download and open outside browser? Memory management within browsers can be tricky. Awickert (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second to last paragraph, the end-of-paragraph reference does not cover: In 1912 geologist Thomas Jaggar founded the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory. The facility was taken over in 1919 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and in 1924 by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), which marked the start of continuous volcano observation on Hawaii island. The next century was a period of thorough investigation, marked by contributions from many top scientists. So this should be referenced. Awickert (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the appropriate reference and I think I'll go through it for some more info, actually. ResMar 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it because that is a bit of a long claim. ResMar 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Characteristics
[edit]
Position
[edit]
  • "thin low-velocity zone extending downward": I had a bit of confusion because it looks thick from the distances you gave. But then I realized that you might mean thin in (theta, phi) while it was thick in (r); is this correct? Awickert (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. ResMar 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more explanation. Awickert (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the actively flowing region of the melt zone is 220 ± 40 km (137 ± 25 mi) km at its base and 280 ± 40 km (174 ± 25 mi) at the upper mantle upwelling": I think you mean width (or diameter), but best to be clear (i.e. say that it is not radius or circumference or other things that have units of length), Awickert (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added wide. ResMar 20:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Temperature
[edit]
  • "the magma chamber is located about 90–100 kilometers (56–62 mi) underground, which matches the estimated depth of the Cretaceous Period rock in the lithosphere": 90-100 km is super deep in the lithosphere. Usually Cretaceous rock (I am thinking sediments) are found in the top several km of lithosphere; I am thinking sediments because you word it "depth of the Cretaceous Period", which sort of implies a stratigraphy. Since this is oceanic crust, the situation is different, so an elaboration / explanation would be appreciated. Awickert (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added oceanic. ResMar 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. ResMar 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ranges aren't particularly important so I removed them. ResMar 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ResMar 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dynamic topography" is a tough thing to talk about, largely because it is not infrequently redefined by different scientists. Per the definition that you provide, it seems that heat would still be important, because this is what generates density contrasts in the mantle. If you can be more specific about this, it would be good. We can chat about it later as well. Awickert (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ErgoSum's work; I don't understand it particularly well. ResMar 20:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will handle this portion before you take it to FAC. (In rewriting it you'll also figure out what I would have explained to you - faster all around). Poke me if I don't do it; I will be traveling this coming week. Awickert (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Movement
[edit]
  • "This conclusion is supported by magnetic studies, which suggest that these seamounts formed at higher latitudes than present-day Hawaii." If you can say in a few words how they do this, this sentence would be much more informative. (Wikilinking to paleomagnetism / paleolatitudes would help this paragraph in general). Awickert (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean; want me to explain the process? ResMar 20:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, or at least link to (I'm guessing) paleomagnetism or some such article. Awickert (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've added an explanation but that part of the article really needs to be smoothed out. Heck, the whole thing needs to be smoothed out! ResMar 15:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption frequency and scale
[edit]
Topography and geoid
[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph: I think you are talking about dynamic topography, which would be mantle-derived, i.e. option 1. This is my understanding of why hotspot swells form and how they evolve; a colleague here at Colorado works on that. We can chat about this and the other dynamic topography section; there is quite a bit of jargon to sift through. Awickert (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magma
[edit]
  • "This leads to the modern day with the eruptions on...": I changed the sentence before this to say more directly that these were the Emperor Seamounts, but I don't know enough to change the sentence quoted here; could you make it more direct? I think it would be easier for the reader to see "Emperor, X years. Hawaii, Y years. Total = 85 Myr". Awickert (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it around. ResMar 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a large upward variation": 'upward' in geology sometimes means time; are you talking space? If so, "vertical variability" might be better, or (if you know in which direction it varies and how) more specific info would be helpful. Awickert (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to vertical variability. ResMar 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what I did with that, I think I removed it yesterday. Doesn't sound right. ResMar 16:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as the andesitic magmas that produce spectacular and dangerous eruptions around Pacific Basin margins": I see why you have this, but it is awkward where it is at the end of the sentence. In fact, the sentences after this tie in closely with this phrase; consider placing a "magma viscosity and eruptive style" paragraph after a separate (though necessarily related) "magma composition" paragraph? Awickert (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything in the source, actually. I've removed it. ResMar 20:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanoes
[edit]
Volcanic characteristics
[edit]
  • "Sea levels were lower than today during ice ages.": we are still in the same ice age, and are you implying that it was larger because sea level fell? I think you are saying that it is larger because it hadn't eroded as much. Awickert (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think I meant to say that sea levels were lower; I've changed it so. Is that incorrect? ResMar 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm; can't find this; you must have removed it. We are still in the ice age, but sea levels were lower during the last glacial period. Awickert (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution and construction
[edit]
  • "The sea's pressure prevents explosive eruptions." Is this it, or is it the magma composition? (I don't actually know if the water keeps explosive eruptions from happening, but the magma viscosity must have something to do with the effusiveness.) Of course, if the source agrees with you, ... Awickert (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magma composition is relatively stable, methinks; early products are usually pillow lava. ResMar 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more direct: the sea's pressure statement is uncited; is this true / supportable or not? Awickert (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curious how that slipped out; it's in the introduction here. 16:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Fabulous! Awickert (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

[edit]

This seems to have almost all the needed information (though I am no expert on the topic), but I think it could use some work before it would be ready for FAC. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The prose is good but not great. I know it is difficult to avoid repetition of certain words, but just in the first two sentences "hotspot" apprears four times. I can't think of a way to avoid three uses, but would switch to "it" for the fourth occurrence. I also have a suggestion on avoiding the four uses of the word volcano(es) in just the second sentence. So the current second sentence
One of the best-known and most studied hotspots in the world,[1][2] the Hawaii hotspot is responsible for the creation of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain, a long chain of at least 129 volcanoes, more than 123 of which are extinct volcanoes, seamounts, and atolls, four active volcanoes and two dormant volcanoes. could instead perhaps be something like
One of the best-known and most studied hotspots,[1][2] it has created the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain, which is over 5,800 kilometres (3,600 mi) long and consists of four active volcanoes, two dormant volcanoes, and more than 123 extinct volcanoes, seamounts, and atolls. Note this avoids repeating chain, drops the use of volcanoes to three from four (and if "four active and two dormant volcanoes" were used would get it to two uses), adds the actual length (not just "long chain), and still is somewhat shorter than the original. The length could also go into the third sentence (about how the chain extends from Hawaii to the Kurile trench).
I've made the changes. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also tried to tighten the prose - since criteria 1a is the most difficult for most articles to meet at FAC, a copyedit to do more such tightening might be in order.
Indeed, I'll try and find someone. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for needless repetition - the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lead and the first sentence of the second paragraph are both about how the hotspot is caused by a mantle plume in a tectonic plate far from its boundaries - could some of this repetition be avoided?
I've deleted a bit and merged the two. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even removing one word can help ...created by a mantle plume located far from any nearby plate boundaries.
Done, I'll be sure to do a ce soon. ResMar 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is still pretty overlinked. See WP:OVERLINK. This takes two forms -
    • First, some words that the average reader knows are linked - such overlinks diminishes the value of the others. So again in the second sentence does the average reader really need a link to both the volcano article (which I am OK with) as well as links to both the Active volcano and Extinct volcano subsections of that same article? Or does the average reader really benefit from links to erosion and geology (all just in the lead)?
    • Second, some links are repeated way too often. My rule of thumb is to link once in the lead and once in the body, both on first occurrence. If it is an unusual term and it has been several sections, I think a second link in the body is OK (as are links in captions or tables). But doe we really need two links in the space of two senctences to the Macdonald hotspot (in Wilson's stationary hotspot theory)? This fits in with the theme oif avoiding unnecessary repetition too.
Removed a lot of links, how is it now? ResMar 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also avoiding repetition, but try to make the headers follow WP:HEAD better. This says that wherever possible, headers should avoid repeating the name of the article, and subheaders should avoid repeating as much of their parent headers as possible. Sometimes an article just has to repeat certain words or phrases in its headers, but often it can be avoided. So for example the current "1. Hotspot theory 1.1 Wilson's stationary hotspot theory 1.2 Shallow hotspot theory 1.3 Moving hotspot theory" could perhaps just be "1. Theories 1.1 Wilson's stationary hotspot 1.2 Shallow hotspot 1.3 Moving hotspot"
  • Or "4. Volcanoes 4.1 Volcanic characteristics" could be "4. Volcanoes 4.1 Characteristics"
In the second case there is already a section labelled Characteristics, which is why I applied that title. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped around titles. ResMar 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the whole article, I think there is a little too much focus on Hawaiian volcanoes and not enough on the seamounts and other parts of the chain. Since this is an article on the hotspot that produced all of these, I would try to keep the focus on that as much as possible.
The trouble is that there's a depth of information on the former and a lack of it on the latter. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will work on expanding Modern studies to include more on seamounts. ResMar 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if adding a short section on the history of the hotspot itself would help? This would be after the lead and would provide a good overview beyond the lead. I would start at the oldest known evidence (the oldest Emperor seamounts) and then go south and forward in time. The bend could be described without explanation (that comes in the theories that follow). The atolls and Hawaiian islands could be briefly mentioned, and the first paragraph could end with the most recent part, the Lohi seamount. I would have a second paragraph on or at least mention how the seamounts were found - information not currently in the article.
Found? Uh, satellite bathymetry mostly, with the obvious islands and atolls being, well, obvious. I disagree; I think such a section would overlap too much with characteristics. ResMar 03:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweak According to Wilson's theory, the nearly 60° bend separating the Emperor and Hawaiian segments of the chain would have been [was] caused by a sudden shift in the movement of the Pacific Plate.
Done. ResMar 02:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems awkward / unclear In 2003, evidence for a mobile hotspot theory suggested that about 47 million years ago, the bend in the chain was caused by a shift in direction of motion. perhaps this owuld be better In 2003, new evidence led to a mobile hotspot theory, which suggested that about 47 million years ago the bend in the chain was caused by a shift in direction of the hotspot's motion.
Done. ResMar 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet point list in Wilson's stationary hotspot theory may be better as straight prose
  • Perhaps a figure showing the earth's layers would help clarify the mantle plume discussion?
Done. ResMar 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected WIlson's theory section to have some sort of statement that it soon became widely accepted and remains the current theory, albeit with modifications (mobile hotspot anyone?)
  • Shallow hotspot theory is lacking several points mentioned in the Wilson's theory section. When was it first proposed? Who came up with it?
It's relatively unimportant in the long term; current evidence refutes it. That's why we've meant to tap on it, but not go in depth; that would be better placed on Hotspot (geology). ResMar 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading more closely, it is also not clear when the mobile hotspot theory was first proposed and by whom
  • Probably needs a qualifier "Ancient Hawaiians believed that..." Pele was born to the female spirit Haumea, or Hina, who, like all Hawaiian gods and goddesses, descended from the supreme beings, Papa, or Earth Mother, and Wakea, or Sky Father.[25]:63[26]
  • Modern studies has nothing on any part of the hotspot outside the Hawaiian islands. There is nothing on the Emperero seamounts - when they were first detected or studied. There is also nothing on the atolls.
  • Passages like In 1890 he published the most detailed manuscript of its day, and remained the definitive guide to Hawaiian volcanism for decades. 1909 saw the publication of two large volumes which extensively quoted from earlier works now out of circulation.[32]:154-155 seem to me very tangential to this article - this is about the hotspot, which no one even knew existed at this time.
  • OK, I think I have pointed out enough things to change - I am no expert on the geology but it seems fine to me. Thinking of the FA criteria, comprehensiveness is required and as it is there is likely not enough on the seamounts etc outside of the current Hawaiian islands. These are mentioned in passing in several places, but some systematic discussions of them seem to me to be required. As noted above, I would add a brief history of the hotspot itself, which would allow the article to describe the Emperor - Hawaii chain at the start, and I would also add more to the "Modern studies" section on the studies outside of Hawaii itself.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm going to handle this in descending order as best I can. ResMar 15:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Habba

[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 make this article a WP:GA. Thanks, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, a few things that I've noticed with a short going-over:
    • The automated checker indicated a few problems with the text & headings according to the Manual of Style.
    • The alt text checker indicated several pictures without alt text.
    • I've done some copyediting on it to make it more understandable by a worldwide audience; please go over my changes to make sure I haven't misunderstood something! (If I did, that indicates a need for clarification...) I did not, of course, change spellings to American versions, despite my browser protesting at their British/Indian versions...
    • Is there only one Acharya Institute, as is indicated by the article on the Acharya Institute of Technology, or are there more than one? The article keeps referring to "Acharya Institutes", but also treats it as singular some places.
    • The "Events" section badly needs expanding with descriptions of each of these events, which are otherwise rather hard in many (not all) cases to figure out. Even in cases in which they're reasonably easy ("fashion show", for instance), it is advisable to put in some information as to why this particular event is different from the average, or is unusually important for the festival - if neither is the case, then I suggest skipping it. This should not be a listing of every event at the festival, in my opinion (following, for instance, the guidance of the anime convention workgroup).
    • The name "Smt.Nagarathnama" is unclear - is this some abbreviation at the start followed (without a space) by the name of someone? Please expand the abbreviation, and possibly give some reference for who this is, unless it's on the main page for the Acharya Institute.
  • Please let me know if further feedback is needed. Allens (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British infantry brigades of the First World War

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FL. The list is sortable and I am working through the red links, and I believe it is FL standard. I would appreciate any and all comments especially on the small prose section. Thanks, Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D This looks pretty good Jim. My suggestions are:

  • The 'served' column includes lots and lots of over-linking
  • For FA class, the article probably also should state when the brigades were formed and disbanded and the periods they served in the different areas (I do realise that this is a huge amount of work though)
  • The grammar in the first paragraph of the lead is a bit rough
  • More material on how the organisation of infantry brigades changed over time would be good (including their nominal manpower). You should also note that the brigades included a headquarters and sometimes had additional battalions attached/detached
  • Information on the kinds of tasks brigades were expected to undertake would be good (for instance, what trench frontage were brigades normally assigned on the Western Front?). This might be difficult to find though.
  • What was the rank of officers who commanded brigades?
  • Can you find a photo of an entire brigade on parade? The current generic one of infantry advancing isn't very interesting.
  • The first two paragraphs of the 'Background' section seem pretty generic and don't directly relate to the topic of this article.
  • You probably need to explain what the differences in the different types of brigades were (for instance, what's a 'Second line Territorial Army brigade'?)
  • In a FL review you'll need to explain why The Long, Long Trail is a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick gives me something to work on. Last time I had an article at FL, they wanted all the battles linked, the reason why escapes me now. I anticipated the question about the Long Long Trail and prepared this about the author Chris Baker.
  • Was the chairman of the Western Front Association [8]
  • Given over 1,000 talks on First World War [9]
  • Web site cited in other publications [10]
  • Web site cited in books [11] [12]
  • Cited by Google scholar search [13]
  • Web site recommended by Intute which confirms his membership of the University of Birmingham's Centre for First World War Studies. [14]
  • Has had at least one article published in a journal [15]
  • Published author — The Battle for Flanders: German Defeat on the Lys 1918 [16]
  • Founder of Fourteen-Eighteen which provides research services for private clients, universities, broadcast media, museums, regimental associations and others who wish to locate, obtain and understand documents from the period of the First World War. [17]

Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Rewa

[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 Rewa to become a Featured article but have been advised to go down the route of peer review first Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This has a lot of information about the storm, but the prose needs considerable work to reach FA standards. In addition, the article might need an "Aftermath" section to be considered comprehensive. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

  • Should the article include an "Aftermath" section? I see that many FA storm articles include follow-up information that might be needed to meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive. A complete list of FA storm articles is at WP:FA#Meteorology. See Cyclone Waka, for example.
  • Would it be possible to add another couple of images? Any images of storm damage?
  • Some of the paragraphs, such as the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section and the entire "Australia" subsection, are much too long for readability. Try breaking them into somewhat smaller paragraphs. You want to give the readers a place to rest their eyes now and again and not get lost in a sea of type. It shouldn't be hard to find logical break points.

Lead

  • "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean." - I would modify this by adding the years; i.e., "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in 1993–94."
  • Double-check the links in the lead to eliminate overlinking. For example, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia are linked twice. My rule of thumb is to link something no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text.
  • Link the first use of a special term rather than a later use. For example, Papua New Guinea should be linked on first use in the second paragraph rather than on second use in the third paragraph. Ditto for New Zealand. There might be others.

Meteorological history

  • "Early on 26 December... " - I would add the year here too even though it's in the infobox.
  • "Later that day the JTWC reported that the depression had intensified into tropical storm 05P before TCWC Nadi reported that the system had developed into a Category 1 tropical cyclone, and named it Rewa, while it was located about 500 km (310 mi) to the south-east of Honiara on the Solomon Island of Guadalcanal." - This might be slightly too complicated for one sentence. Who named it Rewa, the JTWC or TCWC Nadi?
  • "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, with the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre taking responsibility for the system." - The "with plus -ing" construction is usually weaker than various alternatives. Suggestion: "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, where the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre took responsibility for tracking the system."
  • "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified further before it started to rapidly deepen further early on 2 January, as it continued to move towards the south-south-east." - Unnecessarily wordy. Suggestion: "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified before rapidly deepening early on 2 January as the storm continued south-south-east."
  • "Both agencies then reported later that day... " - I had a writing teacher who used to pounce on the word "then" when used in this way. "When else"? he would ask. His point was that "then" is often redundant in a chronological narrative. You can often delete it with no ill effect. There's a similar "then" two sentences before this one in the phrase "TCWC Brisbane then reported early... " I suggest deleting these and tracking down any similar ones and deleting them.
  • "Both agencies then reported later that day at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached its peak intensity, with the JTWC reporting that Rewa had peaked with 1-minute windspeeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." - Here's another "with plus -ing". A better variant would be this: "Both agencies reported at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached peak intensity. The JTWC said that Rewa had achieved one-minute wind speeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." To improve the prose in this article, it would be good to hunt down all the "with plus -ing" sentences and recast them.

New Guinea

  • "Cyclone Rewa affected Papua New Guinea, on two separate occasions while it was active, with the cyclone first affecting the country between 28 December and 1 January, before grazing the archipelago between 12 and 14 January.[16][5] Ahead of Rewa affecting the archipelago, TCWC Port Moresby issued cyclone alerts for various parts including Sudest, Rossel and Samarai islands, while authorities urged people not to go to beaches.[10][17] As it affected the archipelago, Rewa brought heavy rainfall, high seas, and wind gusts of up to 100 km/h (60 mph) to parts of the archipelago... " - Here and in other places in the article, the language is too repetitive.

Other

  • The article has one dab found by the dab tool at the top of this page. It is here.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree that the prose isn't up to standard yet. By the way, what English is used (or should be used) here? Auree ★ 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that it has to be in Australian English but i dont see that it really matters since as Sp33dyphil said here: "There isn't much difference between Australian and British English, except for a drop in sophistication in normal talking and several different words. But, the latter do not apply to meteorology, so I wouldn't/can't change anything in the article to suit your perceived need". Ps I am away for most of the weekend so i will tackle the comments on here early next week.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One for the Road (Cheers)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have worked hard to insert all I can. I don't need to check whether it meets the standards of GA; I simply want an honest evaluation and grade. "One for the Road" is the most-celebrated episode of Cheers, and I'm doing all I can to improve it. The plot section... I hope it doesn't violate copyrights or contain intricate details this time. Cheers, George Ho (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article cannot be peer reviwed while there is an underconstruction banner in place. Unless this work is finished within the next 24 hours or so you should close, and renominate when the reconstruction is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Ahem! There were no major updates within five days. The "construction" banner is removed. This needs another review, please. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have read through the article. At present it has many weaknesses, which make it rather hard to review. I am sorry I won't be able to help furthet, but here are a few of the main problems:-

  • Plot summary: You shouldn't assume that all your readers will be familiar with this series. For example, it ran in the UK nearly 20 years ago so there's lots of younger people who have neither seen it nor heard of it. So when you say "the gang are gathered at Cheers", people will ask "what gang?" and "What is Cheers?". You need to preface the plot summary with a short summary of what the series is about, perhaps along the lines: "The Cheers series follows the fortunes and inter-relationships of a group of Bostonians who meet regularly at "Cheers", their local bar". That way, people will at least have a context for the plot. You don't have to se my words, but you should include someting along those lines.
  • Still with the plot summary, this should be much more general; you should not be summarising the script, you should be providing a broad summary of what happened in each part, in a way that makes sense to the general reader. From what you have written, each part reads like a series of unconnected events, and I can't make much sense of these various comings and goings
  • I find some of the language distinctly odd, e.g. "Sam (Ted Danson), entering the gang scene, is relapsing sexual addiction since the previous episode..."; "they both turn out to be a gay couple" (can't follow that); "In the plane, Sam and Diane begin to consider disputes of themselves as a couple" - don't know what that means; "At their phone conversation...", etc.
  • The "Production" section has little or no production information in it.
  • Prose quality is a major problem throughout the article. I think you may need the help of another editor to get this right.
  • You also appear to need help with the correct formatting of references. (Do people prefer any format to MLA format? MLA separates URLs, as well as printable versions do. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". There are hundreds of TV episode articles that have achieved Good Article status. It may be worth your while studying some of these and to try to model your article accordingly before returning it for further review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have added the "Preface" section. If Brianboulton cannot review it again, then someone else will. --George Ho (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2: I have skimmed down plot summary, but I hope the plot is general without flaws. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian comics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've completely rewritten this page from scratch over the last month, and would like to get feedback. I think the subject of the article could definitely be made GA-class. Please pick nits and split hairs!

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a very comprehensive article. Because I am very strapped for time at present I have concentrated on identifying a few issues which may help to improve the article.

  • Lead: The lead looks rather a long and daunting slab of prose, which may deter readers. There appears to be rather too much detail; remember, the lead is supposed to be a broad overview of the article's content. In the second paragraph we have arther more than that, with John Bengough, Hal Foster, Joe Shuster, and many other names and trends, all mentioned individually. This is the stuff of the text rather than of the lead, which I suggest couuld be reduced to around half of its present 700-word length.
  • Redlinks: There are rather a lot of these, particularly in the earlier sections of the article. They should be used only when the subject is suffiently notable to provide a reasonable chance that an article will be written. It may be that you have been overgenerous in this respect.
  • Citations:There are numerous instances of uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs, and there are some short paragraphs with no citations at all. As a rule of thumb I would say that every paragraph should have at least one citation, and ever paragaph should end with a citation.
  • Images: Of 14 images, 11 are non-free. This is an exceptionally high proportion, unlikely to be acceptable. Wikipedia's general policy, defined in Wikipedia:Non-free content, is "to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions". A key element in a fair use rationale is the extent its presence would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Note the word "significantly".
  • Works cited: These include a book by Duncan and Swift to which there are no citation.
  • Prose: I have not given the article a full prose check, but I have noticed a couple of things:-
    • A tendency to repetition, for instance in "While Canadian comics have show varying degrees of British, Japanese and European influences over time, American comics have had the most notable influence on English-language comics, while French-language comics have tended to show a strong Franco-Belgian influence"
    • Overlong sentence such as: "The Golden Age of Comic Books and subsequent superhero boom kicked off with the June 1938 release of Action Comics #1, which had the first appearance of Superman by Jerry Siegel and Toronto-born Joe Shuster,[11] who modeled Superman's Metropolis after his memories of Toronto, and the newspaper Clark Kent worked for after the Toronto Daily Star, which he had delivered as a child."

One other thing. I notice from the article history that this is your virtually unaided work. It might be worth your while talking to and getting input from other editors who are active in this subject area. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've started working on your suggestions already. I just wanted to point out, though, that the Duncan and Smith references actually were there, but they pointed at the name of the book they wrote rather than the authors, so it wasn't clear. I've fixed that.
It would be great if more people helped me out with the article, but it doesn't seem many people are interested or motivated. It had actually been there since 2006 when I decided I would tackle it during the winter break. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do believe I have managed to track down citaitons for every statement in the article (I've deleted the odd statement I couldn't get a good enough source for). I've rewritten the lead to be shorter and more general, rather than a historical synopsis. I've removed a large number of the redlinks (sometimes by starting the articles, sometimes by finding out there was already an article, and I just had the wrong name for it). I've tired to clean up the prose and cut down on overlong sentences. I removed most of the fair-use images (is it still too man?).

I've also managed to track down a couple of sources for Canadian editorial cartooning, which I had trouble finding before. I think that was the biggest hole content-wise in the article (I don't think there are any significant holes any more).

Where else could this article be improved? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 08:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments (or comment):

I know it is the Wikipedia done thing to set out the article's ambitions as to scope right away, but the opening couple of sentences here rather suck out any desire to read further. Not any easy problem to solve, but perhaps you could try working in the considered authors and media later on in the lead after the more interesting stuff about the dual comic cultures. Yomanganitalk 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reworded anything, but I rearranged the order. Is that more what you had in mind? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Wilson

[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 an editor to help start the process of strict improvement. I would like to take it to FAC one day. I know these requests can take a while, so if you think you can help in any way, then please do. I think this article could benefit from a couple of peer reviews and copy edit requests. I think the more eyes and hands - the better the outcome will be.

Thanks, Rain the 1 03:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Like most potential readers of this article, I have never seen any of the episodes in the series. That enables me to comment from an outsider's point of view. Several of my suggestions below stem from my ignorance of the storylines and my unfamiliarity with some of the jargon.

Lead

  • "who went on to play Jem Costello" - I think I would add here that Costello was another character in Hollyoaks.
  • "During series four of the post-watershed spin-off... " - I'm not sure what this means. I understand "spin-off", but what does "watershed" refer to?
  • "bemoaned the dearth of realism exhibited in Rae staying with Ste despite knowing him to be homosexual" - Slightly smoother might be "bemoaned the dearth of realism when Rae stayed with Ste despite his homosexuality". Or something like that.

Creation and casting

  • "It was later revealed that a new character, Rae, would join the serial as part of a "shock suicide plot" involving Newt, which would see the two characters jump off a bridge." - It would be helpful here, I think, to add background information about the series. I had no idea at this point in my first reading who Newt was or what turns and twists the plot might have taken before this episode. Should "Storylines" precede "Creation and casting" perhaps?
  • "She expressed her pride in Barlow's performance, as, "to introduce a character as somebody and then to completely change the character six weeks later, while still delivering the performances that Alice does, is a testament to a young actress." - This is a bit awkward. Maybe "Expressing pride in Barlow's performance, she said, "To introduce a character as somebody and then to completely change the character six weeks later, while still delivering the performances that Alice does, is a testament to a young actress."

Development

  • The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotation marks and suggests using a blockquote for passages of four lines or more. The blockquote here is only 2.5 lines on my computer screen. I'd drop the fancy quotes for sure, and I'd probably drop the blockquote as well.
  • Rae was depicted as a goth with an "emo persona". - Since nothing inside a direct quotation should be linked, emo should not be linked here unless this is a scare quote. If it's a direct quotation, it should have an inline citation to the source. If it's a scare quote, I'd drop the quotation marks and just say, "Rae was depicted as a goth with an emo persona."

Relationships

  • Since "Rae" is part of the article title, rather than repeating "Rae" in the subheads, I'd use "With Ste and Brendan" and "With Ethan".
  • "She enjoyed portraying this dynamic, and assessed that Rae "always felt like she had the upper hand" as she knew the truth about Brendan's sexuality." - I'd use the more-or-less invisible "said" rather than the redundant "assessed".
  • "poured gunge over him in front of the entire village" - I assume this is slang for "ridiculed" or "scolded" or something like that, but I'm not sure. I don't suppose it means that they poured a liquid called "gunge" all over him.

Storylines

  • "She is disliked Eli (Marc Silcock), an alternate persona of Newt's caused by his schizophrenia." - Missing word, "by" between "disliked" and "Eli"?
  • "Rae is released without charge after Warren Fox (Jamie Lomas) tampers with the substance and it is found to be icing sugar." - What does "icing sugar" mean?
Oh, I suddenly see. It's powdered sugar. "Tampers" made me imagine that "icing sugar" was slang for "diluting cocaine", but that's not it at all. Finetooth (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then humiliate Ethan with the truth and throw gunge over him infront of the locals." - Repetition?

Reception

  • "Rae charged in possession of icing sugar... " - Repetition?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review. I shall make a start working through these points soon.Rain the 1 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)

[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 feedback on a few issues before I take the article to GAN. Firstly I've had a look at similar articles that divide the history into sections, which are of similar length. Personally I feel there should be more detail, but I thought a second opinion on this would be helpful. As this is my first time writing an article like this, I have probably made a few mistakes and missed certain things, which I'm hoping will be picked up on. Finally, is there anything that needs adding, is not mentioned etc. Thanks in advance for taking your time to read through the article. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie6705

Lead

  • Missing a 9 from 1959.
  • Should be the instead of their time.
  • Should be a comma after success.
  • "Thus, he founded Liverpool F.C. to play in" - don't need the F.C.
  • "First League Championship in 1901" - could link League Championship to Football League First Division.
  • "A further League Championship was won in 1906" - replace was won with followed.
  • Comma after 1914.
  • Link Second Division to Football League Second Division
  • Comma after 1959 in final sentance.

Formation

  • In the opening paragraph. neither usage of F.C. is needed.
  • Comma after "play in it".
  • Comma after Liverpool Cup.
  • Replace "following their formation" with Since inception.
  • "Their stay in the Division lasted a season as they finished bottom of the league at the end of the season," - don't need "at the end of the season", include only before "a season".

Consolodation

  • Comma after "began to watch Liverpool".
  • "Liverpool's wait for a League Championship would continue as Villa won 5–0 to condemn Liverpool to the runners-up spot" - replace the second Liverpool with them.
  • "wait for their first championship was ended in" - don't need the was.
  • "when they won the First Dvision title for the first time" -don't need "for the first time" as it is repeating what is said earlier in the sentance.
  • "and reached their first FA Cup final in 1914. A match they lost 1–0 to Burnley." - should be "..FA Cup final in 1914, a match they.."

Inter-war Years

  • "Tom Watson left as manager in 1915, and was replaced as manager by David Ashworth" - no need for second repetition of as manager.

Decline

  • "cessation of hostilities" - can simply be replaced with war.
  • "Billy Liddell, Balmer epitomised" - Balmer epitomised should be a new sentance.

I know this only really looks at the grammar of the article, but i hope it it still helpful nonetheless. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was a good review, which cleared a lot of basic mistakes, cheers. NapHit (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cloudz679

Lead

  • "Liverpool Football Club were formed" - I know teams take plural verb agreements but club should be singular.
  • "which left Houlding with an empty stadium. Thus, he founded Liverpool to play in the empty stadium." - unnecessary use of empty in the second part.
  • "the club often finishing in mid-table" - mid-table describes how they finished, no need for preposition in.
  • "A slow decline followed" - should follow with comma.

Formation

  • "This escalated into a dispute between holding and the Everton board" - should be Houlding, the name.
  • "Houlding was let with an empty ground" - wrong verb (left).
  • "team of macs" - possible need for capitalisation if macs is a proper noun.
  • "Their stay in the Division" - incorrect capitalisation.

Consolidation

  • "During the next two seasons they consolidated their place in the Division" - incorrect capitalisation.
  • "first League championship" - incorrect capitalisation.
  • "determine the League champions" - incorrect capitalisation.
  • "League Championship" - incorrect capitalisation.
  • "Liverpool were unable to repeat the feat, they finished 11th and 5th in the two subsequent seasons" - comma should be semi-colon.
  • "newspapers the Liverpool Daily Post and Echo" - if these are two separate papers the second should be referred to as the Liverpool Echo.
  • "It was named after a famous hill..." - pronoun better replaced by the noun to which it refers (the stand or the Spion Kop).
  • "after their League victory" - incorrect capitalisation.
  • "in mid-table" - mid-table describes how they finished, no need for preposition in.

Inter-war years

  • 4th → fourth, multiple occurrences
  • "the season after, before" - the following season, before
  • "Ashworth left Liverpool at the end of the season to manage Oldham Athletic, he was replaced by former Liverpool player Matt McQueen, midway through the following season." - This is quite confusing. I would suggest a full stop after Oldham Athletic, but it is not clear what the management situation was in the elapsed time.
  • "However, following the successive league victories Liverpool's fortunes declined, they could only finish 12th the following season, and 4th was their best finish in the three following seasons." - again, 4th → fourth. Also, the sentence is unnecessarily long. I would consider rewording it completely. For example "Following their successive league victories, Liverpool's fortunes declined. They could only finish 12th the following season, and didn't finish higher than fourth in the next three seasons.
  • "At the time the the Kop at Anfield was the biggest in the country" - you need to qualify (biggest what?) this claim.
  • "ill-health" - ill health.
  • "finished in 11th" - finished 11th or finished in 11th place.
  • "in mid-table" - mid-table describes how they finished, no need for preposition in.

Decline

  • "As with all English clubs, the Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons" - The Second World War (+ link) brought about the loss of seven seasons to competitive league football in England.
  • "Vital to the club's success was their attacking players" - verb agreement (were).
  • "to augment Jack Balmer and Billy Liddell" - the players weren't augmented, maybe to augment the attack alongside Jack....
  • "Balmer epitomised the threat the players possessed by scoring a hat-trick in three successive matches." This is quite a statement and I would expect an in-line citation.
  • "in the two following seasons" - in the two seasons that followed.
  • "Their manager George Kaye had resigned" - incorrect use of past perfect. "resigned" suffices here.
  • 50 → fifty
  • "During this season the club suffered the biggest defeat in the club's history" - repetition of "the club". "in their history" works better.
  • 3rd → third
  • "His replacement was Phil Taylor who was a member of the Liverpool coaching staff." - comma after Taylor.
  • "Despite signing players such as Ronnie Moran, Alan A'Court and Jimmy Melia who" - comma after Melia.

This is virtually all grammatical but I hope it helps to improve the article. Cloudz679 09:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahalya

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ahalya recently failed a FAC. Continuing the process of improvement further to improve the article to FA status. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great article. Just one point to start with:

Done. Tweaked a bit. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Can comment further this weekend. Saravask 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  1. "seduction with" — wrong preposition; should be "seduction of"
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "modern age poetry" — needs WP:HYPHEN: "modern-age poetry"
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "depicted as on the book" — "as" is redundant
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Tulsidas's 16th century" — hyphen needed: "16th-century"
    1. Not needed per WP:CENTURY. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Bhakti era poets" — needs WP:HYPHEN
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "an epic heroine, who is no longer" — extra comma
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "temple dancer tradition" — WP:HYPHEN
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "include the dance Mohiniyattam" — could be "include the mohiniyattam dance"
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "king of gods - Zeus" — unclear spaced hyphen; probably was supposed to be a dash
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "and Harivamsa (0–300)" — there is no year zero
    1. Done. Changed other dates per WP:CENTURY too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "and against our (Indian/Hindu) culture" — Is the parenthetical insertion his/hers, or yours? If the latter, then should replace parens with brackets.
    1. author's. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "(and Hindu society's) rape" — same question
    1. author's. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "river Godavari" — Not sure about this, but could be "River Godavari" in Indian English; same for Narmada, etc. See Godavari River and River Thames.
    1. "the river Godavari" is used by Karnataka Water resources Dept. I have seen "River Godavari" too. No one convention IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "The Vamana Purana mentions" — work of title needs italics
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. "Malay adaptation, Hikayat Seri Rama, and" — same issue
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I decided to just implement some of the above; if others don't like the changes, they can revert per WP:BRD.
    1. Thanks for your edits. Adding Done to your comments, wherever the comments are addressed mostly by you. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm not necessarily 100% satisfied with the rest of the prose, but that probably just comes down to personal style differences, which are to some extent allowed by MOS. So I'll leave that less-important stuff, which involve parentheses and commas, unmentioned.
  18. "The place where Ahalya practised penance and was redeemed, has been celebrated ..." — awkward/unnecessary comma
    1. Done. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per SandyGeorgia at Kolkata, reference titles should either all be in sentence case, or they should all be in title case. At the moment, it's a mix of the two. Inconsistent per Nikkimaria's comment in the FAC.
    1. This policy is unclear to me. Have asked Sandy for help. Will fix later. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Converted to title case. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. From my novice point of view, with the possible exception of the other source formatting issues raised by Nikkimaria (I haven't scrutinised every ref), this appears ready for another FAC.
  21. The above points are just opinions attempting to effect a certain style—take them or leave them.
  22. I lack the knowledge to agree or disagree with Fowler's prose-related FAC comments.
As I said before, I find this a fascinating article that is FAC-worthy. Great work; nice-looking page. If needed, can comment further next weekend. Cheers. Saravask 19:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now. Will wait until other reviewers comment before adding more, if needed. Saravask 19:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tiger, I have gone through the article. The research done behind the article done seems to be tremendous and I congratulate you and others who have put in the effort. However I feel the readability has been compromised. As a lay Indian although I am familiar with the story of Ahilya, I got lost in the article. Trying to accommodate all view points, all versions has turned this article more into a research on versions of Ahilya rather than narrating a story on Ahilya. You will have to take an average wikipedian who wants to know the story of Ahilya. My suggestion is that since it will be a mythological biography, follow that pattern. Give the most popular version of biography, than in a separate section you can have a discussion on differing view points and version so that the reader is not bombarded with different versions in the whole article. I do not know that whether this suggestion will be helpful or not or this is a correct way.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Indra's seduction/rape/deceit is mentioned so many times in different section that it becomes quite confusing. Why not have a section called Seduction by Indra and discuss the different versions there. Then the story will flow properly.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The problem with Ahalya is that there is no detailed "the most popular version". The popular version just has three common elements: Ahalya is fooled by Indra's disguise; Ahalya is turned to stone and Rama redeems her. All other details change in every scripture, dance-drama or TV serial. And strangely in the original Ramayana, the earliest full narrative, the former two elements are missing. Reorganizing "Encounter with Indra: Curse and redemption" may help, however I am not sure exactly how. Trying out something at User:Redtigerxyz/Ahalya. Please take a look. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the article at User:Redtigerxyz/Ahalya. Now the logical flow is much better. However the name and development section is too long. In name and development section you are already discussing the main plot in fragments like sex with Indra, curse, redemption many times that it renders the plot in subsequent section irrelevant. Maybe development section can come after the storyline? Can you also try to reduce the name and development section to half the size? It will be more readable. I understand that you have done so much research Ahilya and have come through so many versions that you have tried to accommodate each and every version and that is making your task of simplifying the article difficult.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackford County, Indiana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (Blackford County, Indiana) for peer review because it has been upgraded substantially, and I would like to get it to a featured article classification.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I see that the article received a lengthy peer review from Finetooth in September. You made no responses to that review, or even an acknowledgement; peer reviewing is a pretty thankless task, and a word or two of thanks never goes amiss! I have not had time to review the article in detail, but a few points stood out from a fast skim:-

Brianboulton—thank you for looking over Blackford County. I really do appreciate you taking the time, and I know this article is a little more lengthy than most. Finetooth and I communicated using our talk pages, and I made significant changes to Blackford County using his suggestions. He also edited a photo for me. Perhaps we should have used the peer review page for communication—my inexperience shows.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Originally, Blackford County was patterned somewhat after Warren County, Indiana and the guidlines in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties. At the suggestion of FineTooth, the Geography section was moved to the front, with the image map, to make it easier for the reader to relate to the History section. (I liked that suggestion.) During FA review, one reviewer did not like the Geography section, and wanted all references to communities to be removed from that section and added to History (not my preference). Some changes were made to the Geography section, but it seemed like the article was moving "in circles".TwoScars (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder about the usefulness of a single set of coordinates for an area of over 400m². Is it some project requirement that these details are included? What point is actually fixed by these coordinates?
The coordinates are for the center of the county, which happens to be near the county seat. Warren County, Indiana, a featured article, also has coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the counties that had FA or GA status use a single set of coordinates for the center of the county.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the prose seems a little heavy-footed. Example: "Shamrock Lakes is Blackford County's only incorporated town.[29] Incorporated May 21, 1973, Shamrock Lakes was the only town to incorporate in Indiana in the previous 50 years." Note repetition of town's name, and "Incorporated ... incorporated ... incorporate", all within two short sentences
I will try to work on that this weekend. It probably happened as a result of multiple edits. It may present a challenge, since "incorporate" is an important word in this instance.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up Shamrock Lakes, will check elsewhere too.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image map: nice work on your part, but is its location in the "Extinct settlements" section the best placing, since it gives information on existing settlements, too?
The location of the image map is a result the previous peer review and FA reveiw. I originally had it "higher" in the Geography section, and a subheader for unincorporated communities. I am open to suggestions.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the image map higher, next to a new subheader called Communities.TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder what criteria were used to select the four notable people from the county? I am not doubting their notability, just curious about why these four only. Also, I think you should include birth and death (where appropriate) dates for all four.
I will research their birth and death dates. These are really the four most notable. A fifth person was dropped after the first peer reveiw. There are two additional people that could be added because they have Wikipedia pages (Henry Crimmel and Edward Everett Cox), but I do not believe those two are as famous as the four I already have listed. Crimmel and Cox were more famous regionally, while the other four had national impact.TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I noticed that some of the footnotes contain uncited information.
Which footnotes? The patents note links to the patents—should they have a cite?TwoScars (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added footnotes for the patents. This leaves a footnote with some math/calculations, and a note about MapQuest, without some type of cite. Do these need cites?TwoScars (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with using the Patent Footnote Template is that it links to Espacenet, which does not have old patents in its database. This causes an error. Perhaps I will try to "fake" the template (make it look like the template is being used when it really is not) to avoid the error message.TwoScars (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patent templates are now still included, but commented out. Footnotes have appearance of template, but link to Google Patents (which works for these old patents) instead of Espacenet.TwoScars (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All notes now have at least one citation.TwoScars (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very limited review, but it may be worth your considering these points and, at least as far as my prose comment is concerned, looking for similar instances. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War in Anbar Province

[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 developing this as a WP:FA, and would like some guidance. It has already achieved WP:GA status.

Thanks, Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have not studied the prose of this impressive-looking article, but I have a few general points:-

  • It seems to me that many of the section titles breach MOS requirements expressed in MOS:HEAD, specifically through the frequent use of "The..." and "the" in titles. In some instances the title seems overcomplicated, e.g. "The Marines take over and the Blackwater killings".
 Doing... I just reordered the article by year. I still need to figure out to to rearrange the "Aftermath" section, but am not sure how. Advice is welcome. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, date ranges rendered as "January 2005 – December 2005" rather than "January–December 2005" seem unnecessarily repetitive.
 Fixed Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations appear to be lacking in the following instances:-
    • Latter part of first paragraph of the "The Marines take over..." section
    • Final part of third paragraph of the "First Battle of Fallujah" section
    • Last sentence of first paragraph of "Haditha killings"
    • Last sentence of final paragraph of same section
    • Last sentence of "The MRAPs" section
 Fixed Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of boldings in quotations contrary to WP:BOLDING
 Fixed Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the vast amount of work that has gone into the article, but perhaps 31 images and 14 highlighted quotations is overcrowding the prose? Some of the quotations are no more than decorative soundbites.
 Doing...I tried to trim the fat, but were there any specific ones you had in mind? Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of the "See also" links to Diyala campaign and Ninawa campaign?
 Fixed Those were other campaigns in Iraq, but I removed them for clarity. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter

[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 this article to good article status as part of my mission to get every president to be a good article.

Thanks, Iankap99 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Atlantic and Pacific fleets" fleets should be capitalised since it's part of a proper name.
  • "He married Rosalynn Smith in 1946; they have four children." Missing a ref.
  • Two paragraphs under "Naval career" are unreferenced. Please check throughout the article.
  • MOS calls for the provisions of alt text.
  • "4 Four U.S. Presidents. Former"
  • Various dead links.
  • "U.S. Boycott of the Moscow Olympics" Why's Boycott capitalised? Same with Airline in "U.S. Airline Industry".
  •  Doing...

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with the above comments, here are some more suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead is 5 paragraphs long and WP:LEAD says it should be no more than four in length.
  • Headers do not follow capitalization per WP:HEAD
  • Lots of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even sections - this makes for choppy flow of the narrative. WHerever possible combine these with other sections or paragraphs, or perhaps expand them.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and exmapls to follow - there are several Biograph FAs on elected leaders that seem as if they would be useful models here - Barack Obama is one.
  • Biggest problem I see is a lack of references - for example in the Georgia State Senate section, three of the four paragraphs have no refs.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • Captions can be clearer - when was the book signing pictured, for example?
  • Writing is poor in places and the chronology is confused - why does the section "Vice-Presidential aspirations in 1972" come before the section on Carter appointing one of Georgia's US senators in 1971?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been a while since its last peer review and the article has changed much seeing as Gaga's career has extended profusely even in the last year. I, along with many others I am sure, would like to get this up to FA standard as soon as. Please be as critical as you like. :)

Thanks, Stephenjamesx (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from a huge fan :) Yay, Gaga! I'll read through it some other time, but a technical check for now:

  • Avoid having references in the lead if the information that is being cited recurs later on in the article (where it should be supported an in-line citation).
  • If multiple sources are needed to support a claim, consider bundling citations to avoid an unappealing plethora of in-line ref numbers ("[173][174][175][176][177]", "[179][180][181]", "[132][133][134]", etc), as is done for ref 138.
  • Refs should be reordered consistently (e.g. "[132][18][135]" should be "[18][132][135]")
  • "After gaining early admission at 17, she eventually lived in an NYU dorm on 11th Street." source?
  • "Devastated, Gaga returned to the solace of the family home for Christmas and the nightlife culture of the Lower East Side." source?
  • "A sleeper hit, lead single "Just Dance" had preceded the album's release by four months but only hit the summit of the international charts in January 2009." source?
  • "In addition to exceeding 8 million copies in worldwide sales, Born This Way has received 3 Grammy Award nominations, including her third consecutive for Album of the Year." source?
  • "She has covered a wide variety of topics in her songs: while The Fame (2008) meditates on the lust for stardom, The Fame Monster (2009) expresses fame's dark side through monster metaphors. Born This Way (2011) is sung in English, French, German and Spanish and includes common themes in Gaga's controversial songwriting like love, sex, religion, money, drugs, identity, liberation, sexuality, freedom and individualism." source? I realize that all of these claims are located at the end of paragraphs, and as such may be backed up by subsequent sources in the following paragraphs. However, for reassurance, try having every paragraph in the article end with appropriate sources. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2008–10: The Fame and The Fame Monster, several previously wikilinked terms are re-linked: metal, synthpop, New Kids on the Block, Just Dance, Poker Face, Best Dance Recording, and 52nd Grammy Awards. Most of these double links are unnecessary.
  • Same for 2011–present: Born This Way: best-selling singles worldwide, Marry the Night, Elton John are duplicate links, though I suggest keeping the first one.
  • Duplicate links for Influences: musical theatre, glam rock. Glam rock reappears in Musical style, as does heavy metal.
  • In Philantrophy, Born This Way, Manhattan, John Lennon, 2010 MTV Video Music Awards, The Edge of Glory, and dress are re-linked.
  • Reference 176 contains a dead link; References 10, 29, 45, 56, 61, 62, 80, 91, 101, 162, 180, 182, 186, 194, 200, 202, 212, 220, 222, 229 contain uncategorized redirects (path or sub-domain changes, etc); Ref 51 also returns an error (see here)
  • No disambiguation links. Auree ★ 01:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisye

[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 hoping to bring to FAC by mid February at the latest (so that the article can be on the main page for the 5 year anniversary of his death) and I would like some feedback on what can be expanded. Also, the biography I have has testimonials from numerous famous people, including former President Megawati Sukarnoputri. To cite this should I do:

or the standard

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would do the first and give the chapter information - more information is better as to the source of statements. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The main review seems to have stalled some weeks ago, but I can give you a few indicators of attention needed to the prose in the earlier parts of the article:-

  • In the Early life section, awkward repetitions: "While attending elementary school at GIKI Elementary School" - why not just "While attending GIKI Elementary School..."?
  • Same section, more repetition: "Chrisye attended Senior High School PSKD Menteng.[6] While he was in senior high school, Beatlemania reached Indonesia" This could be shortened to "Beatlemania reached Indonesia while Chrisye was a student at Senior High School PSKD Menteng."
  • In the "Band member and early projects" section, link covers at first mention.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph, final sentence: "Although he became upset that he could not fully express himself through covers, he continued to work". There is no indication given in the paragraph of the identity of "he". In the next paragraph, also, you first refer to Chrisye as "him".
  • ".. Sys NS, an employee of Prambors..." To me , "Sys NS" does not read like the name of a person; can you clarify? (I see later on "Addie MS" so perhaps this is an Indonesian format?)
  • Problematic sentence: "After stagnating for a week, numerous radio stations began playing the singles and sales increased exponentially." It was not the radio stations that were stagnating.
  • Link "groupie"
  • "financial condition" → "financial position"
  • "Chrisye briefly considered quitting the music industry but turned down a lucrative offer from the television network RCTI." Briefly expand on the nature of the offer which, presumably, involved a non-musical role?

These comments fall far short of a full review, but I hope they are of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry this took me so long. I agree with the above comments, and here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FAs on musicians that might be useful models - see Category:FA-Class biography (musicians) articles.
  • I would make sure the lead and infobox are in sync - the infobox lists his different birth name and conversion to Islam, but neither of these are in the lead.
  • The second use of "he joined" a band here is not super clear. It usually means someone became a member of a band for the first time, but the second use is confusing - I assume it means he went to New York and played with the band he was already a member of there In the late 1960s, he joined Sabda Nada (later Gipsy), a band led by his neighbours, the Nasutions. In 1973, he joined the band to play in New York for a year.
  • Did he live near Menteng (implies he was not in it) or was he a resident in it all along? After spending Chrisye's initial years on Talang Street near Menteng, Central Jakarta, in 1954 the family moved to Pegangsaan Street (also in Menteng).[2]
  • I realize Indonesian naming conventions are different, but shouldn't "Bamid Gauri" in some way have Nasution in his name? While attending GIKI Elementary School, Chrisye befriended the neighbouring Nasution family; he became especially close with Bamid Gauri.
  • The language is decent but not great - the hardest criterion for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of English. For example, "urge" here is an odd word choice - perhaps "desire" would be better? In response to Chrisye's urge to play music, his father bought him a guitar
  • Or the third paragraph of Early life uses "Chrisye" six times - for comparison the four paragraphs of the lead use CHrisye just four times
  • Or the use of "routine" here - I think they had a regular gig / engagement The group had a regular routine at Mini Disko on Juanda Street and freelanced at birthday and wedding parties.[10]
  • The caption reads "Chrisye singing while playing the bass in 1977" but his mouth is closed - seems like he is not singing in the photo
  • Unclear who he is here - the antecedent is Guruh, but I am pretty sure Chrisye is meant In 1972, Guruh received a phone call from Pontjo Nasution and was offered the chance to play in New York. Although he was ecstatic, he was afraid of telling his father since he thought his father would disapprove.
  • Problem sentence: "the" is not needed and I would identify Vicky (which is usually a woman's name in English speaking countries): In the mid-1975, with several weeks left on his contract, his parents called him from Jakarta and told him that [his brother] Vicky had died of a stomach infection.
  • MOS says to use a person's full name on first use, then use just one name afterwards unless there is more than one person with that name (to avoid confusion). So, for example, Jockie Soerjoprajogo is usually referred to as just Jockie after first use, but at least twice he is called Jockie Soerjoprajogo.
  • I would add years / dates where possible to provide context to the reader. So giving at least the year for Jurang Pemisah would help, as would giving at least the year for Badai Pasti Berlalu. See After the success of "Lilin-Lilin Kecil", Pramaqua Records approached Chrisye and offered him an album, Jurang Pemisah .... After his later album Badai Pasti Berlalu took off...
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Badai Pasti Berlalu is linked twice in two paragraphs
  • Watch for internal consistency. First sentence says Chrisye recorded the coundtrack (no others mentioned) "over a couple of months". Then the paragraph goes on to say that the soundtrack already existed in some form to win an award, and that a group recorded the new version in 21 days (which is less than one month). This is confusing and seems to be either contradictory or even factually incorrect in places.
That same year, Chrisye recorded the soundtrack for Badai Pasti Berlalu over a couple of months.[27] After the soundtrack won a Citra Award at the 1978 Indonesian Film Festival, Irama Mas studios approached the group to do a soundtrack album for a flat fee.[27] With Chrisye and Berlian Hutauruk on vocals, the album was recorded in Pluit over a period of 21 days.[27][28] It was released under the same name as the film, with a picture of actress Christine Hakim on the cover.[28] After the song stagnated for a week, numerous radio stations began playing the singles and sales increased exponentially.[29] It included Chrisye's first songwriting credit, "Merepih Alam" ("Fragile Nature").[23]
  • Sometimes the text is unclear / does not say things explicitly. Here it is never said what Widjaja wanted Chrisye to do - presumably sign a recor d contract? Chrisye's tenor voice and performance on Badai Pasti Berlalu led to Amin Widjaja of Musica Studios approaching him. Widjaja had been scouting him since the release of Guruh Gipsy. Chrisye agreed, on condition that he be allowed creative freedom.
  • Yanti's brother Yaidy is mentioned only once - why was Chrisye visitng him?
  • MOS says not to have images placed in articles so that they draw the reader's eyes off the screen - File:Gutawa 2004 1.JPG should be left justified so the singer faces into the page. Perhas do the same with the photo of Geln Fredly (though there are two figures there, so it is more balanced)
  • The article has three fair use images of Chrisye and one fair use media file - make sure these all meet WP:NFCC - do they increase the reader's understanding, or are they just decorative? The more the article discusses what is shown in images, the better. So the lead image shows him old and ill and could be alluded to in the article. I would also somehow mention the image of him young and with his bass. The image of him at his wedding is not really discussed in the article either - the more they can become integrated into the text, the better.
  • This needs a copyedit before it would stand much of a chance at FAC
  • He only had three singles???
  • There are two dead links that will need to be fixed (use the tool box on this PR page to see them)
  • The refs seem OK - over half of them are to Endah's book, which may be questioned at FAC. Other sources would help - were there many obituaries after his death that might have useful information?
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. *Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bachata Rosa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article was just copy-edited and I want to submit to GAN. However I have some concerns in which I need an expert opinion.

  • Prose. The albums is not widely known compared to other albums that have received a GA and the albums is quite old so there's not alot of information I could find even through books.
  • The section "Cultural impact". I didn't know where to put the information on how bachata gained attention in the Dominican Republic after the release of the album, so I made its own section, but I'm not sure if it's long enough to warrant its own section or it should be merged elsewhere.
  • The Dutch (Netherlands) certifications not working anywhere, so access to the database is unavailable at the moment.
  • I added two samples to represent two different genres but I need to know if the rations for both are okay.


Thanks, Erick (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think a bit more detail about the form would help draw in readers who know nothing about it, and I have a few other suggestions, mostly about Manual of Style issues. I think the rationales for the images and sound tracks are probably OK, though I'm puzzled by the double-entries of the "Licensing" section of File:Juan Luis Guerra - Burbujas de amor.ogg and File:Juan Luis Guerra - La bilirrubina.ogg. They look identical to me, and I think you only need one per file.

Lead

  • "It brought bachata music to the attention of the mainstream media in the Dominican Republic." - This sentence in the second paragraph is nearly identical to a sentence in the first paragraph and duplicates the link to Bachata (music). I don't think you meant to repeat like this.

Background

  • What did Silvestre mean when she referred to her bachata music as "red"? In what sense? Bees and hives aren't literally red.
  • Even though the link to "bachata music" makes it possible for a reader who knows nothing about bachata to find out what it means, I think it would be helpful to provide a brief explanation in the article itself. What makes bachata different from other kinds of music? What are its most striking characteristics? What kinds of voices? What kinds of instruments? You don't want to insert a long explanation, but a brief description would be nice.

Musical style, writing and composition

  • "an upbeat merengue song" - Link merengue?
  • "switches to salsa music" - Link salsa?
  • "a salsa track written in a journalistic style" - What is meant by "a journalistic style"?

Album

  • You have linked Netherlands in this section, but the word appears unlinked in the lead, and other countries like Spain are not linked. You should consistently link terms the first time they are used in an article, and there's usually no need to link them twice in a short article like this one. It would be a good idea to link Spain, the Dominican Republic, and so on as well as Netherlands.

References

  • The date formatting in this section should be consistent. See citations 13 and 14, for example, where the date formatting differs from one citation to the next.
  • Citations to books should include the page number(s) for the pages supporting the claim(s). They should also include the place of publication and the ISBN. You want to make it as easy as possible for readers to find these books in the library or in bookstores; the on-line versions might become inaccessible at some point. See citation 6, for example.
  • The publisher's name in citation 5 should not appear in italics.
  • The citations to web sites need dates of most recent access. See citation 19, for example.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed every problem on this peer review so I will go ahead and close it. Thank you for taking your time to review this article. Erick (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John de Gray

[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 he's important and hefty enough to head to FAC and would like comments on its prose, the comprehensiveness, and the clarity - the ability of a non-specialist to understand the topic.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am no specialist on the topic, but am quite interested in history in general and enjoy reading about medieval societies.
  • I'd advise rephrasing the first sentence in the lead. How does the following sound?
  • The second sentence, too, could be rephrased. Here's an idea:
    • He was employed in the service of John of England, even before John's coronation as king. For his services, de Gray was rewarded with a number of ecclesiastical offices, culminating in his pro forma election to Norwich in 1200.
  • Could something else be substituted for the word "quashed"?
  • I'm now reading into the "Early life" section. Here, a double-link can be found, "Prince John." This is the third time a new term describing John of England has been used, potentially confusing an unknowledgeable reader. Perhaps you could stick with "John" until after you reach his coronation, whereupon using "King John" would make more sense.
  • I have a little feeling that quickly describing pro forma would be a good idea. However, a reader should be able to infer this from the next sentence, and I don't see this as a major issue.
  • As with "King/Prince/John of England," you use the terms "royal" and "regal" interchangeably. I'd suggest "royal," for the sake of clarity alone, but either should be okay.
  • There are hardly any issues with the "Archbishop-elect" section.
  • "In Ireland:" serving as governor there for the king..." Why not simply "royal governor?"
  • Persecuting? This certainly does not sound neutral, and it is unsourced, no matter what the de Braose article uses as section headings.
    • I'm all right with keeping the word in there, as long as some source is found describing a "persecution."
  • "Episcopal affairs and later career": You describe that de Gray's ability to raise money was useful for the King, yet this is alluded to earlier. I'm not sure how you feel about this, or if you can think of another way to decrease redundancy while still giving the reader the correct impression that he was a money-lender who the King often depended on.
  • The article as a whole is quite readable, fascinating, and smooth. I'd support this in an FA candidacy, and I hope that, after a few minor revisions, you nominate it. DCItalk 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Persecuting - here's what Warren's biography of John says about John's behavior towards Braose - "He [Braose] died in exile in 1211 after being hounded from his lands and from the country by John's malevolence. His wife and one of his sons died before him, starved to death in King John's prison." then a few sentences later "There seems to be no cause for the king's persecution of these men beyond his own deovouring suspicions." (these men includes William Marshall...) Powicke (the source being used here) is a bit more restrained but the gist is the same - Braose was unfairly hounded by the king. I think I took care of most of the rest - quashed is ... the correct term for the papacy disallowing an election. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casting Crowns 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 wish to improve this article to FL-status and would like input on what needs to be changed for it to reach that status.

Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 01:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It would be nice to have an image in the infobox.
    • Done
  • "The album has sold 1.7 million copies in the United States since its release" No need to link United States.
    • Done
  • "sold a total of 167,000 copies in its first week, debuting at number four on the Billboard 200.." Avoid the double full stop.
    • Corrected
  • "Casting Crowns has also released a Christmas album, Peace on Earth, and four live albums," You already mentioned in the first sentence that they have four live albums.
    • Done
  • Link RIAA and mention it as Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
  • Why are you only using the scope format for the tables in the Albums section? Use one format for all tables.
  • Singles table needs fixing.
    • Fixed?
      • The Certifications column in the "Just Another Birthday" row needs fixing.
  • At the bottom of the Singles table where it says "denotes releases that did not chart", could you add that to the Live releases table.
    • Done
  • Notes can have its own section (above References section).
    • Done
  • Theres a lot of WP:OVERLINK in the Music videos and Other appearances tables.
    • I did that because they needed citations; the Eminem discography page is an example of an FL-class using links to verify such things
      • I meant there are some songs in those tables that have already been linked in the Singles tables. Oz talk 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did that because I assume it can be linked once per section.
  • All dashes in the references section need fixing.
    • Fixed
  • Everything in the references section can be wikilinked (except when multiple refs are used in a single ref [e.g. #23]).
    • Done
  • Refs – Allmusic should not be in italics.
    • Fixed
  • Why are some refs shown as Retrieved February 18, 2012 and Retrieved 18 February 2012? Please fix this.
    • Fixed
  • Use the cite news template for ref #7.
  • Ref #9 – mention the publisher as Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
    • Fixed
  • Ref #15 – Jesus Freak Hideout should not be in italics.
    • Done
  • Ref #16 – Amazon.com should not be in italics.
    • Done
  • Use the cite web template for ref #24.
    • Done
  • Use the cite video template for the YouTube refs.
    • Done
  • Refs #27, #30, #36 and #45 need fixing.
    • Done
  • Remove all caps from refs #32, #33, #35, #36, #37, #39, #40, #41, #42, #43, #44, #46, #47, #48, #50, #51.
    • Fixed
  • It would be nice to have an External links section that includes links to the band's official website and allmusic page.
    • Done

Oz talk 12:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've fixed all the issues you've addressed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • Use the cite web template for refs #4, #5 and #17. (Note: Always use citation templates)
    • Done

Oz talk 03:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to WP:FL standard, and would appreciate any pointers in that direction. Cheers! U+003F? 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Not a lot to say, really, just to few points:-

  • Compared with other player lists that I've seen at FL, yours appears somenwhat minimalistic. Other tables include columns for nationality (with appropriate flags); international appearances (maybe not too many of these at Tranmere), captaincy etc.
 Done I'll compare the list to the featured List of Watford F.C. players. Adding international honours is a good idea, though there aren't many who qualify. I'd prefer to avoid a nationality as it's just not known in many cases. Captaincy would be worthy of its own table, but I haven't found a list of captains anywhere. U+003F? 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of presentation, your table looks a little cramped. Compare it with those of other player FLs; a little more generosity in column widths can make a big visual difference.
 Done At least with regards the years column. 16:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "They played their first game under the name Belmont F.C" - should this be "games"?
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Tranmere have played in the Football League since, with..." Needs either "ever" before "since", or "then" after.
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do the figures include the 1945–46 FA Cup competition, in which matches were played on a non-standard (two-legged tie) basis?
Yes. Does this need to be clarified? U+003F? 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "league consecutive appearances" → "consecutive league appearances"
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Might it be worth mentioning that in between 1939 and 1946 Tranmere continued
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest rephrase to clarify that it was Accrington, not Tranmener, that resigned from the league.
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Who is "Neil Brown", and why should he be considered a reliable source?
 Done 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's as much as I have. Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review your umpteenth article for me. U+003F? 18:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • General, article title probably needs (100 or more appearances) in it.
✗ Not done Isn't the normal procedure to not append that to the title of the main article? For example: List of Manchester United F.C. players, List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances). 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I just finished reviewing Liverpool players with fewer than 25 apps so that's why it was in my mind. Leave it to the FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Prenton Park.
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "was in 4th place in the" -> "was fourth in the"
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "then the second tier " reads a bit naff, maybe "which, at the time, was the second...."
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Link full back in the lead.
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "entire playing career" -> I'm sure we have an article for these legends... Maybe (if true) mention Bell also was such a player.
 Done Though Bell finished his career at Holyhead Town. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "player-manager" has an article I believe...
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • " but these results are also omitted" can you explain why?
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Jimmy Moreton's years say 1913- but the caption (and his article) say he joined TRFC in 1910... did he not play for three years?
I've clarified this in the key. Moreton joined the club in 1910, but first played in a relevant competition – here the FA Cup – in 1913. But this now seems confusing; would it make more sense to give years at the club where available (as per Soccerbase), but otherwise give years of service (following the 1921-1997 source)? U+003F? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see where international players are referenced for those you use Soccerbase to cite...
 Done (where not in the book) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be tempted (tempted... but wait for FLC) to remove the ref column which is mostly blank and directly ref the player when you use Soccerbase.
OK I'll sit on this for now. U+003F? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I un-sat on this. Using a book source from 2009 meant very few Soccerbase refs were necessary, so I went ahead and removed the column. U+003F? 18:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, tempted to put centrally aligned en-dashes for all players which aren't internationals rather than all those blank cells.
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thirdwise, tempted to identify captains if you can do so with appropriate reliability. I don't think a separate captain's list is worthwhile.
✗ Not done I can only reliably do this for the past 10-20 years. Is this partial coverage worth including? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Nah, captain is almost meaningless to be fair. I think my lot have had two or three captains this year already. No longer really of any note.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahon (for instance) has a Soccerbase end year of 2011, not 2010... is that end year supposed to be the last time they played or when they left the club? There's no key so I'm not sure, and right now (in that case) the source doesn't back up the text.
 Done Ooops. Undoubtedly a few errors like that have slipped through the net. I'll rerecheck. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Check Eric Nixon's years, something odd there...!
 Done 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A lot of spare space down the right-hand side, more photos are available....
I'll dig some more out. 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope some of that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! I have a copy of The Complete Record in the post that covers 1884 to 2009 and should help with the clunkiness of current multiple sources. U+003F? 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Eddie6705 (talk · contribs)
  • I would move the line "Statistcis for current players are correct to the end of the 2010–11 season" line to the end of the preceding paragraph.
 Done 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • May be worth putting the current players in bold so they are easier to spot. If you do so a line stating this would need to be added to the "This list contains" paragraph.
 Done 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the first two lines in the references section would be better placed in the notes section, possibly with a footnote placed at the top of the reference column.
 Done 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links to players in the list, and these will need to be reduced to a minimum in order to pass FL. I know sometimes its tricky to get a lot of information on earlier players, but a referenced stub article on a player is enough.
There's at least the basic info available for all these players such as D.O.B. and playing position. Enough for a stub, though often no more. I'll get onto this. U+003F? 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (eventually!) U+003F? 15:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know its only brief, but the finer points can be smoothed out during FL if you do wish to take it there. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking through. I'll work on the red links, then give FLC a punt. U+003F? 12:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hawking

[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 push it further on the path towards FA. It's only recently got its GA classification, and is one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes, I'd like to shepherd it as far towards FA as I can. :)

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article currently characterizes Hawking's field of research as "cosmology and quantum gravity". To me this seems to miss his momentous contribution to (classical) general relativity. Some of these contribution could (with some stretching) be classified as either cosmology or quantum gravity, but some certainly cannot. The most immediate example, is his work on the singularity theorems, especially as it relates to black holes. Some alternative phrasing seems to be in order. (Still think about what would be the best alternative.)TR 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will happily take your judgement on this - had a bit of a browse for a source that gave a definite answer but not much came up - let me know if you think of any alternative phrasing :) Fayedizard (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though this is a biography, it is of a scientist. Should this be under Natural sciences and mathematics peer reviews ?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely happy for it to be moved that would be fine :) Fayedizard (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding citation style, adapted from my talk page:
Some of the articles do not display their titles inside quote marks, and some cited works are not italicised. An example of both problems: Professor Stephen Hawking quotes on God and Religion, Age of the Sage. Another example is The Observer (needs italics). The wikilinks for books and cites are not consistent. Sometimes Running Press is wikilinked, sometimes not. Same with Bantam Press. (I just noticed that "Professor Hawking's Universe" is not listed under "Films and series".) Also, you will need a page number for the V-2 landing near the Hawking home in London (page 3, I think.)
  • I expect that the Star Trek book will not be seen as important enough to be included in the Bibliography.
Understood, I'd like to leave it in for now - It was such a faff finding a source that wasn't IMDB that I was quite proud of it...? Fayedizard (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I'm not currently seeing any double periods at the moment - possible this went away following some other changes...Fayedizard (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DoneFayedizard (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes Guardian is capitalised, sometimes it is italicised, and sometimes it is written in web style as guardian.co.uk, and italicised.
I believe this is now fixed... Fayedizard (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC is not named as the sources in "The Stephen Hawking Building..." cite, and the notional article title is not inside quote marks.
Done :) Fayedizard (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Albans School Website" is not the name of the cited page; it is "Hawking Lectures Sign Off with Dinner".
Done :) Fayedizard (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most cases, the date of the cited piece is in parentheses, but this is not the case for The Observer, the Charles Arthur piece, the "Man must conquer" piece, and the Cambridgenetwork.co.uk piece,
Fixed for Observer, Charles Arthur has been removed, but in general this appears to be a issue with the {{cite news}}template when sources don't have an author - compare
I'm not sure what to do about this... :( any ideas? Fayedizard (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I guess we live with it. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • which incidentally is titled "Time to unveil Corpus Clock", not "News from Cambridge UK".
DoneFayedizard (talk)
I believe I've now put all the footnotes into cite templates, I'm planning to do this for the books he's written as well but wanted to get a little bit more feedback about that section anyway - this should have sorted out some of the above in the process... Fayedizard (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - this is the sort of detailed review that the article really needs - will do some inline replies assuming you don't mind. On touched on it with today's editing but will be back soon. Fayedizard (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see some other things I will post here about later today. Finetooth (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments

[edit]

Finetooth comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting and important article. I can't comment on the physics and mathematics directly, but I'm sure that the explanations of Hawking's scientific ideas need to be supported by reliable sources. When I saw that in the "Career" section some of the explanations seemed to come from nowhere, I thought it important to point this out. That's what I would fix first, and you might need the help of a scientist to point you to the best sources. Who has explained those ideas most clearly for the general public, insofar as that is possible? I have quite a few other suggestions, listed below.

Lead

  • Generally, it's not necessary to include inline citations to sources for claims made in the lead. If the lead is a summary of the main text sections (as it should be, according to WP:LEAD), the claims appear in the main text and should be sourced there rather than in the lead.
Done - also very useful exercise as it was obvious when something was in the lede but not in the text :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009. He is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is also a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge and a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario." - This uses too many capital letters, an ambiguous "now", and repetition of the University of Cambridge. Maybe this: "Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring from it on 1 October 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology. He is also a fellow of Gonville and Caius College at Cambridge and a distinguished research chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario"?
DoneFayedizard (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these include the runaway best seller A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks" - The combination of "runaway best seller", "best-sellers" and "record-breaking" are a bit much. I would tone this down one notch to "these include A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks".
DoneFayedizard (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two paragraphs of the lead are one-sentence orphans. It shouldn't be hard to beef them up a bit to include something about his other scientific investigations and his family life.
DoneFayedizard (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "As University College did not have a mathematics fellow at that time, it would not accept applications from students who wished to read that discipline." - This is a minor issue, but North Americans and perhaps others might not understand the word "read" when used in this way. Would "study" be better?
DoneFayedizard (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blockquotes are generally used for quotations of four lines or more on a computer screen. I wouldn't set one- and two-liners off in blockquotes.
Reduced to fit under 40 words and done. Fayedizard (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research fields

  • To keep articles from looking and feeling choppy, it's generally a good idea to avoid one-sentence orphan paragraphs. Two possibilities are to merge or to expand. Three of the paragraphs in this section are orphans.
Done (amongst other big changes that occured in the section)Fayedizard (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He supplied a mathematical proof, along with Brandon Carter, Werner Israel and D. Robinson, of John Wheeler's no-hair theorem – namely, that any black hole is fully described by the three properties of mass, angular momentum, and electric charge." - This needs a citation to a reliable source. My rule of thumb is to provide an inline citation for every paragraph as well as every direct quotation, every set of statistics, and every unusual claim. If a paragraph has an inline citation in the middle somewhere, that citation does not cover the remainder of the paragraph, which may need additional sourcing.
Cited Fayedizard (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of this section need sources. Since they lack sources, the claims (explanations) seem to be coming from a Wikipedia editor rather than a reliable source.
DoneFayedizard (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet

  • The first paragraph lacks citation(s) to reliable sources.
DoneFayedizard (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and honours

  • The lower sections of the article are list-y. This particular list, I think, might be better if converted to a two-sentence prose paragraph. Something like "Early awards include... " and "Awards since 2000 are... " might do it.
So I'm not entirely sure one-way or the other on this - personally I think there might be a little two much information the paragraphs to be clear... if you don't mind I'll leave this one hanging and see if anyone else raises it - to try and compensate for the list-y-ness I've reduced the publications part down somewhat, hope that helps. Fayedizard (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Personal life

  • I'd recommend shortening and combining the four short paragraphs at the end of this section into perhaps two paragraphs. I'm not sure the quote about IQ is important enough to include. From the context of the article, readers already know that he is unusually intelligent.
Removed IQ bit, combined paragraphs :) Fayedizard (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • Generally, it's sufficient to link an uncommon term no more than once in the lead and perhaps once again in the main text. I would not, for instance, link A Brief History of Time multiple times or the names of people like Leonard Mlodinow.
  • The lists in the article, including things like "Bibliography" and "Further reading" should be arranged alphabetically. The bibliography order should be last name first.
Done (with the exception of awards and publications which are both arranged by data at the moment...) Fayedizard (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link checker at the top of this review page finds one dead URL in the citations and a couple that are marked "forbidden". The forbidden ones might need to be identified as "subscription only".
Done (resulted in more accurate content as well)Fayedizard (talk)
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
To the best of my ability *worries* Fayedizard (talk) 11:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
In May 1999, Manchester United Football Club won an unprecedented treble of trophies and arguably completed the most successful season in their history and perhaps English football. The season will live long in the memory of United fans because of the climax in the Champions League final but also to football fans in all walks of life, notably as they recorded the biggest away defeat in Premier League history and perhaps contributed to the best FA Cup semi-final in recent times. Off the field, it was a season of controversy – the club were on the brink of takeover by Rupert Murdoch's BSkyB, resulting in the involvement of the government. This article has recieved a peer review before which prose was identified as the biggest concern; subsequently being addressed. It holds a WP:GA standing but I am curious to see if this can be a WP:FAC. As of now, there isn't any season articles which have met the criteria. Does there need to be more depth in coverage, how can the WP:LEAD be improved? Any comments or suggestions will be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

Overall, this article does a fairly good job, but there are several other things I would expect a FA on such a topic to cover. I have not read the whole article in detail, but covered the first half in some depth. However, several issues stand out throughout. These comments are mainly just examples, and before considering nominating this at FAC, I would recommend a copy-editor going through carefully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • I'm not too sure the lead needs as many references as it has. Everything is covered in the main body, so why does it need a reference in the lead unless it is a direct quote?
  • Be careful saying that Man Utd were the first side to complete the treble; yes for that particular treble, but I can almost hear Liverpool fans muttering.
  • Personally, I wouldn't list the defeats in the lead and leave it at "lost only five times". Just listing these, especially the Middlesborough defeat, seems over-detailed for the lead.
  • "The big news of the pre-season was the arrival of Dutch defender Jaap Stam…": "Big news" is tabloidy and POV. Better to say: "During pre-season, Dutch defender Jaap Stam was signed for a club record fee of £10.75 million."
  • "Goalkeeper Peter Schmeichel announced his intention to leave the club after eight years at Old Trafford,[4] joining Sporting Clube de Portugal at the end of the season." Doesn't quite fit here, after listing signings, and the chronology is further disrupted by the comment about the end of the season (maybe rephrase to "stated his intention to join…" or "and eventually joined …"). Maybe move it to the start of the paragraph, before the departures? And it should say at what point he made the announcement: pre-season? During the season?
  • "The team's never-say-die attitude…": This may be referenced, but as written this looks to be editorial voice and gives the impression that WIkipedia thinks the team has a never-say-die attitude.
  • Similar POV following this: "was key to their success as the players often thrived in difficult situations. The highlight was United's dramatic comeback…" Possible re-phrase: "Critics believed that the key to the team's success was their never-say-die attitude [not comfortable with this phrase, though] and the players' ability [not crazy about this word, but can't think of any better way to put this right now] to thrive in difficult situations. The highlight for fans was the dramatic comeback…"
  • "The treble haul is often regarded by fans and writers as manager Alex Ferguson's finest hour, although he has dismissed that assertion in later years.": Is the rebuttal really necessary?
Charity shield
  • "Roy Keane made his comeback after almost a year out injured, and Jaap Stam debuted in central defence.": Ref?
FA Premier League

A few issues in this section:

  • Tabloid style/football jargon not suitable for an encyclopaedia: e.g. "Muzzy Izzet’s cross was met by Emile Heskey to scuff the ball into the net", "last gasp free kick", "salvage a point", "in perfect stead", "mauling", "clear-cut chances", "dragged back to the summit", and several more.
  • POV language: "match was marred", "comprehensive defeat [better to give the score]", "deservedly beat", "break the jinx [if this was Ferguson's opinion, better to quote him]", "a moment of brilliance"…
  • Unreferenced sentences (particularly to end paragraphs): "but it was clear the title race would be decided on the final day, akin to 1995", "The achievement was all the more special for Ferguson, who lifted his fifth domestic championship in seven seasons", "helped the team to become the first to reach 60 points in the season." Similarly, "setting a precedent for things to come" is OR as it is not supported by the ref, but is again editorial voice.
FA Cup and League Cup
  • Similar problems, including a completely unreferenced first paragraph.
  • Also, I'm not sure every claim is referenced: for example "Neither team was able to score even after extra time had been played, therefore the match was decided in a replay four days later" and "As in the previous four seasons United rested many of their first-team players in the League Cup, instead using the competition to provide first team experience to their younger players and reserves".
General
  • Would the transfers section not make more sense at the beginning of the article, to give some context to the start of the seasons?
  • I'm not quite sure we get a sense of the season as a whole, rather than a series of short match reports. Some of the tension and interest could be conveyed a little more perhaps. Is there anything that could be used to give a little more narrative direction, such as a book about the season? (I'm sure something must exist!)
  • It is probably even worth including details such as Giggs going shirtless for his celebration in the FA Cup.
  • For a FA, I would expect some analysis of Man Utd's style of play throughout the season, and some comment on the effective/highly rated players. For example, there is nothing to point out that Yorke and Cole were highly regarded or had particularly effective seasons. Were the team attacking or defensively minded? Why were they so good?
  • I would also expect more on pre-season expectations; how were the team expected to do in the season? What was their prior form and subsequent form in other seasons?
  • I also think it needs more contemporary opinion in the legacy section. How did critics rate the team at the time? What was the immediate reaction in the press, rather than opinions written some time afterwards?
  • I do not watch Peer reviews, so if you have any questions or comments, please contact my talk page. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to bring it to FAC sometime in the next month. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is a highly notable work of non-fiction, and one of my personal favorites. The article has already been promoted to GA, and I believe that it covers the book in a fair amount of detail. Suggestions/comments as to how it fulfills the FA criteria would be much appreciated. Thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: An excellent piece of work. I note that it received a very thorough GA review in Dececeber, and it looks to me to be nearly FAC-ready. My comments are in the main of a minor, stylistic nature:-

Background and publication
  • "it instructed one on the study and collection of plants and insects". Sounds rather arch; perhaps drop the "one"?
  • Could we have dates of attendance and graduation at Hollins College?
  • Any reason why Dillard briefly becomes "Annie"?
  • It's in a quote, but "bolding"? Did he mean "boldly"? ("to make clear, and to state bolding, what it was [she] was up to,")
Summary
  • "point-of-view" is not normally a hyphenated term. Personally I think "perspective" would be a better word.
  • It may help to clarify the construction of the book if you could indicate how the fifteen chapters are organised in the four sections. Are the sections named? Also, the final paragraph of this section refers to the book being in two halves.
  • The second half ends with the chapter "Northing", but the list shows another chapter after this.
Style and genre
  • I think a comma is required after "Although the two works are often compared" (although there are differences in punc styles between AmEng and BritEng).
  • I am struggling with this: "Dillard herself later referred to the "invisible narrator" in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, and the book's narrator—while referring to the "infinite power" of God—asserts that "invisibility is the all-time great 'cover'". Could this be rephrased for greater clarity (and perhaps lose "herself")?
  • Yeesh, this whole thing needed to be rewritten; now it reads: "Dillard seemingly refers to the idea of an "invisible narrator" in the sixth chapter of Pilgrim at Tinker Creek; while referring to the "infinite power" of God, the narrator notes that "invisibility is the all-time great 'cover'"." María (yllosubmarine) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph, two mdash interpolations in rapid succession fracture the prose flow. I suggest: "Nancy C. Parrish, author of the 1998 book Lee Smith, Annie Dillard, and the Hollins Group: A Genesis of Writers notes that despite its having been written in the first person, Pilgrim is not necessarily autobiographical.
  • That book title alerts me to the possible existence of a "Hollins Group" of writers. Was there such a recognised group? There appears to be no other references to it in the article.
  • Not officially, no. Parrish creates a connection between a small group of women writers that came out of Hollins in the late-sixties. Smith and Dillard were friends, but she didn't have any impact on Pilgrim as far as I can tell. María (yllosubmarine) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing and awareness
  • Remove stray comma in first line, after "natural world"
  • Second paragraph: I would omit the first five words and begin "In the book..."
  • I'd also remove the "seeing" repetition, thus: "Pilgrim's second chapter defines two types of seeing: as "verbalization" (active) and as "letting go" (passive)."
  • However, this distinction does not seem to be followed up in the quotations which dominate the remainder of the section.
  • The statement "Furthermore, the structure of the book itself leads to an epiphany of self-awareness" seems somewhat declarative, unless it can be related directly to what the critic Sandra Johnson has said.
Reception and awards
  • I'm a bit surprised to read that "Pilgrim received very little critical attention until more than five years after its publication", bearing in mind that its 29-year-old author won a Pulitzer Prize – surely something that drew attention to the work? Also you follow this statement with quotations from te critics of three national publications, so maybe "very little" is an overstatement.
  • The title of Slovic's book is so long that it's hard to get the sense of the sentence. Is it necessary to give the whole title in the text, since it's given in the sources? Thus: "In his 1992 book the critic Scott Slovic wrote..."

I wonder if it might be worth asking User:Wadewitz for some further comments? She doesn't seem to have much WP time at present, but will do the occassional review, and this is very much in her area of interest. Please let me know when the article is at FAC (although I prowl around there quite often and will probably notice it). Brianboulton (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the great review, Brian! I would love for Wadewitz to review, but I know how incredibly busy she is. I believe I asked last year if she had any interest in reviewing The Red Badge of Courage when it was at FAC, but didn't receive a reply. No worries, though. :) Thanks again! María (yllosubmarine) 20:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James G. Blaine

[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's mostly good, but want to see if there are any weak spots that need improvement before nominating it for Featured Article.

Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Lead:
    • "Blaine was one of the late 19th century's leading Republicans and champion of the moderate reformist faction of the party known as the "Half-Breeds". Nicknamed "the Magnetic Man," he was a charismatic speaker in an era that prized oratory. Blaine was born in western Pennsylvania and moved to Maine and became a newspaper editor." I think you need to move the first two sentences a bit later in the lead so they are chronological, or move them into the first paragraph rather than the second.
    • Probably need to either link to "suffrage" or explain it. Not everyone is going to understand that (I'm sorry to say)
    • "...during the administration of Ulysses S. Grant." You probably want to say "during the presidential administration of Ulysses S. Grant." for those non-Americans.
    • Confused by "Railroad promotion and construction were important in his time, and as a result of his interest and support Blaine was widely suspected of corruption in the awarding of railroad charters..." was he active in promoting railroads? If so, suggest "Railroad promotion and construction were important issues his time, and as a result of his interest and support Blaine was widely suspected of corruption in the awarding of railroad charters..."
    • "His efforts marked the beginning of a more active American foreign policy." what were those efforts?
  • Teacher:
    • "They next lived with the Stanwoods in Augusta, Maine for several months,..." err... why did they go to Maine and who/what were the Stanwoods to them?
    • " ...become editor and co-owner of the Kennebec Journal." probably need to state where this is located.
    • AAHHH! His wife is a native of maine... probably should mention that when you introduce her earlier...
    • You never actually say explicitly that Blaine took the offer of the Kenebec Journal - probably should and note when it was.
  • Maine:
    • "In 1858, Blaine ran for election to the Maine House of Representatives, and was elected.[20] He ran for reelection in 1859, 1860, and 1861, and was successful each time by large majorities." Lots of "elected/election/relection" here .. can we reword a bit?
  • Reconstruction:
    • "...but at the time partisan zeal led him to follow his party's leaders." I assume that means he voted to impeach? MIght need to make this explicit.
  • Monetary policy:
    • Probably want to make it clear that the non-gold-backed-currency was the same as the greenbacks you mention later - it's not clear.
  • Mulligan:
    • "Blaine's ill health combined with the lack of evidence against him to garner him sympathy among Republicans, and when the..." Somethings off here. Perhaps "Blaine's ill health combined with the lack of evidence against him garnered him sympathy among Republicans, and when the..."
  • Plumed knight:
    • Probably want a footnote or something to note that Legislatures selected senators until after Blaine's lifetime.
  • US Senate:
    • "but neither could he join the Republicans led by Conkling—later known as the Stalwarts—who opposed Hayes." Why couldn't he?
  • Garfield's assasination:
    • "Arthur asked all of the cabinet members to postpone their resignations until Congress recessed that December; Blaine tendered his resignation on October 19, 1881 and left office December 19." It's unclear if this action was in conformity with Arthur's desires?
  • Nomination:
    • MIght be worth noting that William T Sherman was John Sherman's older brother (and I might add, both are distant relatives of mine - I think something like third counsins twice removed or something like that.. I'd have to do a huge diagram!)
  • Party leader:
    • "Blaine and his wife and daughters sailed for Europe in June 1887.." daughters? He had daughters? Haven't mentioned them before...
    • "Blaine returned to the United States in August 1888 visited Harrison at his home in October, where twenty-five thousand residents paraded in his honor" two questions - first part is confused, do you mean "Blaine returned to the United States in August 1888 and visited Harrison at his home in October"? And second - who is the "his honor" referred to? Harrison? Blaine? It's not clear
  • General:
Comment from Wehwalt
I may do a PR or comment later at FAC, but one thing I saw from a hasty glance at the article, and that is Blaine's delegate count in 1892. You say 182. The actual figure seems to be 182 1/6, see here (page 141). This is material because McKinley got 182, exactly.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll change it. I wonder who the 1/6 delegate was? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Eisfbnore
  • "Blaine was born in western Pennsylvania and moved to Maine and became a newspaper editor."—I would swap the second 'and' for 'where' to avoid repetitive prose.
  • "He began his politician career as an early supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union war effort in the American Civil War."—politician career? Why not 'political career'?
  • "Initially a protectionist, he later worked for a reduction in the tariff and the expansion of American trade with foreign countries."—I'm not clear why you first use an indef article before 'reduction' and a def article before 'expansion'. I would use indef articles in both places.
  • "Railroad promotion and construction were important issues his time"—are there words missing?
  • "Blaine was widely suspected of corruption in the awarding of railroad charters, allegations that plagued his 1884 presidential candidacy."—it's not clear what the antecedent of 'allegations' is. I would try something down the line of "Blaine was widely suspected of corruption in the awarding of railroad charters; these allegations plagued his 1884 presidential candidacy."
  • "He graduated four years later near the top of his class, delivering the salutatory address in June 1847."—not sure about you, but I loath noun+present participle/gerund/-ing constructions. (see User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing). In fact, I challenge you to remove every third present participle construction in the article!
  • "Blaine did makes his views on the subject known and believed that three-fourths of the non-seceded states would be sufficient to ratify it"—I do hope that the 'did makes' is a typo.
  • "A bipartisan group of inflationists, led by Republican Benjamin F. Butler and Democrat George H. Pendleton, wish to preserve the status quo and allow the Treasury to continue to issue greenbacks and even to use them to pay the interest due on pre-war bonds."—tense issue: the 'wish' should be 'wished'.
  • "Blaine was widely seen as an effective Speaker with a magnetic personality and President Ulysses S. Grant valued his skill and loyalty in leading the House."—this sentence produces a garden path effect: when I read it, I first thought that he was seen as an effective Speaker with a president! The easiest way to get out of it would be, IMO, to place a semicolon after 'personality'.
  • Okay, these are all my quibbles (I read down to '1876 presidential election'). I look forward to seeing this at FAC. Good luck. --Eisfbnore talk 15:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I think I've fixed these. I don't mind gerunds as much as you and Tony do, and I don't think the ones here are as bad as those examples you linked, but I'll try to cut back where it makes the sentence's meaning less clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/February_2012&oldid=485648900"