Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/May 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.

List of Friends characters

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is a list of characters who appeared in the show Friends. It has the "cleanup" tag, so I hope it may not affect your ability to review this list. This list is organized into characters who debuted in their own seasons. I wonder if there is such thing as a Good List rather than a Good Article. If I want this list to be a Featured List, what are required criteria that must be met? Is this list's current arrangement good?

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51 comments: I don't see why this list can not be a WP:FLC; though a FL director (like Giants2008 or The Rambling Man) would be better placed to give judgement. Obviously subsational work needs to be done before it can meet the requirements. You can find the criteria here. Below are a few suggestions having skim read:

It's better if you do a table for each heading or don't do it at all, per WP:CONSISTENCY. Why do 'Only in season six' and 'Only in season eight' guests don't have a table but the others do? I suggest keeping the widths fixed to make it more presentable if you do use the table.

You can if you want to, just that not having a table may not stand up in a FLC nom. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then how can you explain List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters? --George Ho (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was passed in May 2009, guidelines have changed since then. As I've said before, it's best to discuss that with an FLC director: Giants2008 or TRM. They are better advised if a table could be used. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which TRM? --George Ho (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With tables that include rowscopes, use class="wikitable plainrowheaders", not class="wikitable".
  • Why is an image of Jon Favreau inside the box?
  • Try to avoid jargon such as "Kudrow began her comedic career as a member of The Groundlings, joining the ranks of those such as Will Ferrell and Janeane Garofalo." Is that even needed, the reader is looking for a character description. If you want, you could include that below the heading/above the table, ensuring it's properly referenced.
  • Does 'characters' need to be bold in the lead? Nothing mentioned about guest stars in the lead too.
  • Dablink needs fixing.
  • As do some dead links
  • Be consistent with reference date format, '2009-03-08' or 'August 12, 1996'?
  • Descrptions toward the later seasons have airdates in brackets (e.g.: airdate November 21, 2002; Season 9, No. 8). Is that needed?
  • If you are nominating this for FLC sometime in the future, images need WP:ALT
  • Descriptions could do with much work. I haven't scanned for detailed prose issues, but evident some have WP:WEIGHT issues, others not sourced.
  • What constitutes for 'other characters'? For instance, in season eight Chris Parnell, Johnny Messner and Kevin Rahm all guest starred and aren't included. The latter actor probably had more dialogue then Brad Pitt who is mentioned. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev

[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 the article to FAC, and I'd like to meet all the FA requirements beforehand, so I don't waste reviewers' time at FAC. I'd appreciate it if the reviewer were familiar with the FAC process and FA requirements. --TIAYN (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Not sure how this slipped through the cracks, but I saw it had been archived with no comments, so here are some suggestions for improvement. Thanks for your work on this interesting article.

  • I would look carefully at the FA criteria. I am most concenred with criteria 1a "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"; (b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"; and (d) "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias".
  • Some examples of problem prose follow:
    • incorrect use of "whose" Leonid Brezhnev was the leader of the CPSU from 1964 until his death in 1982, whose eighteen-year reign was recognised as the time of social and economic stagnation in the late Soviet Union. This could work as something like Leonid Brezhnev, whose eighteen-year reign was recognised as the time of social and economic stagnation in the late Soviet Union, was the leader of the CPSU from 1964 until his death in 1982.
    • Poor stucture / unclear antecedent for "this" (the previous sentence is about Soviet citizens mourning his death, but the this refers to Andropov's role in the state funeral): When Leonid Brezhnev died on 10 November 1982 Yuri Andropov was elected chairman of the committee in charge of managing his funeral. According to Time magazine Brezhnev's death was mourned by the majority of Soviet citizens.[1] First World commentators saw this as proof that Andropov would become Brezhnev's successor as general secretary.[2]
    • "opinion measurement poll"?? Also try to avoid two uses of "as good" in During the Gorbachev Era Brezhnev's rule was considered less successful then that of Joseph Stalin; in a opinion measurement poll only 7 percent chose the Brezhnev Era as good, while 10 percent picked the Stalin Era as good.[13]
    • Or this could be simpler Historians have expressed criticism for Brezhnev and his rule. Why not "Historians have criticized..."?
    • Missing word? According to Brown "The Brezhnev era was a time when tens of millions of Soviet citizens lived a [more?] peaceful and predictable life than hitherto"
  • Ib comprehensiveness - the chief concern I have is that there is no brief summary of Brezhnev's rule to refer back to. The lead does some of this (which is against the idea of WP:LEAD - the lead is suuposed to be a summary of the article and, as such, should not have anything in it which is not repeated in the body of the article itself).
  • I also expected more on some topics - for example with the gerontocracy, there is no mention made that Brezhnev's two successors each ruled for less than two years (as they were old men to start with). I seem to recall some people saying that Gorbachev's rise to power was a result of dissatisfaction with Andropov and Chernenkov's short times in office and inability to get much done.
  • I do not have any sort of expert knowledge about Brezhnev, but having only five book sources in the Bibliography seems as if it may run afoul of FA criterion 1c "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Why are there no Russian books listed?
  • On looking more closely, I see there are ten books in the refs that are not apprently listed in the Bibliography section. One thing FAC looks at is being consistent - what is the reason for including some books, but not all in the Bibliography?
  • Moving on to 1c, a neutral point of view, I note that the GA review failed the article on neutrality grounds, but still passed it as a GA (which I do not understand, as I thought all criteria had to be met for an article to become a GA).
  • Again I am not an expert, but there is no mention that I could see of human rights, and only one mention each of the KGB and forced labor camps (but that mentiojn is only that his relative was sent to one).
  • Or there is no mention of the SALT I and II treaties, and only one mention of Afghanistan (and no mention of the 1980 Moscow Olympics and the boycotts of those games by the west and the 1984 Los Angeles games by the Warsaw Pact countries).
  • There are lots of little things that would be a problem at FAC, where every i has to be dotted and every t crossed.
  • The article is badly WP:OVERLINKed, both in terms of repeated links and in terms of common terms that do not need links (does the average reader really need a link to economic stagnation when Era of Stagnation has already been linked?)
  • At least one space between punctuation and a ref (saw it reading, not sure now where)
  • I am not sure what the numbers mean in several of these polls A poll by the Public Opinion Fund in September 1999 similarly chose the Brezhnev period as the time in the 20th century when "ordinary people lived best", having a clear majority of 51 to 10. 51 in favor, but what is the 10 for?
  • Being consistent on little things, is it just "VTsIOM" or "the VTsIOM"? (both are used)
  • Any mention of his legacy in the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries - I always think of his kiss with Honecker - see File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F088809-0038, Berlin, East Side Gallery.jpg
  • 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 ><>°°

Thanks, but aren't most of you're points relevant to the Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev article??? Even so, thanks for helping me! :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean. I hope that ALL of my points are relevant to Legacy of Leonid Brezhnev as this is a peer review of the Legacy article. All the PR comments about it were made from reading the Legacy article. After I finished this peer review, I also peer reviewed the Leonid Brezhnev article, but when I did this PR I had not yet read the main Brezhnev article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry.... I ment something else.... Sorry.... :p --TIAYN (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - sorry to come across so grouchy too. Thanks for two interesting articles on Leonid B. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Louie B. Nunn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I brought this article up to GA standards about two years ago and haven't really touched it since. However, I was looking back over it the other day and thinking it might stand a chance at FAC, which would bring me one step closer to my goal of having a Governors of Kentucky featured topic. I'd like feedback on what improvements are needed before the article would pass an FA review. I know it could use more images, but unfortunately, images are tough to come by when the subject is so recent. Also, be aware that the Sigmund Byrd work "The Louie Nunn Story" was one I got on interlibrary loan, so I don't have access to it at the moment. Part of the reason for conducting this peer review is to find out which issues I may need that source to clarify. That way, when I get it on interlibrary loan again, I can make the most efficient use of the time I have access to it.

Thanks, Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments enjoyed the read, just a few comments:

  • "Elected in 1967, he was the first Republican elected" elected...elected... is a little repetitive.
  • You have Dwight D. and Bert T. but not Simeon S. and Thruston Ballard... any reason?
  • "Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Nunn departed for Cincinnati, Ohio and began taking flying lessons, hoping to become a B-17 pilot." ...ing ...ing ...ing not particularly elegant prose.
  • " Cincinnati, Ohio " vs " Wichita Falls, Texas" first one you link the city and not the state, second one you link the whole lot. I would be consistent.
  • "he received a medical discharge on September 13, 1945.[13] He held the rank of corporal at the time of his discharge" consider merging these two.
    • To me, it sounds odd to say "he received a medical discharge with the rank of corporal on September 13, 1945". It's like his rank was some how connected to the injury or something. Maybe it's just me. If you think it sounds OK, I'll make that change. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Glasgow in " now then, I would add Kentucky here since there's a far more well known Glasgow than this one...!
  • "her first marriage.[20] Following Nunn's marriage" avoid the rapid repeat of marriage.
  • "an organization to elect Nunn.[23] Nunn defeated his " Use "He" instead of repeating Nunn.
  • "to 4,378.[23] He was" merge, "to 4,378, and became"
  • No need to relink Glasgow.
  • "who threw his support to " I normally throw my support behind someone rather than to them. Is this an Americanism?
    • I have heard it both ways here.
  • "(Unsigned bills become law after ten days under the Kentucky Constitution, in contrast to the pocket veto provision in the federal constitution.) - this seems a little odd tagged on here, maybe make it a footnote.
  • Not sure there's much need to actually wikilink President of the United States...
  • I also think "curfew" is a common word which doesn't need linking, but others may disagree.
  • "He served as a distinguished lecturer at Western Kentucky University and received the Distinguished Alumni Award from" don't think you need the first (potentially POV) "distinguished" since the second is confirmed by the award.
  • "between Steve Nunn and his father" just "between him and his father"
  • None of the "ancestors" appear notable and the family tree is unreferenced (as far as I can see) so I'm not entirely sure of its utility.
    • This comes up a lot. It's something Spacini (talk · contribs) has been working on for the Kentucky Historical Society. I think he just sources it to public records. I've typically considered it harmless, especially since it is collapsed. Besides, some folks might be interested in working on the article because of some kind of genealogical connection to the subject. That was what got me working on Archibald Dixon, although I never found a familial connection between us. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. These are helpful comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Mark Arsten (talk)
  • "He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree at Bowling Green Business University." Do you know which year he graduated?
  • "On June 17, 1953, Nunn declared as a Republican candidate for county judge.[22] He was unopposed in the Republican primary.[22]" Maybe try to combine these two? They're fairly short.
    • Done.
  • "Nunn also attacked Cook for his Catholic faith, a tactic that proved particularly effective with the state's rural and Protestant voters." Do you mean it proved effective with rural protestants, or rural people in general as well as Protestants in general? Also, you start consecutive sentences with "Nunn..." here.
    • After reexamining the source, it seems there were two different issues in play. The Catholic faith turned off the Protestant voters, while Cook's urban roots (he was from Louisville) worked against him with rural voters. Fixed. Also fixed the consecutive "Nunn" sentences.
      • I guess that does make sense.
  • This might be unactionable here, but "During the campaign, Nunn charged that Democrats wanted to raise taxes to pay for administrative inefficiencies." interested me. That's what we expect Republicans to generally say these days, was that the case back then too?
    • Probably. My knowledge of the general subject matter says he probably bolstered his charge beyond the normal national Republican talking points by pointing out that Democrats had held basically all of the executive offices in the state for two decades, and their near-monolithic hold on that branch of government had created more inefficiencies due to a lack of competition. The source doesn't necessarily support that this was the case here, but it was a common theme for Republicans in Kentucky, dating back to the days of William O'Connell Bradley before the turn of the 20th century. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, well, I guess there's only so much that you can do here.
  • Made it about halfway through the article, it's looking pretty good thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the rest:
  • You might want to link "law-and-order philosophies" to Law and order (politics).
  • "In May 1970, Nunn again dispatched the Guard to quell protests against the Vietnam War at the University of Kentucky including the imposition of a curfew that interfered with final examinations." I'm a little confused by this sentence, who imposed the curfew?
  • "Historian Thomas D. Clark called Nunn the strongest of Kentucky's eight Republican governors." Might want to note when he said this (if there have been more than eight by now).
    • There have only been eight, which means the statement would have to have been made between Fletcher's election in 2003 and Clark's death in 2005. Unfortunately, Clark is quoted by another author in the source, and no date is given, so it would be difficult to pinpoint an exact year. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He continued backing Republican candidates, including his support of Ronald Reagan in 1975." The significance of this might be lost on people who are unaware of political history. It might be too much detail, but maybe note that Reagan was challenging the incumbent here.
  • In the second paragraph of "Later career" you start three consecutive sentences with "He..." I would avoid that by starting the middle one by noting the time "In the 1990s, (or whenever) he..."
  • A few short sentences over the last three paragraphs, maybe think about combining some.
  • There's a link inside a quote in the second to last paragraph, I think the MOS suggests against that (but it's an often flouted suggestion).
  • Alright, that was an easy article to read. As long as you're not leaving anything important out, I think you'll do Ok at FAC with this. Feel free to ping me when you do nominate it. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar

[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 would like to list this article as a Featured Article Candidate shortly. It underwent a peer review earlier this year before being awarded GA, and now it needs FA-level scrutiny. I would especially appreciate an outside perspective to make sure the prose is cohesive, since there's been a lot of copying, pasting and shuffling of content in the development of the article. Thanks, Lemurbaby (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments...I've done a few edits to adjust some non-breaking space issues, and a couple metric/imperial conversion additions...there are more that may still need to be cleaned up.
    • Watch for consistency of non-breaking spaces...MOS:NBSP...it is especially best used when joining a number to an abbreviated word such as ft. or AD.
    • Not a fan of references in the middle of a sentence...though I don't think there is a guideline that suggests this be avoided. Prefer the ref to be at end of sentence since from my perspective this makes the article easier to edit, especially for those less familiar with wiki-markup.
    • Watch for consistency in wording...such as spelling out "percent" or simply typing %....either used with consistency seems fine.
    • For the international audience, I linked to United States dollar and abbreviated USD...there might be a better way to do this....either as USD for every monetary mention or simply $ after the first linked mention.
    • I didn't see any in my cursury glance, but make sure the dates mentioned follow the same wording format for consistency...such as 26 June 1960 or June 26, 1960.
    • Images should right hand margin at beginning of each section or be left hand margin after first paragraph...see MOS (I've gone and taken care of this matter and set the default in individual images to float px)...the first tier of 5 images in the Geography section has page run-off..they are all wonderful images, but some might complain about the run-off depending on their browser settings...
    • Though it shouldn't drown out the focus of the article, which is Madagascar...to most in the English speaking world, the plight of the the ecosystem there is what most hear about. This seems to be less emphasized than I think it should be and I believe that most readers of this article are going to want to know more about this issue before they click to the daughter articles linked at the top of that section on Environmental challenges. I think several more paragraphs on this matter would be beneficial. otherwise, the other sections seem to cover the various topics well and meet summary style.
  • I'll check back in on this in a few days...--MONGO 01:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I will be on the road (or in the air) for the next several days and will not have an opportunity to begin addressing your comments until Saturday evening, but I will get back to you then. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plant on a chip

[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…

1- English should be checked. 2- Other references (if any) should be included. 3- The broader impacts of the invention should be written. 4- The details how the device was fabricated should be written. 5- Include any possible images to describe the device. - Pay attention to copyrights! 6- More details on how the device function and what are the possible implications within the field. 7- Compare the device to current technologies. (more details) 8- Explain the current research activity within the field. 9- List broader impacts.

Thanks, Yetisen (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the possible exception of "English should be checked" (for which WP:GOCE/REQ may be more suitable), these are not really things that the peer review process is supposed to be for; they are more the sort of suggestions that you might well get from a peer reviewer. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments per Allens' comments, this is not a place for us to research and expand this article further, merely to reflect on what may be improved in the article as it stands. So as such, I recommend you do your own writing and image inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fauré

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Apologies for troubling peer reviewers twice within two years, but having bothered you in advance of GAN in 2010 I take the liberty of bothering you again for a pre-FAC review of a much-expanded article. I got unexpected flak from a single editor here in re the related article on Fauré's piano music, and I'll be grateful if reviewers will particularly give their views on whether the present article is satisfactorily placed on the accessibility–technical continuum. But also, of course, on anything else. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cg2p0B0u8m

I wonder about recordings. If you do a search in the CHARM database (http://www.charm.rhul.ac.uk/discography/search/search_simple) you get 1,178 results, so there may be early recordings missing (you can extract it as a file). Also Kathleen's long-lost sister Marguerite made two records of the Ballade, one of which is earlier: http://hector.ucdavis.edu/Sdc/Recordings/Index/CompPage6.html I hope this helps. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You bet it helps! Thank you so much. I shall enjoy rummaging in the CHARM archives. (Do you suppose Kathleen Long longed for her long-lost sister?) Tim riley (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CHARM was most instructive on early recordings. More than 100 by 1905! I have added accordingly. Thank you very much for this. Tim riley (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I did a long review last time round; I think this will be a little shorter. The article is well-advanced towards FA quality, and needs but a little final polishing. Here are my comments and suggestions on the biographical parts; I will get to the music parts later.

Lead
  • Note 1 would be better at the end of, rather than in the middle of, Faure's birth & death dates.
  • This sentence doesn't read well (I think it is overlong and overcomplicated in structure): "When he became successful in the 1890s holding the important posts of organist of the Église de la Madeleine and, from 1904, director of the Paris Conservatoire, he still lacked time for composing, retreating to the countryside in the summer holidays to concentrate on composition."
  • "Outside France, Fauré had many admirers in Britain..." Are the first two words really necessary? And the "many ... many" repetition in the sentence jars a bit
Early years
  • How do you actually pronounce "Faoure"? Rhymes with "Maori" or "Lowry" (L.S.) I suspect, but perhaps make that clear.
    • Alas, having told us that the local pronunciation is "Faoure" Nectoux doesn't offer any phonetic help such as a rhyme. He doesn't put an accent on the "e", but I can't believe this means it wasn't voiced – all final "e"s seem to be voiced in the South of France, whether accented or not. I have it in my mind's ear as trisyllabic: "Fa-oor-eh". Perhaps I should leave it out? Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was he sent to a foster-mother? This seems a strange step, if the family was not dysfunctional or impoverished, and there's no hint of that.
    • Common practice at the time, it seems from the sources, especially for an afterthought baby such as Fauré was, though he remained away from his family longer than was usual for reasons that are not clear. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First musical appointments
  • Pedant's corner: there can only be one "first" of anything, so "first appointments is illogical. How to resolve without resorting to "early" again is, however, tricky.
  • I imagine there is a link for Croix de Guerre.
  • "...during the Commune between March and May 1871" Recommended rephrase: "between March and May 1871 during the period of the Commune".
  • Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Middle years
  • I think we should be told who the elaborately named Winnaretta de Scey-Montbéliard was, especially as her link article calls her by a different name. (I believe there is a sewing-machine connection, and are you sure about "Winnaretta"? My book calls her "Winnarette" (Steen, The Lives and Times of the Great Composers).
    • I've footnoted her aliases. "Winnaretta" is definitely correct; Steen is wrong. (I like his line, "Verlaine and Fauré were brought together by Winnarette Singer, whose father Isaac had patented a sewing machine" – one feels she is about to lock-stitch them together.)
Head of Paris Conservatoire
  • First paragraph, last line: is the word "repertoire" the right one in this context? The Conservatoire was not, after all, a performing body.
  • I think this is a reprise of a point I raised at the last PR, concerning the first mention of the famed Requiem. I really do think that a brief mention of its composition and early performances in the 1880s should be made in the appropriate chronological section, rather than encountering the work for the first time here.
Last years and legacy

End of Part One. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Music
  • More pedantry, perhaps, but what is your standard for "surname-only" usage? We have "Schoenberg", yet "Jean-Philippe Rameau" and, of course, "Aaron Copland" even though he has been mentioned earlier. Do Edward and Desmond really warrant surname only on first mention?
    • Not pedantry in the least, and thank you for spotting Rameau: he was an oversight and is now shorn of his first names. Ed and Des don't really warrant surname only, but I am reluctant to inflict their combined 37 bluelinked characters on the poor reader's eyeball.
  • Penelope: it may make sense to reverse the order of mention of the Wexford and London revivals, for chronology and to end the section on an upbeat note. When was the London revival, incidentally?
  • Piano works: First paragraph lacks any citation. Second para should not begin with a pronoun.
  • "Fauré's best-known orchestral works are the orchestral suites..." Can we avoid the close repetition (particularly as "orchestration" or "orchestrated" appears frequently in the remainder of the paragraph)?
  • "His other chamber music includes..." Should this be "comprises", if the listing is complete?
    • It's by no means complete. There are several exquisite miniatures for chamber forces, such as the Sicilienne for cello and piano, the Elegy for the same instruments, the Berceuse for violin and piano, the Fantasie for flute and piano, and more besides. I might do an omnium gatherum article on his chamber music at some point, but I don't think these morceaux need to be mentioned in the present one. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who made the the "ceaseless flow and restricted colour scheme..." observation? Likewise ""an extraordinary work by any standards..."? My practice is always to attribute verbatim critical comments.

That does it. Clear and lucid as always, not much missed here. Onwards and upwards. Brianboulton (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this. It will be a pleasing weekend task to work through your points. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for these points. Some decided improvements arise from them, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MistyMorn comments:

I think this is excellent material for the Main page of Wikipedia, both as regards subject matter, documentation and presentation. The length and level of detail seems to me to be about right, allowing smooth general reading while providing resources for further reading. The prose is polished, as we have come to expect from the principal editor, Tim Riley. Personally, I particularly appreciated the way in which this article on Fauré seems to thread a seamless course between the musical worlds of Saint-Saëns and Copland. The choice of illustrations and layout is also excellent, imo.

A couple of pedantic details:

  • Early years:' "...sixth child of... They had six children, of whom the composer was the youngest." Somehow seems a tad repetitive.
    • Indeed! I'd simply not spotted the repetition (how difficult it is to proof-read one's own prose!) and have now corrected this dereliction.
  • First musical appointments: "After France's defeat by Prussia there was a brief, bloody conflict within Paris during the Commune between March and May 1871.[28]" A slight loss of focus here, perhaps, and I wonder whether Duchen's support is strictly necessary.—MistyMorn (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slightly recast as suggested above, but I want to make the point that all Hell broke loose in Paris and that Fauré got away from it; and think we must have a citation, surely? Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another one going down to silly point... Just my limited understanding of WP & FA style perhaps, but my pedantic hat questions the need for a sentence about a renowned historical event to be referenced by the biography of a composer. Perhaps because the lede, at least, of the linked article is so brief? —MistyMorn (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More matter for an April morning. Many thanks! I shall have an agreeable weekend going through your suggestions along with Brianboulton's, above. Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for these points. If I could trouble you further apropos the first two I'd be in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have me on the back foot. Grainger? No Fauré source known to me mentions him, and I am intrigued to know why you think of him in this context. Tim riley (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Tim. That ball really was wide of the mark. Fauré did meet Grainger in London in 1907; along with Grieg and Delius, Fauré was one of the few living composers with whom, I think, Grainger felt a miniaturist's affinity. But with Fauré no particular friendship developed. And my suggestion went straight to silly short leg... —MistyMorn (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt. Sorry for the delay. Here's what I have
Lede:
  • "French republic" I would suggest capitalization and a pipe to French Third Republic.
  • " Outside France, Fauré had many admirers in Britain" May I suggest "In Britain, Fauré had many admirers in his lifetime, but his music took many more years to become widely accepted in other countries."
Biography
  • "display any musical talent" Strike "any"
  • "civil service, and his sister had a conventional life as the wife of a civil servant."
  • "His duties there were not demanding, but he wrote several canticles and motets, most of which have not survived." Why the but? Unless it was done as part of his duties? Clarify.
  • " to promote new French music" consider moving earlier in sentence.
  • "1877 was a significant year" is it usual to begin a sentence with a numeral?
  • " to which subordinate post " Suggest rephrase.
  • "pursued for the rest of his life" Maybe "indulged ..."
  • "horreur du domicile" can this be translated?
  • in the composer squares image, I suggest seeking the services of the Graphics Lab to see if they can play with the colours.
  • "Being written for outdoor performance," I find the "being" beginning somewhat informal. Can you rephrase?
  • "partly brought on " brought on in part?
  • " including members of Les six, who were devoted to him" All six were? or just some of them? I suggest clarification here, if only a "the" before the "members"
  • "He declined, on the grounds " I would throw an "initially" in there
  • "Conservatoire reverted to its former conservatism" I'd avoid the use of similar words.
Music
  • "By contrast," What is being contrasted?
  • "presented in London in 1970 A student production " Problem here.
  • " during several decades in his long career" This reads a bit awkwardly.
  • " Fauré fully emerged from any predecessor's shadow." This is opiniony enough it probably needs inline attribution.
Modern assessment
  • "French song, and that alongside the songs" too much song.

Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these points. I'll enjoy working through them over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my little grey cells have run out! I see I have completely neglected to follow up the above points. Base ingratitude! I'll remedy this dereliction forthwith. Abject apologies Tim riley (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All attended to. There wasn't one with which I disagreed, and I have acted on all your suggestions. I was particularly glad of the comment about Les six, as it reminded me to add, as I had earlier meant to, that Poulenc was the dissenting member of the six, and disliked Fauré's music. Hearty thanks! Tim riley (talk) 09:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think all outstanding points are now dealt with, and I'm closing this peer review, with warmest thanks to the contributors. Tim riley (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

[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 a good look and feel, with enough information after adding the presidency section. Would require a peer review before a FA.

Thanks, -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't over link Chancellor, or Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology Thiruvananthapuram.  Done
  • Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.  Done
  • "is a renowned aerospace engineer who served as the 11th President of India from 2002 to 2007" shouldn't that be the other way round, that he was India's president foremost, then an aerospace engineer? Have worked on the sentence, can you just let me know if it looks good? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link "professor".  Done
  • Our article on "Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology Thiruvananthapuram" is Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology.  Done
  • "engineer with Defence Research" -> with the Defence...?  Done
  • "and Indian Space " ditto, "and the Indian..."  Done
  • No need to link "corruption".  Done
  • "Kalam also has " -> "He also has...  Done
  • "playing the veenai musical instrument .[5]"-> "playing the veenai.[5]"  Done
  • Don't keep repeating Kalam on every line, do please try to vary the prose, referring to him (where unambiguous) as he or him would be great.
  • Don't put spaces between punctuation and refs.  Done
  • Don't "re-abbreviate", i.e. you've already said ISRO and linked it in the lead, so you just need to use ISRO (unlinked) subsequently.  Done
  • Don't overlink DRDO.  Done
  • Don't bold text unnecessarily.  Done
  • Put spaces between refs and text that follow them.  Done
  • "Kalam along with Vladimir Putin and Manmohan Singh during his presidency." not a complete sentence so no need for a full stop.  Done
  • "Main article: Pokhran-II" not at all a "main article" about the "criticisms of APJ". Perhaps a "see also".  Done
  • "Issues with American security authorities" odd heading level.  Done
  • "with Kalam trending on Twitter and was also the top most searched keyword on Google India." refs please.  Done
  • 79th (i.e no need for superscript).  Done
  • "Name of Award or Honor" in all table headings, do not unnecessarily capitalise nouns which are not proper nouns.  Done
  • USA or U.S.A.?  Done
  • "A.P.J.Abdul Kalam" or "A.P.J. Abdul Kalam"? Its A. P. J. Abdul Kalam:  Done
  • "Books 2005 [73]" don't put a space there..  Done
  • Consistent date format in the refs please. Question?: I'm not sure, what you are saying about. All the dates are in DMY format, so where are we going wrong? Would be great if you can point it out! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Familial aortic dissection

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This is my first wikipedia article contribution and I want to make sure it reads like an encyclopedia should. Thanks, LOTakara (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
  • First sentence: "Familial aortic dissection is thought to be an autosomal dominant inherited disease that will result in dissection of the aorta, and dissecting aneurysm of the aorta, or rarely aortic or arterial dilation at a young age, yet the basic defect remains unknown." - need to break this into 2 or 3 sentences; perhaps use simpler terminology (laypeople will read the intro paragraphs: the more technical discussion can be later, in the body of the article).
  • First sentence: the very first sentence (after you break it up) needs to plainly state what the disease is ... the cause (genetic) can be in 2nd or 3rd sentence. Also, "... is though to be .." is dangerous: what exactly is uncertain? I suppose you are talking about genetic nature of the disease, but a reader might think that clause is applying to other facts in the sentence, such as "will result in ..". etc.
  • Diagrams? - The article would be much better if there were an illustration showing what this is about. Even a schematic sketch, as a last resort. If none is available, consider using InkScape (free drawing software) to draw one yourself and upload to WP.
  • "FAD is not to be confused ... "- All acronyms must be defined before used. FAD is not defined.
  • External Links: this section should be below References. Also: what is special about that one link? Why have it? There are plenty of sources listed in the References section already.
  • "... is the best prognosis in most cases[7]." - The period goes before the footnote. So it should be " is the best prognosis in most cases.[7]"
  • Section titles: Do not make them boldface
  • Section depth: Sections shoud be two == or three === deep. Four deep ==== should only be used as a subsection under a 3-deep ====.
  • More links: Add links to all terms that will not be clear to a layman; e.g. MRI, TEE, etc
  • InfoBox in upper right corner? - I notice that many articles on diseases have an InfoBox in the UR corner. Although not mandatory, many readers may find them useful. The infobox is {{Infobox disease}} - consider copy/pasting from another article to get started.
  • References: - It would be nice to have a list of 2 or 3 sources that summarize this topic; so a reader that is interested in more detail could go to another source and get more info. The footnotes are great, but there are 19 of them, and it is hard to know which one is best, most authoritative. Consider renaming the "References" section to "Footnotes" and then create a new section "References" that lists 2 or 3 best sources for readers to go to when they need more. Maybe that was your intention for the "External links" section, if so, that is okay, but "External Links" often are for minor/incidental information ... "References" lets the reader know the items listed are more essential.
  • How common? - I don't see a mention of how common this is. Is there a statistic for, say, number of cases per year in the US?
  • Stub notice: - You can remove the "this article is a stub" notice at the bottom of the article.
  • Reword - "Normally associated with Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlo syndrome, and various other genetic disorders which affect the connective tissues of the cardiovascular system, there are various mechanisms by which the medial layers of the lumen are stressed and eventually lead to dilation and tearing." - Consider breaking into 2 sentences: it is a bit long and convoluted now.
  • Prose quality - Overall, the prose is decent quality: straightforward, factual, and concise. It could flow a bit better, but it is not bad, and the other improvements (listed above) are more important that working on the prose.
  • Summary: it is a good start of an article. I suggest that you address the items above you agree with, then submit it to WP:GAN for Good Article recognition.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irish stepdance

[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 doing major work on this article and am at a slight stump on how to improve it.

Thanks, ReelAngelGirl Talk to me! Tea? 17:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

outside my bailiwick

[edit]

This is well outside my bailiwick as I am a male bunhead. The extent of step dance is that I wear a very soft jazz shoe — similar to a ghillie — from Capezio that they call the Fizzion. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]
  1. lead: greatly contributed to its popularity ("to" needed).
  2. MOS:REFPUNC conformance: no space before ref tag, tags follow punctuation.
  3. Roots: "... are a product of modern times.". Remove the second full stop.
  4. Roots: need a bit more explanation of Connemara, Munster and perhaps other styles, what is distinctive about each?
  5. Roots: use {{lang|ga|An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha}} for Gaelic words, here and elsewhere (see for example Irish Dance).
  6. Roots: Philadelphia-born
  7. Roots: last three paras really need a reference each.
  8. Group dance: CLRG appears without explanation: full name with acronym in parentheses on first occurrence.
  9. Costume: unreferenced
  10. Competitive costumes: this section needs copyediting for style, spelling. References to prices are problematic, need at least the year, probably as a note next to the first mention of a price.
  11. Competitive costumes: {{clear left}} at end of section so next section title follows the image.
  12. Shoes: unreferenced.
  13. Hard shoes: ... is, unlike the tap shoe, made ... (extra comma needed) also wikilink for tap shoe?
  14. Soft shoes: capitalise Oxford.
  15. Soft shoes: {{clear left}} at end of section so next section title follows the image.
  16. Competition structure: unreferenced.
  17. Competition structure: no need for bold here, italics will do.
  18. In the media: which that --> which.
  19. In the media: no need for bold here.
  20. In the media: first para unreferenced.
  21. References: need tidying up with titles instead of bare links, authors, dates, publisher, access date etc as necessary. I suggest using {{cite web}} and friends.

Happy editing...

References, prose

[edit]
  1. The flags are a little harsh, but accurate. References are needed for all statements which might, in principle, be queried by a normal intelligent reader. I believe there is a lack of good reference books in many areas of popular dance, so I have sympathy with editors who work on dance article. Personally, I keep a stack of books on topics I edit regularly, because the web is such an erratic source of information.
  2. The prose is variable, and (in places) rather poor. Some sentences go on far too long, and much needs rewriting to say the same things more clearly and crisply. I really hate seeing phrases like "Judges critique performances.." As prose, that's just rubbish. What judges do is mark performances. The complete sentence is "Judges at competitions critique the dancers primarily on their performance, but they also take into account presentation". There then follows a long section on costumes, which is maybe what 'presentation' means. Is it? And how do judges mark performances? Most dance teacher organisations have explicit rules as to how competitions are judged. Readers might want to know more.
  3. Where graphics are placed both left and right on a page there is always the possibility of the text flow being compromised. Text is primary for the reader, illustrations are secondary. Therefore in some places the graphics files need to be shifted over to the right.
  4. Dances like reels, jigs and the hornpipe are obviously not (or not particularly) Irish dances in their origin, and care should be taken not to make claims which others may see as overly nationalistic. Perhaps what was meant is that they were reinterpreted as Irish step dances? I don't know; the language is not clear.
  5. Mirokado's point #3: I would remove the first full point, because the quote is internal to the sentence, and sentences are ended by full points. Anyway, do something!
  6. Lastly, I do not think the article is in bad shape. Apart from references, many of its problems are in, well... presentation! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation and quotes

(point 5) Please see MOS:LQ. If the full stop is in the original text it goes inside the quote (which is what I was assuming), otherwise outside. --Mirokado (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Macdonalc-ross, the presentation can be improved. Regarding the references, it might be a topic requiring more references from actual books vs. internet. It's part of the Irish culture and I am sure there is a lot of historic reference available. Anyone from Ireland whiling to help? I find myself having a hard time finding pictures on the right then on the left. It might not be a big issue for everyone out here, but it does feel more "readable" to have everything set under a similar format. For example having the picture of the "soft shoes" and the "hard shoes" both on the right or left. Hope it helps a little.TrailerTrack (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Aptitude

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is a class project, please feel free to review and provide suggestions.

Thanks, Coxdc (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
  • Stray quote mark: " ... female score differential." " That quote mark on the end is wrong?
  • Oh, wait, it looks like the entire lead paragraph is one huge quote. That is not appropriate: You have to write the lead yourself, summarizing what the sources say.
  • Lead: "According to Paul Muchinsky in his textbook Psychology Applied to Work, "Mechanical aptitude ..."" - The first few sentences in the lead need to give a neutral statement in the encyclopedia's voice. It is okay to quote a source in the middle of the article, but the first couple of sentences need to be your distillation.
  • Too informal - " no matter which exam you take." - Need a more professional, encyclopedic tone: "no matter" is to slangy.
  • Section "Background Information" - It looks like that is a stub section that you have not yet written. You need to finish that.
  • Section "Bennett Test of Mechanical Comprehension" - It looks like that is a stub section that you have not yet written. You need to finish that.
  • Based on the sections that are completed, it appears that you have a decent writing style.
  • Footnotes: the WP:V policy requires more footnotes: ideally one per sentence; but you can do one per paragraph, provided that the paragraph is cohesive and entirely based on one source.
  • I think I'll pause the review ... I recommend that you (a) finish the two sections that are stubs; (b) add more footnotes (ideally one per sentence); and (c) rewrite the lead in your own words (see WP:LEAD also). After doing that, notify me (on my Talk page) and I'll resume the review.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Percheron

[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 buff it in preparation for FAC. It had a GAN in 2010 and in 2011 was improved with the help of a French editor who has taken the article to FA status on that wiki. As usual, thoughts on jargon are especially appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This looks like a great article with which to get back into the reviewing groove. I will give more detailed comments later, but here are a few picked up from my initial skim-read:-

  • "After going through various incarnations and stud books, the current US Percheron registry was created in 1934." Lack of clarity: what actually went through "various incarnations and stud books"? Surely not "the current US Percheron registry".
  • To me it seems more logical to put the Characteristics section after rather than before the History section, since History serves as the general introduction to the breed. But maybe there is an agreed format for horse breed articles?
  • Comment: This is part of the standardized organizational structure for the Horse Breeding task force of wikiproject Equine. Though there is an argument that history makes sense to put first chronologically, the section can be quite long, and what 10-year-old horse crazy girls want for their school essay is what the horse looks like! So putting the characteristics first, before history, makes a lot more sense. LOL! Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but I feel that the section needs an introductory sentence explaining that Percherons are bred in a range of sizes. I also see that the size discussion only covers French and American Percherons, although the British are named as "extensive users" in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the Characteristic section I found the word "preferred" in the first sentence quite odd. I assume the meaning is "more common", and perhaps this would be a clearer form of words.
  • I saw a couple of "partiallys" which I think should be "partly"
  • Sorry to demonstrate my urban British roots, but what exactly is a "hayride" (as in "I'll never forget the moment we kissed/The night of the hayride")? It sounds as though I might have missed out on something.
  • You've definitely missed something, especially if you've never been on a haunted hayride :) I've linked to the article on hayrides (which I was somewhat surprise to find we had). Basically something people in the country sometimes do for fun (or charge tourists quite a bit of money to do for fun!), although it was more common in decades past. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the initial review, Brian! I look forward to your further comments. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brian, and also thanks to Dana for all her hard work on this one! Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments:-

Characteristics
  • Looking at the 1904 photograph, and at File:Boulonnais-stlo.jpg, I am struck by the relatively short but extremely thick and powerful legs which seem to characterise the breed. I would have expected a mention of this in this section.
  • Thick legs and neck are draft traits, generally - The Percheron is actually considered a somewhat less heavy and more agile type of draft horse and I wonder if Dana should reexamine that French photo, its title says "Boulonnais" which is a different French draft breed. The commons narrative says it's a Percheron, but the original Flickr source is now gone. We can look at the breed standard as far as whether the breed is to be particularly noted for those traits, though. --MTBW
  • I took a look at the picture... Although this Flickr page was taken down, there is still another up from the same user on the same day of apparently the same horse, and it is described as a Percheron. Also the Haras National du Pin doesn't breed Boulonnais, only Percherons, so I would be surprised to see one included in a demonstration of the stud's horses. Dana boomer (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good to me; the French horses are somewhat heavier than the American ones, aren't they? That or just fat and cresty! ;-) Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are described as proud and alert..." Since the subject of the previous sentence is "the feet and legs", "They" will not do. Thus: "Percherons are described..."
  • Fixed -- MTBW
History
  • "...the former Perche province through which the river runs." What river is this?
  • You're right, there is no Perche River. I cut that bit --- MTBW
  • I would prefer "ancestry" to "ancestors", and in this usage you should say "some time" rather than "sometime".
  • "Other possibilities were..." → "Other possibilities are..."
  • Theories do not "state"; they "suggest" or "propose" (or similiar)
  • Tried "posits". Hope that worked -- MTBW
  • These horses were almost completely gray, with paintings and drawings from the Middle Ages almost always showing French knights on gray horses." Needs tweaking, perhaps "These horses were almost completely gray; paintings and drawings from the Middle Ages almost always show French knights on gray horses."
  • Rephrased, a little differently altogether to fix nuance. Hope that worked-- MTBW
19th century
  • "also" in first line has no reference point - suggest delete
  • Done --MTBW
  • In a paragraph labelled "19th century" it is strange, in the second paragraph, to see "In 1966..."; "Since 1911..."; "By 1910..." etc, and a lot of stuff relevant to the First World War. So perhaps this is two separate subsections, or the title needs revising.
  • I moved stuff around, split between different sections and threw some material up into the characteristics section hope it's better. --MTBW
In the United States and Great Britain
  • "significantly" and "significant" in close proximity (I have copyedited a few other repetitions)
  • "resulting in..." → "which led to..." I suggest you split this sentence after "1898" because otherwise it gets too long and convoluted.
  • Is "gait" normally pluralised? "Gaits" reads strangely in British English
  • Can go either way, but here they were probably talking about the trot anyway, so made it a singular. --MTBW
20th century and today
  • Sold for francs in the US and Canada? Any ideas of what this meant in US dollars?
  • It seems odd to me, given that the main WWI battles were in France, that the British army imported 400 horses from France to Britain only to send them back to France for use in the trenches. Seems like a couple of unnecessary channel crossings; maybe you should recheck the source to see if they were actually "imported"?
  • "and this organization is still functioning today" - needs to be time specific, e.g. "as of 2012"
  • "This popularity was attributed to the breed's "strength, energy, activity, robustness and endurance." Opinion needs specific attribution as well as citation
  • "Breeding stallions were selected to be the largest and heaviest possible". They weren't selected "to be the largest..." etc, they were selected because they were the largest. Suggest flip the sentence: "The largest and heaviest horses were selected as breeding stallions".
  • Please check on the wikilinking of "gray", which occurs several times in the early parts of the article and again here.
  • Fixed--MTBW
  • "By 1988 there were 1,088 Percherons in the United States and 2,257 in 1998". Clumsy formulation, needs redrafting, e.g. "There were 1,088 Percherons in the United States in 1988; by 1998 this had risen to 2,257."
  • Fixed--MTBW
  • I assume that 2009 is the latest year for which registry figures are available. As this is now several years ago, the use of the present tense thereafter is inappropriate. Thus "As of 2009, the Percheron Horse Association of America had horses registered in all 50 states, and had nearly 3,000 members, with around 2,500 new horses being registered annually."
  • Fixed--MTBW
Uses
  • "Percherons are used for parades, sleigh rides and hayrides..." - are we still in France, or does this ned to be prefaced by "In the United States..."? Perhaps reorder the paragraph so that all the French/European information is together, and all the US information is likewise consolidated.
  • A point of general stylish consistency: decide whether you are going to use ndashes with gaps around (per penultimate sentence), or mdashes without gaps (per earlier in the article).

That's about it on prose and general content. Check out my minor copyedits. As I won't be watching indivdual review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have any isues arising from this review, or if you would like me to take another look. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note for posterity, I think that Montana and I have addressed all of the above comments. Thank you very much for your review, Brian! Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri River

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Despite having a majority of support votes, this article failed its 4th FAC a few weeks ago because of significant spotchecking issues. I'm taking this to PR in the hope that an editor will be willing to go over the referencing in this article, which "does not appear to have been done carefully" according to the reviewer who resultantly brought down the FAC in its final days.

Thanks, Shannºn 05:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments As you know, I peer reviewed this before, but missed its recent FAC. Since reading the latest FAC, I have looked at the article with a much more critical eye on its references and sourcing and can see why there are concerns. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources as the information must be verifiable (and to avoid original research). Reading this article while paying closer attention to references and sources used, I can see why references are a concern - the refs I checked are not wrong, but many of them do not fully back up the claims made in the sentences or paragraphs they are supposed to support. I also found statements that needed a ref but were not in the ref cited, and even some information in refs I checked that did not seem to be in the article. In short, this article is something of a mess when it comes to references.

I will point out as many examples as I can of places that need to be checked / cleaned up, but I do not have the time or access to all of the refs used to check everything.

Looking at the Geobox and Course sections
  • I started with something simple, the source and here there are issues with both references and consistency. First off the USGS page for the river here says in part that it is "The longest river in the United States. Heads in Montana at the junction of the Jefferson River and the Madison River..." The problem looking at the Geobox is that there are both a primary source and a secondary source listed, as well as the confluence of the Jefferson and Madison. For the primary source the Geobox has "Brower's Spring", which at least one source identifies as the ultimate source of the Jefferson, but the ref used is the USGS GNIS page for Hell Roaring Creek and that does not mention the spring or the fact that this ultimately flows into the Jefferson and then the Missouri. The map in the GNIS page for Hell Roaring Creek does show the location of the source, but it is not named and appears to be a small lake or pond, not a spring. The Geobox also names the secondary source, but this is now the Madison River, not whatever the ultimate source of the Madison River is (the Geobox is inconsistent as to how it deals with these two river's sources). The confluence froming the Missouri is cited to the USGS GNIS page for the Missouri River, so that is OK.
  • The Brower's Spring claim appears to only be supported by one ref used in the article, the story "The True Utmost Reaches of the Missouri" in Montana Outdoors magazine here. Although it is used in the article, it is not cited as the ultimate source of the Missouri in the Geobox or in the Course section. I would cite the article in both the Geobox and Course sections. I would also look at what the Montana Outdoors article says, as its last sentence says "The total distance is 3,745 miles, making this great American river system the world’s third longest, after the Nile and the Amazon." The MO article is cited only once in the Wikipedia article, and is used only to back up this sentence in this article: Thus measured to its highest headwaters, the Missouri River stretches for 2,639 miles (4,247 km). When combined with the lower Mississippi, the Missouri and its headwaters form part of the fourth-longest river system in the world, at 3,745 miles (6,027 km).[41] While the total length matches the Montana Outdoors article, its rank in the world does not match (3rd vs 4th) (and looking at the Wikipedia List of rivers by length, the Yangtze is third (and Mississippi-Missouri fourth, though both are uncited, and the total length of the M-M does not match this source either). I also note that the USGS GNIS claim that the Missouri is the longest river in the United States is not in this article, although it does say it is the longest river in Morth America.
  • Finally looking at the Source section, it does not make the ambiguity of the Missouri's source clear (the confluence is the official USGS GNIS defined source, one article in a magazine and an 1898 book cite Brower's Spring) - I think this needs to be made much clearer in the Wikipedia article. I also note that the whole Course section is sourced only to USGS topo maps. While these are good references, the river is so large that it requires some work on the part of the reader to hunt down the appropriate map for whatever is described - are there no good general books on the Missouri that describe its course (some books are cited in the references and further reading, which seem like they would work)? Some of the statements in the Course section also need refs beyond what a map can provide. The Yellowstone being the larger river and the Platte being the longest tributary are both facts that need cites beyond a map.
Watershed
  • I tried to check one statement here The watershed's largest city is Denver, Colorado, with a population of more than six hundred thousand. Denver is the main city of the Front Range Urban Corridor whose cities had a combined population of over four million in 2005,[19] making it the largest metropolitan area in the Missouri River basin.[18] Ref 19 is a dead / broken link. Ref 18 is a searchable 433 page PDF and looking at every instance of "Denver" and "metropolitan area" and "urban corridor" (not found) and "front range", I did not see anything to back up this statement.
General comments
  • I think at FAC if an article is reasonably well-written and has reliable sources that are correctly formatted (as this article does), then most reviewers assume good faith that the refs cited back up the article. Unfortunatley that is not the case for a large portion of the refs checked in FAC and in this PR. I do not doubt that Denver is in the watershed, but am not sure if it is the largest city in it, etc.
  • The Further reading has four references that seem like they should be used in the article itself.
  • OK, everything I have checked so far has problems, so I am stopping. What is needed is to read every sentence and check it against the references used, adding refs as needed. Since this is also the conclusion of the FAC, I am not sure what the PR has added (beyone more specific examples of the problems involved).
  • 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 ><>°° 13:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S&Man

[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 see if this is ready for a Good Article nomination. In my last Good Article review, I felt insulted by the reviewer. After listing less than 10 errors, he did a quick fail because of what he called shoddy prose. He said that Fangoria and Bloody Disgusting are not reliable sources even though they are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources#List of potential resources as reliable sources. The reviewer also said that Dread Central (he called it DreadZone) is not a reliable source even though it helped save articles in AfDs. SL93 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A couple general comments, hopefully Crisco and I don't repeat the same things:
  • When writing, try to leave out unnecessary words, that's a good way to make your prose better. Here, for example, the word "literally" isn't needed, since readers will assume you're using the phrase literally. User:Tony1 has some excellent tutorials on his page.
  • Try to avoid repeating words inside sentences, if you can. In the last dif I linked you had: "In order to show the motivations of people involved with these types of films, he shows". See how "show" is repeated? I changed the first to "demonstrate" for variation.
  • Phrases like "ended up" and "went on to" can almost always be replaced with pithier phrases, like in this dif.
  • In general, a lot of writers use "also" too much, it's usually a good idea to control+F and see how many you can remove.
  • If you have two short sentences next to each other, like "The film's title comes from Eric Rost's (Erik Marsicak) fictional S&MAN video series. Marcisak is a friend of J. T. Petty." try to combine them if you can. In this instance you could say "The film's title comes from a fictional S&MAN video series made by Eric Rost (Erik Marsicak), a friend of Petty." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while I originally developed it for April Fool's Day DYK because it often turns up on lists of humorous court-case titles, I was surprised by how well it turned out, and I think I could take this further.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander
My responses.
  • Background section: - the article Shark finning is a key article, and needs to be presented more prominently to the reader. I suggest use a "main" template at the top of the Background section, referring to Shark finning.
  •  Done I used {{further}} for now. That did, however, solve the problem of how to make sure there was a link to the shark-finning article in the section while it was nevertheless becoming hard to word it that way
  • Wording: " they found the titular amount .." - "titular" is not very encyclopedic: many readers won't be familiar with that word. Just say "they found approximately 46,... "
 Done I cut it entirely.
  • When? - "Shark populations began declining. " - Need to specify a time period.
Will get some specifics.
  • Wording: " .. owned by Tran and Yu, Inc, a shipping company in Hong Kong, its home port." - Is a word missing? maybe "company based in HK .."?
The issue here is that the ship was owned by one company but operated by another, and I was trying to distinguish them since the operator, Tai Loong, was ultimately the claimant (i.e., the other party) in the case.
  • Wording: "On the support aspect, there was more to consider. " - Needs to be totally rewritten. Maybe: "The court evaluated the claim that support was provided ..." etc
 Done
  • Start of paragraph: "He reviewed the legislative history and found...." - "He" probably should not be used at the start of a paragraph ... within is okay, but not across pagagraphs.
 Done
  • Outline: It may be helpful to have a section named "Outcome" or "Decision" that follows the appeal section. For conclusion/wrap-up material: the judgement; what happened to the fins.
I'd like to have that too, but I couldn't find any sources on it. The stipulations called for the government to get the bond if it won, and for Tai Loong to reimburse the government for the expense of storing the fins if it did. I presume that's what happened, but we can't put that in the article on that basis.
  • Follow on cases: What other cases related to shark fins followed? Did any cite this as precedent?
I looked again for cites that were more than just rote reiterations of one sentence of something blindingly obvious, and PageMasters Inc. v. Autodesk does rely on the case to hold that contractual language requiring "reasonable assistance" in performing an audit of a third party does not require asking for the audit in the first place. But that's the only one of note to me, although if necessary we could note the in-passing cite in El Badrawi v. United States. Since Congress has changed the law, no similar cases have come up, although I admit there are a lot of potential tests that could be made of that "buying X isn't aiding and assisting the seller in procuring X" holding.
  • Grammar: "Soup made from them is considered ... " - word "them" could refer to " economic reforms" of previous sentence. re-word to fix ambiguity.
 Done
  • Wording: "As its last argument, Tai Loong claimed .." - the word "last" is not very specific here. Chronologically? As a fall-back? The least important? Re-word to eliminate ambiguity.
 Done
  • Context: "A group of shark attack survivors visited senators' offices to lobby for the bill in July." - You should add a sentence or words here explaining why attack victims are lobbying to support their attackers. Seems backwards.
I may just get rid of this; it's extraneous
  • Aftermath - I recommend that you generalize the "Shark Conservation Act" section and make it "Aftermath" ... in it, summarize all shark-fin related developments after the case. The SC Act is key, of course, but there are be a few other important events: e.g. the California law, etc.
The SCA was a direct response to the decision, therefore it's the only thing relevant. The California law couldn't be, as states don't have the constitutional authority to regulate conduct beyond 3 nm at sea.
  • Citations - The article has some good footnotes & sources. It is a bit suspicious that each paragraph has a single footnote: Does each paragraph truly come from a single source? If you think you will take this to FAC, you need to re-examine the individual sentences and add more footnotes as needed. Normally, I would expect to see a footnote every 1 to 3 sentences.
Where grafs use the same source (the court opinions they're summarizing) they use one footnote for that source. This would not surprise anyone familiar with articles about court cases.
  • Add detail: " the total was more than twice the original expected amount, ..." - Expected by whom? Was some expectation mentioned earlier?
I changed that to "anticipated", as it's only mentioned in the source story at that point (apparently the Coast Guard thought there would be fewer fins since (I guess) they thought that only the shipping container held fins. Instead they were the hold and any spare space in the ship.
  • Citation confusion - There are several cites like "Shark Fins, at 1104". To use a brief citation like that is acceptable (see WP:CITESHORT) but if you do that, you must have a section named "References" (or similar) independent from the footnotes section that contains an index of the short hand (e.g. "Shark Fins - 353 F.Supp.2d 1095" ). So, rename "References" to Footnotes; then create References section. Also, there are two court cases here: the original district court case, & the appeals case. Both have nearly identical names, so be sure to make it clear which "Shark Fins" refers to, since it could be either one.
Will do that that later. Per standard legal practice the district court case will be "I" and the appeals case "II". Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akole

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

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

  • I've added references to the places of Historical and cultural significance in Akole
  • I've cleaned up the language, content and overall quality of the article
  • I've taken out incorrect / bad links

Thanks, Anmolsharma.141 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing This article is not yet ready for peer review. Peer reviews are intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work. See some of the other articles listed at Wikipedia:Peer review to see what I'm talking about. Work on this for a couple more weeks or months and then maybe it might be ready. -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maus

[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 rewritten it from scratch over the past few months aiming at FA status, and won't be satisfied until it gets there.

The biggest difficulty I feel I've had writing this article was sorting through the vast amount of what has been written about Maus, and trying to decide what really needs to be in the article and what should be cut.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I love this book immensely; inherited a first edition of My Father Bleeds History from an uncle and didn't put it down til it was over. I'll see if anything stands out to me as needing fixed; though my prose style isn't generally of the FA standard you're shooting for.
    • "It has been difficult to classify" -> To me, this suggests medium before it would suggest genre, and I'm not sure why. I'd perhaps change this sentence to "Classifying Maus' genre has proven difficult, and it has at times been labeled as a memoir, biopgraphy. history, fiction, autobiography, or a mix of these".  Done
    • I don't think "past" needs to be put in quotation marks in the lead; it makes sense for "present" because 1978 is no longer the present (a bit like how Escape from New York isn't really set in the future any more), but the 1940s will always be the past and so the term can just be used straight.
I'm trying to decide whether or not I agree with this. Maybe a second opinion would help? CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...whose own written account of Auschwitz were destroyed by her grief-stricken husband" -> Either this should be "accounts ... were" or "account ... was".
    • "the comics medium" -> I'd lean towards "the medium of comics", or even just "the medium".  Done
    • "Vladek harasses and infuriates his neighbors and loved ones, including his second wife, Mala, whom he married after Art's mother, Anja, committed suicide in 1968" -> This is a little run-on. I'd try "Vladek harasses and infuriates his neighbors and loved ones, including his second wife, Mala. He had remarried after Art's mother, Anja, committed suicide in 1968".  Done
    • "Vladek proceeds to tell of his time in Częstochowa and how he came marry into Art's mother's wealthy family in 1937 and move to Sosnowiec to become a rich manufacturer" -> "Vladek proceeds to tell of his time in Częstochowa, describing how he married into Art's mother's wealthy family in 1937 and moved to Sosnowiec to become a rich manufacturer". Done
    • "Occasionally he can get messages back and forth with Anja, though it is dangerous" -> "Occasionally he and Anja are able to exchange messages, though it is dangerous".  Done
    • Both the "Art Spiegelman" and "Mala Spiegelman" headings don't really need to be broken into two short paragraphs like that, keep each of them at one paragraph as they still both flow well.  Done
    • "miserly, anal, anxious and obstinate" -> "anal" here is a bit colloquial, expand it to the full "anally retentive".  Done
    • "Black People" shouldn't be capitalised, and I'm not sure about piping it to African-Americans either.
Actually, in the context of the citation, it was clear that he was talking about how African-Americans had been treated in the U.S. I'll have to reword this to make it clear. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
    • There's a few "citation needed" tags under the "Historical background" header; the Golden and Silver Age of Comic Books articles might have some information which would help you source this.  Done
    • "short, experimental, avant-garde comics" -> Drop either "experimental" or "avant-garde", they're a bit redundant together.  Done
    • "The public perception of comic books was one of adolescent power fantasies, inherently incapable of mature artistic or literary expression, and a genre rather than a medium" -> "The public perception of comic books was one of adolescent power fantasies, inherently incapable of mature artistic or literary expression; and the field was treated as a genre rather than a medium".  Done
    • "The first chapter of Maus appeared in the second issue of Raw in December 1980." -> Stick a comma after "Raw", or else it reads as though it was December's second issue, not that the second issue was the December one.  Done
    • " It has been translated into eighteen languages" -> Given that this comes directly after mention of the second volume, And Here My Troubles Began, it would be worth clarifying whether this refers to this volume or the work as a whole (I assume the latter).  Done
    • "for example, when his French wife converts to Judaism, how should she be depicted—as a frog, or a mouse?" -> Don't pose this as a question, phrase it in the past tense as "for example, when his French wife converted to Judaism, Spiegelman debated whether to depict her as a frog or a mouse".  Done
    • "Vladek's disguise more convincing than Anja's" -> stick an "is" or "was" in there.  Done
    • "Rather, it signified the role of the characters in the story, rather than their races: the gentile Françoise is a mouse because of her identification her husband" -> I wouldn't mix the use of colons and em dashes in the article, given that you use the latter much more often, use it here as well.  Done
    • "Spiegelman's own perceptions of the animal metaphor seems to have evolved over the book's making: in the original publication of the first volume, he had a mouse mask in his self-portrait, but by the time the second volume arrived in print, his self-portrait was of a man wearing a mouse mask" -> Firstly, colon again; second, this is a little confusing. I'm not going to dig out my copies to check but I assume you mean that in the first portrait, the mask is present but he's not wearing it, while in the second he has put it on. Could do with being a little clearer about that as it could be read as saying he's wearing one in both.  Done
Whoops, the first instance should have been "animal head", not "mask". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and to whom he feels he can never live up to" -> You've used "to" twice here, I'd suggest maybe rephrasing this whole clause.  Done
    • "but also resonant with the German word mauscheln" -> change "resonant with" to "reminiscent of".  Done
    • "and while they have normally been pegged as being for children" -> use "identified" instead of the informal-sounding "pegged".  Done
    • "Spiegelman is confronted with the difficulty of how to present this character—as a cat, or a mouse?" -> As above, I wouldn't pose this as a question.  Done
  • That's all I could see looking over it. Haven't performed any spotchecks on the sources used. Article looks good, though, very well-researched. GRAPPLE X 01:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this. I took on this article because I couldn't believe how poorly done it had been, given the mountains of resources available on the book. Maus really deserves the a lot better. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bother. I think the changes have definitely helped things. I'm likely to dig out my copy of it tomorrow now you've piqued my interest again. And drop me a talk message when you go to put this forward for a review at GA or FA; I'll be glad to chime in again. GRAPPLE X 01:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and I will. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 01:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory of Nyssa

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I'm a relatively new editor, and I wondering how I would need to improve the article in order for it to be featured. I feel it's comprehensive (only slightly shorter than Gregory of Nazianzus, which is a FA), but I'm sure there are some matters I've overlooked so far. Thanks, He to Hecuba (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redtigerxyz's Comments
  • Gregory of Nazianzus is not the best example to follow. It is a 2007 FA, which has many problems like uncited facts, missing page numbers, usage of primary sources etc. It should go for a FAR. Wilfrid is a better model
  • "was named after Gregory Thaumaturgus": Who is Gregory Thaumaturgus? Adding a short summary "the 3rd century saint Gregory Thaumaturgus" adds some context. " Valens split Cappadocia" who is Valens? Amphilochius of Iconium, Desmothenes of Pontus ...
    •  Done. I've clarified all of these apart from Demosthenes of Pontus. Nothing is known of Demosthenes apart from his name and the fact that he convened the synod of Ancyra. I presume it doesn't need to be as long as the article on Wilfrid, simply because there's so little extent biographical information about Gregory.
  • Missing parent's names in the start of "Early life and education". Their names appear in St. Basil's article
    • Will work on this. This isn't a simple issue, as his parents names vary in primary sources, and it's difficult to decide which secondary readings are correct.
  • Which grandmother is Macrina the Elder? paternal/maternal?
    •  Done.
  • " his brother: for instance, while Basil", exchange brother and Basil. When you read "his brother", it is unclear who are talking about? Naucratius, Peter, Basil??
    •  Done
  • Who is synod? link jargon. Explain by short summary. Who are Cappadocian Fathers???
    • I don't think the word synod needs to be explained in this context, but I've linked to it. It is explained who the Cappadocian Fathers are in the lede.
      • I meant what are the Cappadocian Fathers?? Importance??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Gregory, his brother Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus are collectively known as the Cappadocian Fathers". They're just three saints who are venerated together in Eastern Christianity - major theological similarities and historical connexions.
  • What are the primary sources of his biography? Add a section
    • Will do, good suggestion.
  • Primary sources of his theology? Writings? Add section
  • Add reference for "Died c. 395"
  • What are his relics??
    • Bones. There's very little information concerning them as his veneration is pretty limited.
  • " he was a homoousian, and Against Eunomius affirms the truth" something is wrong in this sentence

--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I think that the lead should probably be expanded to mention (for example) specific contributions / theological positions. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 15:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Mauboy discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FL status again, as this is a former featured list article. Thanks, Oz talk 22:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think it's clear the infobox image is a "publicity shot", so no need for that.
    •  Done
  • Possibly will be met at FLC with a 3b objection, i.e. it could still be incorporated into Mauboy's main article since its not that big.
  • "and subsequently earned a record deal" maybe just "signed a record deal"?
    •  Done
  • " (which contained selected songs Mauboy performed on Australian Idol), " no need for the parentheses in my opinion.
    •  Done
  • "denoting shipments of 35,000 copies" "of at least/in excess of... 35,000"?
    •  Done
  • "double platinum, denoting shipments of 140,000 copies" so ARIA says double plat is exactly 140k?
    • Platinum cert = 70k, so double that makes 140k.
  • No real coverage of "other appearances" or "videos" in the lead.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been revamping this article for the past week, with the hope that it may soon be FL quality. I have heavily based its layout on the similar Best-selling singles of the 1960s article, but I wonder whether this is a mistake: since this list covers several decades rather than just one, could it do with being more comprehensive? I'm also unsure about how much sales detail to go into, as the OCC has only released figures for the top ten – should the article list the sales figures for just those 10 albums and leave the other 30 blank (which might look something like this), or would it be best not to list any at all? I would also like feedback on whether the certifications column is as clear as it needs to be. I welcome any other ways that this article could be improved, particularly on the quality of the prose. Thanks very much in advance! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think the layout is fine.
  • Probably worth noting the OCC is a British company.
  • Done.
  • Start with "An album is..." so you don't have plural/singular issues in the opening sentence.
  • Done.
  • "and lasts longer than 25 minutes" would prefer "and is longer than 25 minutes in duration."
  • Changed.
  • "from 1956 " probably worth explaining the significance of that year here rather than later...
  • Done.
  • "The album at number one was Greatest Hits, a compilation album" try to avoid repeating "album".
  • Replaced with "record".
  • "magazine Record Mirror, who compiled a" shouldn't that be "which" rather than "who"?
  • Changed.
  • "their first number one ..." the magazine is singular...
  • Willing to change this, but my reading of MOS:PLURALS is that, in British English, it can be acceptable to refer to a collective noun as a plural.
  • Yeah, I'd have thought so too, but the OCC credits it to "Original soundtrack". [2]
  • You could mention record label success in the lead, even if it's just to say that Parlophone was the most represented label?
  • Done.

Otherwise I think it'd make a fine candidate at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel selection

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is to be amended for the sake of a [course] in Industrial and organizational psychology as a part of the APS Wikipedia Initiative. Final edits are to come immediately.

Thanks, Yoyobyebye44 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead is a little brief, I would hope to see at least two short paragraphs. Check out WP:LEAD.
  • You need to fix the disambiguation link.
  • ", etc.)" try to avoid this a little. This is supposed to be encyclopaedic, not a guideline or pamphlet for employers.
  • "choosing the person who will be the most successful and make the most valuable contributions to the organisation" in general, yes, but of course personnel selection can involve nepotism which should be addressed, and even the idea you encourage people to be promoted to move them out of an organisation.
  • You abbreviate BFOQ but never use it so there's not point in the abbreviation.
  • Why are BFOQs in italics?
  • "members of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). Primary research" avoid these inline links. Make them proper references.
  • Expand the "predicting job performance" section as recommended by the big maintenance tag.
  • "Team Composition" -> "Team composition"
  • En-dashes for page ranges needed (per WP:DASH).
  • Three references is pretty weak, I'd expect to see many more.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Is it worthy of nomination for a good article, and if not what needs to be done? Thanks, Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In my opinion, this article does not approach the level of quality required as a prerequisite for peer review. It needs extensive work on the quality of its prose, along with attention to consistency, MoS violations, formatting errors, etc. The whole thing needs a thorough copyediting, to say nothing of being thoroughly examined for comprehensiveness and neutrality problems developed over years of edit warring and disputes. Just a couple of examples:
  • Many sentences are unnecessarily wordy and seem to be cobbled together; ex. "It is a developed country, an OECD member, and its economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, was the 41st-largest in the world in 2010, with a very high standard of living, which is the highest in the Middle East."
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "with" construction above is repeated in a disproportionate number of sentences in the whole article, another example of which is "In the early weeks of independence, the government chose the term 'Israeli' to denote a citizen of Israel, with the formal announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett.
  • Redundancies such as this are abound: "The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage" --Laser brain (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJH – To me it looks to be in pretty decent shape. Still, I did find a few concerns:

  • The long parenthetical text in the first sentence seems to disrupt the flow. I understand the need, but still...
  • The sentence in the lead that begins "Following the adoption of a resolution by the..." seems excessive in length. Can that be split?
  • The article mixes em-dash and en-dash. For example, the sentence beginning "The following day" mixes a partly spaced em-dash with a spaced en-dash. "...Press Freedom Index - the second highest..." uses a simple dash. You should pick one style and use it consistently. See WP:MDASH.
  • This sentence is a little confusing as I'm assuming that Syria and Lebanon are Arab countries: "Since 1964, Arab countries were trying to divert the headwaters of the Jordan to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions with Syria and Lebanon."
  • "Egyptian hostilities in the Sinai": hostiles? Otherwise this is somewhat unclear.
  • There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs. This is particularly evident in the "Museums" section. The number of these should be kept to a minimum per WP:Paragraph.
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant terms such as "also" can be selectively pruned. For example: "...Lebanon once again to destroy...", "...PLO also recognized..." and "Israelis also take advantage". See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
  • "In 2010, Israel proper was ranked 86th...": they seem to have dropped a bit since then.
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The History section should mention the Israeli West Bank barrier.
  • "...by European observers), Egypt adhered to this...": should this use a period rather than a comma?
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...relations with Israel; Egypt...": should this use a colon?
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...having had two visits from heads of state...": the meaning is unclear. Is the UK head of state visiting Israel?
  • "...billion.[231][232]In 2005...": missing a space.
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Military" section, it would be good to identify the commander-in-chief and the branch of the government that runs the military.
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arrow missile is one of the...": needs to clarify the source of this weapons system.
  • "Israel is considered one of the most advanced countries...": WP:WEASEL wording.
  • The "Transport" section could mention Israel's strong reputation for airport security.
  • The Israeli solar energy sector receives significant mention in three different places. Please check for redundancy.
  • "It is thought that this...": is bordering on weasel wording, despite the cites. Can this be refined?
  • "...in recent years": is dated. WP:RELTIME
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Social Survey for those over...": why the caps?
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in Israel are association football..." is followed by "The Israeli Premier League is the country's premier soccer league,...": can these be made consistent in the name of the sport?
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Sadler

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is currently a GA, and I would like to nominate it at FAC soonish. I think it is in pretty good shape, but I'd like to get another set of eyes on it before nominating it there. Attention to prose and neutrality would be particularly appreciated.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (some quick notes, with the caveat that I know nothing about the subject!!)

  • Could you use an infobox at the top of the article? No real reason to do so, but most FAC bios I've seen have them.
  • "Post-Graduate Medical School of Chicago" is this notable enough to be redlinked? If not, is it worth inclusion in the lead?
  • "Isabelle Wilson[1] and was of English and Irish descent.[2] " move [1] to before [2], it's not a big deal, and would look a lot neater.
  • "Adventist in 1888[4] and became devoutly religious.[3]" ditto. For a more approachable article, I'd just place refs at the end of sentences.
  • "In this role, he persuaded ..." you've mentioned two other people since Sadler... maybe reassert the subject.
  • "Picture of Sadler standing, c. 1914...." is the "standing" for any good reason?! You could say "sort of pointing" or "uncertain"...!
  • "Sadler also wrote about race:[33] he had an interest" perhaps capitalise "he"?
  • "Sunday[44]" again, why would you feel the necessity to cite "Sunday" so directly? Relax and add it to the end of the sentence. It makes for a much better reading experience.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments, I will do most of them--I tend to avoid infoboxes if they're not there already, and I think the capital after colon is a British English convention, not 100% sure though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Looking it over

[edit]

I think the heavy lifting has been done... I'm just looking it over. I'm still fascinated by the close orbits of Sadler and Beilhart. Anyway..(hope you don't mind, but I don't like directly editing the article. I'm too afraid of messing it up entirely!)

In 1889, Sadler moved to Battle Creek, Michigan, to work as a bellhop and help in the kitchen of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, in addition to attending Battle Creek College.

Maybe that's how it was, but it reads as though being a bellhop was his goal. Just seemed odd. I would think his main goal was to work at the sanitarium no matter what the position.

The couple moved to San Francisco in 1901 to attend medical school at Cooper Medical College. The couple had been interested in medicine for several years, but the loss of their child inspired them to pursue a medical careers.

Two "The couple"'s in a row. Perhaps: "The couple had been interested in medicine for several years, but the loss of their child inspired them to pursue a medical careers. In 1901 they moved to San Francisco to attend medical school at Cooper Medical College"

Sadler was a relatively early adopter of Freudian...

- strike 'relatively', I think. You are an early adopter relative to other adopters by definition.

Although Sadler was a committed Adventist for much of his early life, he became less involved after John Harvey Kellogg left the church in 1907 owing to conflict with Ellen G. White, the church's founder.

The lede says that Sadler left the church after Kellogg was excommunicated. Here, it just says Kellogg 'left the church'. Did leaving the church (or the conflict with White) lead to the excommunication? Did Kellogg leave because he was excommunicated? Doesn't matter, really, but the lede caused me to want to know more. :)

Journalist Brad Gooch writes in his 2002 profile of the Urantia movement that...

I don't know for sure, but I thought that you didn't specifically name an author or work unless you were going to directly quote something from it. (thus, we'd have "Gardner writes... ", "York wrote... " etc all through the article). I'm unsure on this one. In any event, I might have said, "In his 2002 profile of the Urantia movement, Brad Gooch wrote/writes/said.... "

That takes me up to "Urantia Revelation"... More later.. Wikipelli Talk 10:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs a lot of work. Lots of unreferenced sections. Thanks, Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some article that can be useful for citations.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hello, peer review isn't really designed to get other people to go off and do research on your behalf, it's really there to give comments on existing content. I'll do a brief review, but suggest you research for those additional citations yourself.

  • Lead could use a bit of expansion for an article of this size (see WP:LEAD).
  • "Rick Baker" is a dab link.
  • Don't think you really need to link "police force".
  • "program helmed by middle-ranking executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer), named "RoboCop"." put the name of the program before "helmed by..."
  • "but OCP takes his body and uses it to create the first RoboCop." very brief overview of quite a few scenes where they switch him on and feed him etc.
  • "as Bixby Snyder (TV comedian)" for consistency in this list, shouldn't this be "television comedian Bixby Snyder"?
  • "Robocop" be consistent with the capitalisation in this article.
  • " a Robot Cop." why is any of that capitalised?
  • As the tag says, this section needs more refs.
  • ""fascism for liberals" - a politically" en-dash needed, not hyphen.
  • "[citation needed]. " needs fixing.
  • I don't see fair use rationale for the use of File:6000SUX.jpg in this exact article.
  • File:Robocop the melting man.jpg does not have a fair use rationale for inclusion in this article.
  • "The make-up effects in a scene from RoboCop (1987)," this caption doesn't need the year of RoboCop.
  • FWIW "6000 SUX advertisement." doesn't need a full stop.
  • Don't mix reference date formats.
  • Make sure refs are formatted correctly (e.g. ref 6 is a bare URL).
  • Things like The New York Times should be in italics because they are published works.
  • IMDB isn't considered a reliable source.
  • Ref 36 needs accessdate, publisher, publication date etc where possible. Apply this comment to all refs.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have started to implement some of your suggestions. I have removed the two images you've cited. Should they be outright deleted? The 6000 SUX picture is not used on any other article, and I can not think of any other article it could be relevant for. And the Melting man image is also used in The Incredible Melting Man article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing it now, I can see it's still pretty rough round the edges. I'll not comb through the prose, then, as there'll likely be a good deal of work done before this goes to GAN/FAC.
    • Cast sections which simply list actors and roles are largely redundant to the plot summary, as the information is already imparted there. You'd be best expanding this to include real-word information about the casting process and the actors' preparation (this might prove a useful example).
    • The "Production" heading has whole paragraphs lacking citation; the tag here is definitely warranted. If you're going to GA with this, it might be best to just strip out the unsourced stuff and add in anything you find from scratch; but for FA I would keep the unsourced stuff saved somewhere and attempt to specifically track down citations for it as you'll need that for comprehensiveness.
    • "Themes" is similarly lacking in references.
      • Counter to these two points; it's worth noting that the prose identifies the source of some of this information, it might be worth simply rewriting some of this to just use these mentions as in-line citations. If you have the commentaries and documentaries mentioned, it would be a good idea to make note of the times at which these points are raised, as providing time references for longer audio and video references is generally desired.
    • "Release" is very spartan. Unless it can be expanded I'm not sure it should be separate like this; "Release and reception" could provide a suitable merger.
    • When using Rotten Tomatoes for a film this old, it's worth making note that many of the collated reviews will be recent rather than contemporary.
    • I've already mentioned on the article's talk page, but the Susan Faludi quote is pretty irrelevant—it would be an important addition to 1980s in film or Action film; but RoboCop is mentioned in passing in one brief aside alongside several other films, the comment is hardly a judgement on this film specifically so much as this film was rattled off in a list of several films being lumped together. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some relevant criticism of the film that could be used to replace it, but you'd really benefit from using criticism directly aimed at this film.
    • Given how short some of the sections are, it might be worth merging "Novelization", "Legacy" and "Remake" into one section under the title "Legacy". The remake stuff needs to be cited, but Total Film's website does have multiple news stories on the progress of the project so it should be manageable.
  • If you manage to expand and restructure this article while the peer review is still underway then drop me a talk message and I'll have another look at it more closely. GRAPPLE X 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CADSTAR

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
It was flagged as being an advert, I have removed many of the additions that are actually not part of CADSTAR itself but are additional programs that can interact with CADSTAR.
I have also tried to remove much of the sales speak to make it more understandable for the average reader.

I have also removed additional links that are unnecessary as they can be found from the one remaining link.

If there is still something wrong with the article please explain what it is and what I should do to correct it (rather than just change it - I will not learn otherwise).


If more could be said about the software, please explain/provide a link to an article that may give me more ideas on what to/how to say. Thanks, Cadstar_User (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will do, comments to follow within a day or two. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I haven't read the previous version, but this does not seem like an advert to me. Basically, the best thing to do is stick to what reliable sources say and try to use objective language whenever possible.
  • The Modules section is uncited at the moment, it would probably be a good idea to add some references there. Ideally, I would suggest turning that into a paragraph rather than just using bullet points, but it's not crucial.
  • When adding citations, they should always be placed come after punctuation, you have "in 1994 [1]." but it should be ""in 1994.[1]"
  • The References section should come before external links.
  • I noticed some short sentences side by side, try to combine short sentences if you can, like these two "The basic features of CADSTAR can be tested with the free version of CADSTAR Express [3]. Or Schematic and PCB files produced by CADSTAR can be reviewed using the CADSTAR Design Viewer."
  • You're using bare urls in the references, you should use templates for those. Wikipedia:Reflinks and Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 are very helpful for that.
  • The best ways to find new sources are usually Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar. Try to make sure the sources meet the WP:RS guideline, when dealing with products take special care to avoid citing press releases. The {{findsources}} is helpful, I'll put it on the talk page.
  • Also, if you have a personal connection with CADSTAR, please be aware of our WP:COI guidelines.
  • Hope this is helpful, good luck! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is so short there is not a lot to say, still here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Biggest problem I see is a lack of references. There are only three refs and the first is only about the sale of the firm and does not mention CADSTAR by name. The other two refs seem to be press releases from the company itself - as it now exists I am not sure the article meets notability guidlelines and may be a condidate for deletion if more reliable sources cannot be found and added.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The article has no lead and needs one
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
  • Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way The article may need fewer sections / header too Please see WP:LEAD
  • Any chance for an image or two?
  • 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 ><>°° 03:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am no expert at wiki editing so I cannot change the links to anything else, neither can I find any links that do not have COI or are simple adverts or from the software makers own website (I have gone through 30+ google pages). However Autocad seems to have plenty of those links - how come that page is OK?

The lack of references is because the only web pages on the internet that reference CADSTAR are those that are trying to sell or advertise it - an obvious COI. Why should that result in the articles deletion? just because it is little talked about?

Re the modules section being uncited - what on earth is that? the software has lots of modules in it, they are listed in the module section.

A lead - its not a dog - what are you on about?

You ask for an image but then say not to breach copyright - no images for CADSTAR exist that are not copyright to Zuken so no I cannot provide any images unless you can tell me otherwise.

The pages linked to are confusing to a noob at wiki editing, examples would be better.

Cheers. Cadstar_User (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Central

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an historical federal electoral district that had 2 elections. I nominated it for FL but it was not promoted (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Surrey Central/archive1). It's kind of stuck in limbo—it didn't pass the FL review but I don't know what else to do with it. I'm looking for ideas (creative or technical) on how to improve such an article (electoral district articles). Thanks, maclean (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments hello again maclean. Sorry things didn't work out at FLC, but I'll add some further comments (and recommend you head to WP:GAN in due course).

  • Is there a way of adding Imperial units into the infobox for the area of the district?
  • Consider merging the first three sentences, it starts quite choppy for me.
  • Rather than "Canadian House of Commons", I'd prefer to see the formal "House of Commons of Canada".
  • " formed the official opposition" followed by "forming the official opposition" is a little repetitive.
  • In 2000 it had "149,468 people" yet in 2001 (in the infobox) it had "179,158". Really? A leap of 30,000 in one year seems incredible to me, more so when you consider that's a 20% increase.
  • Any reason you couldn't put ref [3] at the end of the sentence?
  • Do the colours of the parties mean anything in the table?
  • In fact, what is the purpose of the table? It appears that you have a lll this information already in the prose.
  • Grewal served in "2003–2004" (according to the table) but the lead says this seat was abolished in 2003.
  • Avoid blank cells in tables, if it's not applicable, say it's n/a.
  • " Votes,[1] Totals,[5] and Expenditures.[16" these aren't proper nouns so decapitalise them all.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review (again). I am investigating each of your points.
    • The template doesn't have that option. Imperial units are used in text, though.
    • Adjusted to create a more informative lead sentence. [3]
    • Done. This also avoid a redirect. [4]
    • Switched to "became" to avoid repetition.
    • Clarified these are population estimates for 1991, 1996, 2001 census. [5]
    • Needs further review. The only purpose of the citation is to provide the external link - it isn't really a reference, but more of a note. I'd prefer an in-text external link but I know that is frowned upon. I may just remove it.
    • They are colours are built into the template so I cannot change it. They are just for more intuitive identification (conservatives worldwide are generally associated with blue, liberals red) so they are not explained specifically in this article.
    • Yes, it is a summary table that has evolved from these electoral district articles. Presents the same information in a different way, hopefully easier to understand, just like the lead section and infobox do. maclean (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fixed and clarifying the article regarding the last three points [6] maclean (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Garmin-Cervélo season

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to get it to FA. It's really that simple. I think it's quite potentially good enough, but it would be very good to get more and fresher eyes on it.

Thanks, Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - general comment, lots of opinion and unencyclopedic phrasing throughout, suggest you get an independent copyedit done.

  • Any reason why there's no en-dash being used in the team title per WP:DASH?
After a long discussion in late 2009, the consensus at the manual of style was that names of cycling teams that consist of two sponsors should be written with a hyphen and not a dash. (See here.) That is the convention that the cycling project has followed since.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2011 season ..." what season? What competition?
  • "perhaps chief among them " opinion, not encyclopedic. Could just say "including".
  • " 26 victories in 2011, 25 of which officially count" pardon?
  • Suggest you link Tour de France.
  • "Also.... also... also" repetitive.
  • Strange ending to the lead with the sacking of someone just after the first race. Reads a little odd to me.
  • In the tables for riders coming and going, there's an inconsistent level of linking, e.g. "Ramunas Navardauskas" joining has no ref, while Kirk Carlsen leaving has none either.
  • What's a "field sprint"?
  • I'm not sure the source used suggests the result was declared "moot".
  • If you haven't mentioned the riders full name in prose, I suggest you do so the first time.
  • "The team was active at" is a very odd saying for me. Do you mean they took part in the various competitions?
  • "Farrar just missed out on the podium at Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne. He took fourth...." merge.
  • "race in 18th place 27 seconds " comma after "place".
  • Our article has Giro di Toscana not Giro della Toscana.
  • "had few noteworthy performances " reads like a newspaper rather than an encyclopedic article.
  • I think you should adopt a consistent approach to the use of hyphens, unspaced and spaced en-dashes in the names of races which go from A to B, right now it looks messy.
  • "the race and the entire cycling world were turned sideways" again, tabloid-esque. Stick to facts, this is an encyclopedia.
  • Avoid squashing text between images.
  • Rider column doesn't sort correctly.
  • Don't have blank cells for Location.
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs.
  • Are author names First Last or Last, First? Be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Strike Group Seven

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs some wider views before being listed for A-class review. I'm particularly interested in trying to make such an article comprehensible to the majority who have little exposure to U.S. Navy terms and acronyms.

Thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
I've only taken a quick look and focused mainly on referencing (I made a couple of prose tweaks):
Comments
  • "U.S. Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, all of which involve gaining and maintaining sea control." - as well as bombing targets hundreds of kilometers from the sea... (including in land-locked countries on occasion)
  • The first para should give the dates this unit was active between
  • Some of the prose reads like material written by the US military - a run through to remove jargon and wordy military PR-type grammar, over capitalisation, etc, would be helpful. Case in point: "Tactical action officers from the different countries coordinated the overall operational picture and provided direction to the enlisted personnel".
    • Comment: Yes, the original writer did a grand job repackaging over a hundred military press releases and DANFS etc to compile the text. It's great that it is all PD, but it remains U.S.-military written text and may need additional changes. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful explain what exactly a carrier strike group is. If instance, do they comprise a consistent group of ships?
  • "the group departed Naval Base San Diego, California aboard Ronald Reagan" - all the ships obviously weren't onboard the carrier ;)
  • Some terms (for instance, RIMPAC) are linked several times
  • Some material isn't referenced Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author for the article in question, as I have in the other carrier strike group article, except Carrier Group Eight really needs work but it was not done by me. I was not consulted, nor did I agree to this peer review. I have no interest in A-class for this article. If anyone has any suggestion, please use the talk page, leave any comments under Article revisions and suggestions, and we can discuss. My preference is to make any changes myself since I did do the origiinal article. Thank you and please respect my contributions. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard your call, and in the interest of comity, I have undertaken an extensive re-write of the article in question. I have eliminated such feature involving change of command, training and maintenance details, and minimized the use of jargon. Regarding the of U.S. Navy sources, given the contemporaneous nature of current carrier strike group operations, there is few little alternatives, and I have employed these news releases strictly for specific historical facts and operational details. I will undertake to rewrite the other carrier strike group article to conform to the Carrier Strike Group Seven. This new paradigm will be easier to maintain, less labor intensive, and very likely can be contained in a single article. Thank you for your input and my apologies for any misunderstandings. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Sorry for taking my sweet time to finally reading through this very interesting article. There's not much for me to add.

  • Historical background. Does the source give any upper and lower limits as to how many aircraft carriers served in Night Carrier Division 7 at any one time?
    • According to Clark G. Reynolds' Fast Carriers and Edward P Stafford's Big E, the Enterprise and Saratoga operated very briefly off Okinawa in February 1945 until Saratoga was detached to cover the escort carrier and amphibious force, and poor old Sara was subsequently damaged by kamikaze attacks. Initially, Night Carrier Division Seven operated as a separate carrier task group within Task Force 38 and operated only at night. When the Bon Homme Richard arrived, it was integrated into an existing task group, and the commander of Night Carrier Division Seven directed the night operations within that task group. So, overall, Night Carrier Division Seven was a high-specialized carrier formation. I hope this clarifies things.Marcd30319 (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Command structure. What is the Fifth Fleet's area? Third Fleet is well covered by comparison.
  • Deactivation. Which carrier strike group did the Ronald Reagan go to?

Other than wanting to see every paragraph at the very least ended with a reference, I think that's about it from me. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobey Baker

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I put this article through GA last May, which passed, and FA in September, which did not. Then I got caught up in my university studies, and had to put off working in the article. Now I'm done for the summer, I want to get it through FA. One issue that came up was a lack of good copy-editing and prose issues. As the main conbributer of the article, I don't think I'm the best person to go through with this. Thus, I'm asking for some assistance from someone, anyone.

Thanks, Kaiser matias (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... More like 'will do,' but there's no {{willdo}}. I'll give it a look this evening. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. This is an excellent article - wide-reaching, comprehensive, and at the same time on-point. The FA objections last time seemed to be strictly prose-related, and all long since addressed.

The "Awards" section seems very superfluous. Two subheads, each with a table with only a single cell in them? Doesn't seem like the best use of...anything. Surely these awards can be mentioned in prose in the "Legacy" section. My guess is you're gonna quote me some WikiProject-approved style guideline, but I'd still merge it/convert it to prose.

The Awards section is a thing that is used within the Ice Hockey Project, and I'd be reluctant to remove it because of that. However I did incorporate the awards into prose.

ALT text is required for all images in an FA. None of your images currently have it.

Done

While at St. Paul's, Baker was introduced to hockey. Pedantic, but specify (and perhaps link) ice hockey here. It's the first time it's used in the body of the article. The usage in the lead is spot-on. This does make me wonder if American football should get the same treatment, but I can't bring myself to think that's the right thing to write. It might be more surgically accurate, but brilliant prose it is not.

I linked ice hockey. As for the comment about football, it also has the issue that he likely knew the sport before goign to the school. It also doesn't have any source, while his discovery of hockey is explicitly mentioned.

A bit of numeral/spelling confusion - in consecutive paragraphs, we have At the age of 11, Baker and his 12-year-old brother Thornton were sent to St. Paul's School in Concord, New Hampshire. and then Baker was named to the school's varsity team at the age of fourteen Pretty sure that 14 should not be spelled out, but the big thing is the usage should be consistent. age of fifteen also occurs.

I spelled out "11" and "12", just to make it consistent.

Are two infoboxes that contain most of the same information really necessary? The only information I can see in the second that's not in the first is Baker's football position. My first assumption was that that information has to be present elsewhere in the article, but it actually doesn't seem that it is, so that's a problem.

That is something I thought about as well. With nothing else to base this on, I took a look at List of multi-sport athletes and clicked some random names. They all have two infoboxes where appropriate. While it's not the best argument, it seems like a consensus move.

I wasn't aware football helmets even existed that long ago. Our article football helmet says that they were invented in the late 1800's, but didn't come into widespread use until the 1920's. This caused me to check the source next to Easily recognizable on the field as he was one of the few players not to wear a helmet, Baker was referred as "the blond Adonis of the gridiron" by Philadelphia sportswriters. The source doesn't back up that Baker was "one of the few players not to wear a helmet," but simply that he did not in fact wear one - the operative phrase from the source text is Scorning a helmet, quarterback Baker became a regular headline-grabber.....

I modified the sentence. It should be better now

In back-to-back paragraphs (back-to-back sentences no less) we have During a game against Yale on November 18, 1911, Baker set a school record when he had 13 punt returns for 63 yards. and During the 1911 football season Baker scored 92 points, a school record that lasted until 1974. Are we to conclude that the first record still stands?

Clarified that

Passive voice is icky - Baker was given a standing ovation by the sell-out crowd. Suggest Baker received a standing ovation from the sellout crowd, since I'm guessing you don't want the sellout crowd gave Baker a standing ovation.

Fixed

Not sure twenty-minute halves is proper usage. And same for sixty minutes of game-time, especially unsure about that hyphen.

I changed the wording there, should be better

This also ended with a draw The subject of the sentence is the two overtime periods referred to in the previous sentence, so shouldn't it be These also ended with a draw ?

Fixed

only five Harvard players and one Princeton player had been replaced by a substitute Pluperfect passive voice...oy vey. Please revise.

Fixed

Baker was noted as not even breathing heavily at that point. Really don't like "noted as" or "even" in this sentence. First just doesn't sound natural, and the second sounds just the tiniest bit POV.

Modified

Saltonstall, who would later serve as Governor of Massachusetts and a United States Senator Major pet peeve here. Don't use the subjunctive in place of the simple past. Just - who later served as..... Especially with another would later in the same sentence! Revise. Something like Saltonstall later served as a......, and he kept the stick he used to score the goal in his personal trophy case/whatever

Fixed

Maybe I'm just not getting it, but how does Princeton play Ottawa for the "Intercollegiate Hockey Championship of America," lose, and then win the "national championship" shortly thereafter?

I really don't have an answer for that. A quick look at a couple sources both list the Ottawa game as the "Championship of America," including stuff from that era. I'd guess that they used America there in the sense of North America, though I have no way of confirming that.

By the end of his football career at Princeton, he had two notable achievements: he had never fumbled a punt, and had never lost to Yale. I'm gonna admit I don't know a whole lot about football (nor do I care to), perhaps evidenced by that claim about football helmets above, but I'm still led to wonder if the first 'notable achievement' here is really all that notable.

I'm also not that knowledgable about football, but those two things came up in a couple different sources, so I'm inclined to believe they mean something in relation to football.

The summer after graduation, Baker toured Europe as a celebrity correspondent for The New York Times where he wrote about events like the Henley Royal Regatta. This sentence is missing a comma, since it contains a subordinate clause. Just like that sentence!

Fixed

I don't have a problem with he was given a job myself, but I could see it causing problems down the road. You might want to go with he started work at or something the like.

Changed

Baker earned about $20 per week It would be dandy if you could tell use what this translates to in current money. (Some pedant will probably also tell you to link the dollar sign to United States dollar, but I really HATE that) I have no idea how to use {{inflation}}, though, so good luck with it.

Added the template. I'm sure it'll be corrected if its done wrong.

Baker was often loaned Pyne's valet and car. Why not just Baker often borrowed..... ? It's quicker, and it doesn't have that icky subject-less passive voice.

Fixed

I'd revise Baker was offered a contract by the Montreal Canadiens of the National Hockey Association as well.

Fixed

social conventions prohibited a person of his standing from playing sport for money. Not sure I understand what this means, but also, "playing sport" is BrE usage. AmE is "playing sports." A typo, perhaps? Since the rest of the article is unflappingly AmE (and indeed the usage of "sports" is otherwise consistent).

Fixed

Get rid of that parenthetical phrase in front of citation 38. Maybe just take away the parentheses and make it a normal sentence? I wouldn't really see anything wrong with that.

Removed

Still more passive voices as the article goes on. Icky.

That's about all I've got (and yes, I would consider this "not much"). Really good article, great work. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 02:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over it. I addressed everything there. If there are any other concerns, just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boots

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done quite a bit of work on this in the past year or so, on and off, and think it's already in reasonably good shape for a shot at WP:GAN. All comments would be gratefully received!

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks to be in fairly decent shape for GAN to me. As requested, here are some (mostly minor) suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. Madonna (entertainer) is a FA about a woman singer known by a stage name and so seems like it would be a useful model.
  • It might just be me, but I found it a little jarring to read the article and find the subject referred to as Hesketh, Boots, and Little Boots. What does the MOS say in such cases? How do articles on her usually refer to her?
  • one dab link
  • one dead EL
  • I expected the bit about her nickname to be in the body of the article and not just the lead - since the lead is a summary, it should not have anything important that is not repeated in the body of the article.
  • I would include a year for the formation of Dead Disco in the first paragraph of the lead to put things into context
  • Be consistent on little things - is it Leeds University or University of Leeds? (both are used)
  • I would try to avoid needless repetition - the Early life and career beginnings section ends with the formation of Dead Disco, and then the next section on Dead Disco repeats much of the same information.
  • Also watch WP:OVERLINKing - Dead Disco is linked twice in two consecutive paragraphs (albeit in different sections).
  • I would identify who the people pictured in the Dead Disco photograph are - I thought at first the blonde guitarist was Hesketh, but now I do not think so (as she payed keyboards)
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says not to have photos so that they draw the reader's eyes out of the page, instead they should point to the center of the page. All 4 images of her performing plus the Dead Disco picture would each do better if the current left justified images were on the right and vice versa
  • Can a better link for File:Little Boots Promo Shot.jpg be given in the file source?
  • A few places need references:
    • Their second release "City Place" was a digital-only release through Playlouder Records.
    • On 1 May 2011, she performed at China Music Valley Music Festival in Beijing, during which she performed a new song called "Crescendo".
    • The whole second paragraph of the Other pursuits and appearances section has no refs but needs some
  • It seems odd that Touring and performances ends in 2010 - it is now 2012 and it seems as if she should have done something in the past 16 months.
  • In general there are some things with the article which are very detailed (understandably) now, but will have to be cut back with time. Will every performance mentioned currently still be notable in 10 years time, when over a decade of performances exist, presumably?
  • Seems like the article is probably OK for GAN, but comprehensiveness is a FA criteria and there is almost nothing on her personal life as an adult
  • There is also not a section or much material on her as an artist / critical reaction to her - the Madonna article has material on her musical style and influences. Again it is understandable now when she has not been well known for very long, but in time I assume more such material will be available to be incorporated into the article.
  • Language is OK, though if you want to go for FA I think it would help to have a copyedit. Lots of sentences in a paragraph or section start the same way, or there are places that could be tightened (A limited edition 12-inch vinyl of the album was also released on 10 June, which was limited to 1000 copies. could just be something like A 12-inch vinyl edition of the album, limited to 1000 copies, was released on 10 June.
  • I watched the video for Remedy on You Tube - she has a nice voice (not all this AutoTune crap) and it is a catchy song - not that my opinions are notable ;-)
  • 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. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wario

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a former nominated featured article which I believe has undergone significant improvement. There is $50 on the bounty board to get this article featured, and I believe it deserves a review before being taken to the front page.

Thanks, Arran64 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "début " this is sufficiently anglicised now for us to lose the accent.
  • "1997-present" en-dash, see WP:DASH.
  • Three dab links need to be fixed, "Bowser", "garage" and "Sonic the Hedgehog".
  • Image captions which aren't complete sentences don't need full stops.
  • Last para of "Appearance and personality" is unreferenced.
  • Similarly all of "Powers and abilities" is unreferenced.
  • Overall, there's a distinct lack of references, that may be acceptable given it's mainly "plot" stuff which usually isn't overly ref'ed, but it may well be something that is commented upon at FAC.
  • No need to link common terms like "snake" or "cellar" or "god".
  • "Production I.G.." avoid that double full stop.
  • "Wario as seen in WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!." similarly.
  • Avoid raw URLs in the refs.
  • Author names in refs, are they First Last or Last, First? Be consistent.
  • You link GameFAQs and GameSpot but not IGN...
  • "Mario characters" is not needed as "Mario enemies" is a more refined category.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Journey

[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 autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was peer reviewed about 18 months ago not long after I created the article. Along with another editor I expanded it over the coming months and it was promoted to GA in January 2011. A shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful, though I believe the issues raised in that discussion were largely addressed at the time. I didn't personally take part in that stage of the process, but would like to see it promoted. So, I'm interested to know what else might need doing to it before it goes up for a second nomination.

I should add here that because I use a screen magnifier to edit issues with images, graphics, tables, etc, are very difficult for me to address so any assistance with these would be very helpful.

Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have printed out a hard copy and will make comments later. Re the images: I can say that if they're going to be so narrow the cutlines need not to be so long. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now that I've done this: The article's number one problem is that it's too wordy. Part of this is necessary information conveyed with more words than necessary; the rest is information we don't need (It's been almost two years since publication; I submit that many of the exact dates are not necessary. If they're not really relevant now, they are even less likely to be relevant in, say, 2022). I found more examples than I care to list here, so I'll just offer a few egregious ones. If you'd like me to do a full edit for brevity, just ask. It could definitely stand to be done.
  • First sentence, second graf of intro: "The book covers much-debated issues such as Blair's latterly strained relationship with Brown after allegedly making a pact with him in 1994 to step down as Prime Minister much earlier, as well as his controversial decision to take Britain into war with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the aftermath of which, Blair says in the book, was a "nightmare"." Run-on sentence. I think it could be split up somehow.
  • History, second graf: As tragic as they were, I don't think it adds to our understanding of the book to say exactly how the sons of the men quoted died.
  • Synopsis, first graf: "Labour's 2010 election defeat is blamed on Brown ..." is a textbook example of using the passive voice where the active would be a lot better.
  • Fourth graf:
    • "Blair claims in the publication ..." Perhaps it's one of those UK usage things, but is "publication" really a good synonym for "book" here? If it's a UK thing, then stet, but otherwise reconsider (And do we need to constantly remind people that Blair says this in the book? The article is about the book; I don't think the reader would presume otherwise.
    • "... that he had a premonition that his predecessor, John Smith, would die less than a month before he did so in 1994." This could be read to suggest that Blair had a premonition that he would die as well as Smith.
    • "Blair goes on to say that he knew that he would be the one to succeed Smith as Labour leader..." Somehow, I think that the action in that sentence can be expressed with a lot fewer verbs and less relative pronouns (maybe none).
  • Reviews, first graf: We need to specify that the New York Times review was published in The New York Times Book Review, as the daily paper also publishes reviews, sometimes of books also reviewed in the Book Review. I think naming Fareed Zakaria as the reviewer here would be a good idea.
  • Generally, while I'm not bothered as I might be with another book by the extent of reviews quoted and the space devoted to them, as the author of the book being reviewed was a recent longtime leader of a national government, I do think we can separate American reviews from British ones (It might also be interesting to see if The Washington Post had someone notable review it, and even if they didn't, what they said).
  • Other reaction, first graf: "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Queen." Just queens? It's OK for a PM to dicuss details of conversations with kings? Should we just say "sovereigns"?
  • In the last graf of that section, there is no reason to repeat the entire allegedly plagiarized quote. Simply saying there's a similar line of dialogue in the movie would suffice. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • " the Labour Party in 1994 and transformed the party into "New Labour"; the party held power..." party party party... (sounds good!), just a bit repetitive.
  • "the Royal British Legion" is actually "The Royal British Legion". Check main body for this.
  • "to step down much " I would personally add "as Prime Minister" between "down" and "much" just for 100% clarity on the "him"'s and from where Blair would be stepping...
  • "Along with media reaction" should that be "the" media reaction?
  • "The book was also released as an audiobook" could be me being ultra picky but you not keen on the repeat of "book", perhaps "the work was released as..."?
  • Norman Smith (journalist) has his own (albeit limited) article.
  • I know Waterstones had an apostrophe then, but does it still need one in this article?
  • "weeks after publication in July" not sure "in July" is needed (seems unnecessarily precise, like it's important it was July), but maybe "earlier that year".
  • I prefer to see "number" rather than "No." in prose.
  • "...Blair during a book signing in Dublin, Ireland. During the demonstration..." perhaps "Blair at a book signing... During..."
  • "given fears that the British National Party and other hostile groups were " strictly, the BNP is a valid British political party, is this implied descrpition of them as "hostile" Tony's words or yours?
  • Not keen on the squashed text between Bush and Diana.
  • Consider linking "toper" (I had to look it up!).
  • The Financial Times is just the Financial Times. Similar for the Sunday Express. Check refs too.
  • The "and" in the memoir should be an ampersand.
  • Andre has no accent these days.
  • Should "Other reaction" be "Other reactions"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll do some work on it a bit later on and make some changes. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, think I have those covered now. Also tweaked the captions as mentioned above. Incidentally, I notice "the book" is mentioned several times throughout the text and it sounds awkward in places, so I might try to substitute other phrases such as "A Journey", "Blair's memoirs", and so on, just to make it flow better. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynching of Jesse Washington

[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 page for about a month, and I've just about finished what I can find of reliable sources. The article is currently a GA, and I hope to go for FA soon. I'd appreciate a detailed look at prose, structure, and wording. Also, if you could watch for language that is too journalistic/emotive it would be appreciated. Not a fun article to read, but a sobering look at a sad chapter in American history. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very nice, don't have much to quibble about.

Lede
  • I would split the first paragraph before "Washington was tried".
    • Done.
  • "in what became a well-known example of such attacks owing to its brutality and the publicity it received" This seems to get just a bit lost en route.
    • Trimmed.
  • Both here and in "Trial", it says that Washington was sentenced to capital punishment. This reads a a bit oddly. Was a form of execution prescribed or expected to be used? If so, it might be wise to specify it.
    • Hmm, can't seem to find a record of how he was supposed to be executed.
  • ", owing to its demonstration of government-sanctioned violence" Suggest omit, the decision to speak out against such an event needs no explanation to a modern audience. The earlier part of the sentence can be combined with the previous one.
    • Done.
Background
  • "notably including" I really don't think "notably" is necessary here. You might want to take a second look at how often you use that phrase or similar ones.
    • Ok, removed that one and a few others.
  • "religiosity". Hm maybe "piety"?
    • Done.
  • " Many African Americans left the Waco area in the early 20th century, partially owing to racial violence." This seems mildly contradictory to what was said earlier in the paragraph.
    • Not sure I see it, but will rephrase a bit.
Murder and arrest
  • " their community" I would say "the community".
    • Done.
  • "claimed to find a bloody hammer" "Claimed" may be too skeptical a word, given that the only contrary text I see is a footnote.
    • Yeah, I use that word too much.
  • "he may have been mentally handicapped" This should probably be inline citated to whoever is so guessing.
    • Ok, noted source in text.
  • "published a similar notice" Similar to?
    • Clarified.
  • "The jury was then dismissed." Perhaps "sent to deliberate"?
    • Done.
NAACP investigation
  • " call for investment in the anti-lynching movement" I'd suggest not using "investment".
    • Ok, removed.
  • "a campaign that led to wide condemnation" Of the NAACP or the lynching?
    • Good catch, clarified.
  • "Washington's death received continued discussion, Oswald Garrison Villard wrote in a later edition" The first part of this reads oddly; the second needs clarification on whether the edition referred to is of The Crisis.
    • I think I got it, not totally happy with how it reads now though.
Analysis
  • "empower lynch mobs but increase society's condemnation of their actions." This needs, perhaps and "also" after the but.
    • Added.
  • " English practice" Perhaps toss a "medieval" on the front of this.
    • Added.
Crisco 1492 comments
  • "but city leaders prevented violence on several occasions" - Later, or at the time of the lynching?
    • Explained.
  • "usually after whites were the victims of purported crimes purportedly committed by blacks" - One too many "purported"s
    • lol, I think I tried to rewrite the sentence and got mixed up.
  • "In Robinson, Texas, a rural suburb of Waco, on May 8, 1916, Lucy Fryer, a farmer's wife, was murdered while alone at her house." You may need to rephrase this to avoid having six commas in a short sentence.
    • Yeah, I had seen that. It's tough to cut down on them without making things much longer.
  • "a local man stated that had seen Washington near the Fryer house " - From the same group?
    • Clarified.
  • "he may have been mentally handicapped" - According to?
    • Mentioned.
  • "Washington, semiconscious and covered in blood, was doused with oil and hung from the tree by a chain, but was lowered to the ground" - Doesn't seem quite complete. Perhaps "then lowered..."
  • Tweaked a little.
  • Any papers supporting the lynching?
    • Yep, added it in.
  • "Dollins may have encouraged the mob, believing that a lynching would be politically beneficial." - Is this necessary, given the reelection remark above?
    • Combined with the above.
  • W. E. B. Du Bois - A note on who he was, for foreigners. Just "NAACP journalist" or something similar.
    • Those foreigners, always making more work for us :)
  • That's it. Do you want an image review too?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Mold

[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 take it to FAC and would like to know if it has enough information and detail to make it worthwhile. Also, it largely concerns something of a cricket technicality and I would like to make sure that it is easy enough to follow for non-cricketers. Plus, the usual prose catches and does it actually make sense!

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk
  • "However, his career was overshadowed by controversy over his bowling action which was probably a factor in his playing so few Tests." – Although there is nothing technically wrong with this sentence, I wonder if "in his playing so few Tests." could be written in a slightly tidier fashion? However, everything I've considered has become too wordy, so you might be right!
  • "Although he took 1,673 wickets in first-class matches, many commentators viewed his achievements as tainted." – Might it be worth some sort of comparison, if possible, here – or something generally to signify that this number of wickets is an achievement?
  • I've given his place on the leading wicket-takers list, but would prefer something more accurate: i.e. where was he on the list when he died? It's almost impossible to work out without doing a lot of work (and probable OR) for very little effort. Maybe someone has a handy source; cricinfo calls him the leading wicket-taker among fast bowlers when he died, but Jhall pointed out that it was actually Richardson, so even good sources get this wrong. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced that the link to the town of Banbury is appropriate in the lead when you are using the term to refer to Banbury Cricket Club, I'm happy with how it is done in the "Early life and career" section though.
  • In the "Early life and career" section, you use "Banbury Cricket Club" and then "Manchester cricket club" – be consistent: I prefer them all capitalised.
  • "His best performance statistically was seven for 35 against Yorkshire County Cricket Club, in a match in which he took 13 wickets," – I might be getting a bit pedantic, but would it be worth clarifying "His best innings performance.." or "His best performances in an innings.." ?

Beyond those reasonably minor points, the article looks very well written, and I think deals very well with a cricket technicality. I can't obviously comment on how well a lay person would understand it, but I find it very informative, and most importantly for something like this, it adheres very well to our NPOV guidelines: it would have been easy to stray to one side or the other, but you maintained the fence line! As usual, nice work, well done! Harrias talk 11:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and kind words. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm glad that the controversy is at the heart of the article; this makes the article much more interesting to me than the kind of sports biography that is essentially a chronological list of points scored (or blocked). I don't think the length is a problem; just the opposite. You have just the right amount of detail. I ran into a snag or two, noted below. Most of my comments, however, address minor MOS issues. I don't think anything I'm suggesting will give you a headache. Nice job.

Lead

  • "He was selected for England in three Test matches in 1893 and was a Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1892." - Would it be slightly better to reverse these so that 1892 precedes 1893 in the sentence?
  • "A fast bowler, he was one of the most effective bowlers in England during the 1890s." - Maybe make this the second sentence and the 1892–93 sentence the third to smooth the chronology even further?
  • "several prominent bowlers with dubious bowling actions" - I'd remove the link on bowling action since it's already linked earlier in the lead.

Early life and career

  • "His family had links with the thatching trade" - I'd consider linking thatching.
  • "He began to play for the village side. - Perhaps add (team) after "side", which North American readers may not understand. For example, "side" might be mistaken to mean "north side" or "south side". How odd to play for just one side of the village, those readers may say, looking puzzled.
  • "played a few non first-class cricket matches for Lancashire" - Foreigners may stumble here too. They will not know if this means second-class cricket or inferior cricket or quite what. What exactly is a "first-class cricket match"? Also, "non" is not a word by itself. You either need two hyphens or a different expression.
  • "at the time not a first-class county" - I assume this means that the county did not have a first-class cricket team and not that it was an inferior county.
  • "At the time, cricketers who wished to play for a county in which they were not born had to live there for two years to qualify." - This is confusing since Mold had already "played a few non first-class cricket matches for Lancashire". Did the two-year rule only apply to first-class matches?
  • There's a whole mine-field in this one, so I've left it at "competitive first-class matches" (it basically meant County Championship matches, but the Championship did not exist until 1890 and it was all rather unofficial and gentlemen's agreement stuff before that). Sarastro1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leading bowler

  • "He was chosen in a representative match for the first time" - I think a brief explanation of "representative match" would be helpful. Maybe something like "all-star game" in parentheses?
  • "and the opinion that the difficult, uneven pitches on which Lancashire played their home games flattered Mold's bowling" - To prevent North Americans from getting stuck on "pitch", which is a common baseball word for "throw", I'd link to Cricket pitch.

Mold called for throwing

  • On my computer screen, File:Archie MacLaren.jpg displaces the subhead "Mold called for throwing". This could be fixed easily by moving the image down one paragraph.
  • "Acting at the request of the Lancashire committee, MacLaren then switched Mold to bowl from the opposite end so that Phillips would be at the bowler's end. Even so, Phillips continued to no-ball him... " - Here I am lost. What difference could it make to switch ends? Was the idea to make Phillips view things from a different angle? Note 5 is helpful, but I think North American readers will need to have the intended purpose of the tactic explained more clearly.
  • Err... Not too sure actually, none of the sources make it clear. There is no sensible explanation except to give a different angle, but no source says so. Today it is the square-leg umpire who usually adjudicates if a ball is thrown, but as the note says, this umpire was only given the authority in 1899. My cynical thought is that MacLaren may not have understood the rule change meant that either umpire could no-ball the bowler for throwing, but I have nothing to back this up. And it makes little sense; the given reason for switching ends is that the Lancashire committee wished Mold to continue, but there was no need to swap things around to do so. A mystery, I'm afraid! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • "The MCC also recommended that the counties did not play suspected bowlers... " - Delete "did"?

References

  • Citation 9's ISBN needs hyphens. A converter lives here.
  • Done.

Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Please let me know when this goes to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I believe the article needs serious work. It is in bad shape, and I need to know how to improve it specifically. Thanks, ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 01:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Trewyy. You might want to take a look at the introduction to the Peer Review page. The article should already be at a high level of quality before undergoing PR scrutiny. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dana Boomer

As you have stated, this article needs a serious amount of work. The first thing I would suggest doing is addressing all of the tags on the article:

  • Update all information that you can in the sections tagged with outdated information banners, make sure everything is accurate, and then remove the tags.
  • Find references and make any prose tweaks necessary for the spots in System requirements and Older operating systems tagged with "citation needed"/"clarification needed".
  • Fix the dead links that are tagged, as well as the other untagged ones that can be found listed here.

Then, there are quite a few other things that need work:

  • There are a lot of references to Mozilla itself, which is not an independent source. If you're aiming for GA/FA most/many of these should be replaced - I would suggest with references from the several books provided in the Further reading section.
  • Check for unreliable sources. Blogs and self-published websites are generally not reliable, unless written by an established expert in the field.
  • Web references should include a publisher and access date at the very least - if author, publication date or other information is available, it should also be included.
  • Dab links to Ubuntu and DOM should be fixed.
  • There are a lot of really short, choppy sections which look unappealing. Several of these could be combined with other sections, which would also serve to shorten the (very long) table of contents.

Overall - fix the tags and clean up the references, and you will be a lot closer to having a good article. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response. I didn't realize that I would receive a response here (I thought it was on the Talk page for Firefox), so I just realized it is here now. I have added these suggestions to the to-do list, and I hope to have these fixed by end of June. Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 15:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda (constellation)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello, I've started this peer review in advance of FAC because I want to see if the article has any significant issues beforehand. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Lead
  • "Andromeda is most prominent during autumn evenings ...". Is that autumn in the southern hemisphere or the northern hemisphere?
  • "... lie in Andromeda's borders". Nothing can lie in the borders of anything. At the very least it needs to be "within", but I'm not certain what "borders" means in this context anyway.
    • Constellations were given borders in the sky by the IAU about a century ago. I've changed it to "lie within" as I'm not sure how to make the border thing more clear. Any ideas?
      That seems fine now given your explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the stars that make up Andromeda were a part of four different constellations ...". That reads a bit awkwardly to me. How about "were members of four different constellations"?
  • The lead image has the caption "List of stars in Andromeda", but it's clearly a map, not a list. Also, is it correct to describe it as containing only stars anyway, as it very clearly shows the M31 galaxy?
    • Mmm, I think that's meant to be a simple link to the list. There's something similar in all the constellation articles, and I think it's automatic. Not really sure what to do with that.
      Looks like someone's tried to be too clever with that template, as what looks like a caption is, as you say, a link to a list article. So short of changing the template, which would undoubtedly require some centralised discussion that would drag on interminably, and end up with no consensus to do anything, you're stuck with that it seems. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how to edit templates, and I'd rather not start that mess, so I suppose I am. Not my first choice, but... Keilana|Parlez ici 20:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The template isn't protected, so it would be easy to change. One possibility would be to make a change that was specific to this article only, which I see has already been done for a couple of other articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe add a parameter for an image caption or something? I'd like to leave the list of stars somewhere in the infobox, as it's useful. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll have a think. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stars
  • "It is located at a distance of 97 light-years from Earth." A distance doesn't give a location, so why not simply say "It is 97 light-years from Earth"? There are several other similar occurrences in this section.
    • I rewrote all the ones I could find.
Deep-sky objects
  • "... a smaller galaxy located just east of Almach". There are an awful lot of these redundant "located" throughout the article.
    • Got the ones I could find in this section too.
  • "Though visible to the naked eye, it was first recorded in 964 C.E. ...". Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Is the point that it wasn't recorded until 964? If so, then it could better be rephrased as "Despite being visible to the naked eye ...".
    • Yeah. I rephrased it per your suggestion.
  • However, it would be centuries before the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope ...". Why the subjunctive "would be" rather than just "was"?
    • Not sure, I suppose I just really like the subjunctive after all those years of French. Considering that this is en.wiki, I rewrote it.
  • "... it was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi, who was the first to map the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure." Aren't we being told the same thing twice there?
    • I rewrote it as "...the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi in his Book of the Fixed Stars". Is that better?
      Much better. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is viewable in binoculars ...". Surely that should be "with binoculars"?
    • It's phrased as "in binoculars" and "in telescopes" in many astronomy texts. For example, Jay Pasachoff writes of M31, "It appears in telescopes as a yellowish oval glow...". I don't know if that takes precedence over "house style" though.
      If that's standard language in the field then no problem. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M32, visible with a far smaller size of 8.7 by 6.4 arcminutes ...". "It contains approximately 20 stars in a diameter of 15 arc minutes ...". Which is it to be? "Arcminutes" or "arc minutes"?
    • Arcminutes, took care of that.
  • "... the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope by Simon Marius, a German who observed M31 in 1612." Is it in some way significant that he was German? We don't, for instance, say in the previous section that Johann Bayer was also German.
    • Not in this case.
In non-Western astronomy
  • "Ancient Sanskrit texts depict 'Antarmada' (Andromeda) chained to a rock ...". Is is it right to so definitively associate Antarmada with Andromeda? And why is "Antarmada in scare quotes?
    • Because Antarmada is scary...yeah. I removed the quotes. I don't have access to Olcott right now, but a Google Books search links it about as much as the article does. I've looked through Julius Staal's "The New Patterns in the Sky" and didn't find anything related to the Hindu story, but I did find some information about a Mesopotamian analogue. I also found some detail on the Marshall Islanders' Porpoise, which incorporated some stars from Andromeda. I added both of those to the Non-Western astronomy section. None of the other sources cluttering up my desk have anything on the Hindu myth.
  • "Scholars have argued that the Hindu and Greek astrological myths were closely linked". Why the past tense? Are they no longer considered to be closely linked?
    • The source for that sentence was more than a century old, but since Olcott corroborates the link, I've changed the wording.
Citations
  • The ISBN for Cambridge Guide to Stars and Planets (1997) is incorrect.
    • Fixed.
  • I've never been a fan of using a general encyclopedia such as Britannica as a source. Why not use the same source that Britannica does?
    • How do you find that?
      Look at the Britannia article. Many UK public libraries offer free access to the online version, but if you can't access it let me know and I'll take a look. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The 1911 online edition doesn't have the source, and I'm in the US, unfortunately. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm about to pop out out now, but I'll check later and get back to you. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'm looking at the Britannica article now, and it lists 16 sources:
      • Barton, S.G., and Barton, W.H. Jr. Guide to the Constellations, 2nd ed. (Whittlesey House, 1935).
      • Berger, Melvin. Star Gazing, Comet Tracking, and Sky Mapping (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1985).
      • Burnham, Robert, Jr. Burnham's Celestial Handbook, rev. ed., 3 vols. (Dover, 1978).
      • Chartrand, M.R. National Audubon Society Field Guide to the Night Sky (Knopf, 1991).
      • Dibon-Smith, Richard. Starlist Two Thousand: A Quick Reference Star Catalog for Astronomers (Wiley, 1992).
      • Henbest, Nigel, and Couper, Heather. The Guide to the Galaxy (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994).
      • Hirshfeld, Alan, and others. Sky Catalogue 2000.0., 2 vols. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991).
      • Levitt, J.I.M., and Marshall, R.K. Star Maps for Beginners (Simon & Schuster, 1992).
      • Liller, William. The Cambridge Guide to Astronomical Discovery (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992).
      • Menzel, D.H., and Pasachoff, J.M. The Peterson Field Guide Series: A Field Guide to Stars and Planets, 2nd ed. (Houghton, 1995).
      • Moore, Patrick, ed. International Encyclopedia of Astronomy (Orion Books, 1987).
      • Ridpath, Ian. Star Tales (Universe, 1988).
      • Ridpath, Ian, and Tirion, Wil. Collins Pocket Guide: Stars and Planets, 2nd ed. (HarperCollins, 1993).
      • Rudaux, Lucien, and de Vaucouleurs, G. Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy (Prometheus Press, 1959).
      • Sesti, G.M. The Glorious Constellations: History and Mythology (Harry N. Abrams, 1987).
      • Stott, Carole. The Greenwich Guide to Stargazing (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989).
      Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you thank you thank you! I've looked through the ones that I have and will keep these listed for future use. I also took out the Britannica references as the information was duplicated in other sources. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's your logic for having some books in the Citations section and others in the References section?
    • The ones with a bunch of different pages ended up in References, I believe. Is that correct?
      There's no rule against it of course, but it looks very odd to me. My very strong preference is to have a separate Bibliography section for all of the books used, regardless of how many times they're cited. It's much easier to see all of the hard-copy sources used that way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting of book references in this section doesn't match that of those in the References section; I'd suggest standardising either on templates or manual referencing throughout the article.
    • Standardized with templates now.
  • There are lots of missing page numbers/page ranges.
    • I think I got them all.
  • I think you might have trouble persuading FAC reviewers about the reliability of some of the sources used, such as the Internet Encyclopedia of Science, Space.com, and messier.seds.org. in general I feel that it ought to be possible to find higher quality sources; I mentioned the Encyclopedia Britannica earlier as another one I'd avoid.
    • I removed the links to Encyclopedia of Science and messier.seds.org. However, the article on Space.com is written by Peter Jenniskens, a senior researcher at the SETI Institute, so I feel that's a reliable source. Thoughts?
      I'm not sure; it might be OK on the basis of Jenniskens reputation. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'm inclined to wait and see what reviewers say at FAC, if all else fails I can probably snag one of his books on Interlibrary Loan; I'm in a pretty good system. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • If you're going to provide locations for publishers then you need to provide it for all of them. There isn't one for Allen R. H. (1899) for instance, or for Olcott, William Tyler (2004). I find it much easier not to provide locations at all, as they're not required anyway.
    • I went through and removed them.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Kitzinger

[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's informative, well-written, well-interlinked with other articles, and well-referenced. I can't find any major problems with it myself, but want a second opinion before promoting it to good article status.

Thanks, Eshlare (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Man, is there anything John Barrowman isn't in any more? I'll give this a skim; if you're only going to GA status with it then it pretty much looks good to go. Ping me if you want to chase it further and I'll give it a more comprehensive look for you.
    • "PR" shouldn't be abbreviated the first time you use it; it may be a common term but it's still more encyclopedic to have it expanded at first mention.
      • Fixed.
    • "Torchwood, a group of renegades" -> renegades in the context of what? I've never seen the show but I always had the impression it was a UK Fringe kind of thing, maybe the actual role of Torchwood could be briefly touched upon here.
      • In the context of being unaffiliated with any organisation, and whose mission involves working against the government/CIA. Put in about two being ex-alien hunters and two being ex-CIA agents. Think that should cover it.
    • "coldheartedly" -> could be mistaken but I believe that's two words, maybe one hyphenated.
      • had a quick search, and the most common form of styling seems to be hyphenated.
    • "Some-time" -> "Some time"
      • Done.
    • Refs 1-6 are episode citations; list the roles of the personnel mentioned (I'm assuming they're writers/directors, so specify which is which; Episode 2 (Twin Peaks) has a few examples of how I tend to format that)
      • Added in.
    • Given that you mention the BBC site was revamped at one stage, it's definitely worth archiving it (WebCite should work) for future retention in case this happens again.
      • Done.
    • I've cited Todd VanDerWerff quite a few times in television articles, I've never seen him space his surname at any position he's written for. I'd suggest sticking with how he parses it.
      • Done. Probably an oversight seeing as I'd noted it without spaces in the references.
    • When you mention that Ambrose received a Saturn nod, you could expand that out a little by listing who eventually won that one (if you cite the Saturn Award homepage, archive the URL manually as they change it yearly and their own archives are bloody terrible).
      • Awards are yet to take place. I've indicated that for just now. Obviously once they take place I'll remove the reference to the exact day of the year etc. Didn't want to make the reference to the nomination too big, but it's best not to confuse. It's an external news article, so should be okay.
  • With those changes made, I'd be happy to have passed this at GAN no bother, so you shouldn't have any difficulty taking it there. GRAPPLE X 13:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shakugan no Shana

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm a fairly big fan of this Anime series, and I'm quite curious to know what other Wikipedia editors think of this article. It has had some restructuring lately thanks to user Juhachi, and I would want to know what other parts need improvement so that I or other Wikipedians can work to make it a Good Article.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments
  • Lead should include a summary of the reception somewhere
  • The plot section seems to blast users with in-universe terms in the first paragraph. It would be better if the terms were introduced in the same order as the plot for better flow. Instead of listing all the character names, try linking them their "rank" to their respective sections.
Particular examples? I don't see any terminology in the lead. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC) My bad, I thought you were referring to the lead. The reason the plot section is like that is because it resulted from when the Terminology, Plot and Characters sections were merged. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As Shana is a very term-heavy series, there's going to be a bunch of terms no matter what. Doing it this way seemed to be sensible as it gives the reader the impression of what the setting is like before actually getting into the plot and characters.--十八 07:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the international release/licensing, is that all of them? If not, it might be better to reword it as "... was licensed in countries such as ...".
Should broadcasting on Animax and Animega on TV5 count? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourth paragraph in anime section needs to be sourced.
Hard to find sources. Any leads? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final paragraph in video games also needs to be sourced.
By the way, can the part be in the Reception section? I've seen other anime articles where appearances by their characters appear in the Reception section rather than a media section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if there are reviews for the second and third anime series.

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANN and Mania.com doesn't seem to have reviews for Second or Final. My favorite site THEM Anime Reviews doesn't have reviews for Shana at all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Final was just reviewed by ANN yesterday. Well, I was planning on beefing up the reception section eventually anyway. The final paragraph in the video games section would be better suited in the reception section as a part of its legacy.--十八 07:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with the moving to reception part. Currently finding English or Japanese sources for Shana's appearance in Dengeki Gakuen RPG: Cross of Venus (so far I've only found unreliable sources). By the way, I found these three sites. Are they reliable or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the first one, the second link is broken, and the third is a blog and shouldn't be used. The official website of the game could easily be used, which I'll do now.--十八 20:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Siliconera is one of those situational/avoid-if-you-can sources over at WP:VG/RS. This article at Impress Watch should work, though. -- クラウド６６８ 17:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Slovenian football champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I feel this is a strong FL candidate and I just wanted to do a PR first, before nominating the list. All comments are welcomed and appreciated.

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have mistakenly requested this PR and listed the article as an "Everyday life" topic. I have changed it now to "Lists" and hope this will be enough, so I dont need to remove the PR and request another one. Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Second image caption is a complete sentence so should use a full stop.
  • While you link "football in Slovenia" and "Independence of Slovenia", you don't appear to actually link "Slovenia"!
  • I'd probably prefer to see "association football" linked instead...
  • "with only three clubs " could say who.
  • "During its times in the Yugoslav leagues, most of Slovenian teams competed " not great grammatically, would suggest a copyeditor has a look at the prose.
  • "teams were joined in the newly formed Slovenian football league to compete for the title of " would rephrase, maybe "teams competed in the newly formed Slovenian football league for the title of..."
  • "teams in PrvaLiga" I'd typically expect to see "in the PrvaLiga" but perhaps this isn't common usage when referring to it?
  • "a spot in the UEFA competitions" can you be more specific?
  • Check for the correct use of en dashes in the references with year ranges etc.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done almost everything addressed here. Maybe you have an a idea on how to rephrase this sentence "During its times in the Yugoslav leagues, most of Slovenian teams competed in the Slovenian Republic Football League, for the title of regional champions."?Ratipok (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alive or Just Breathing

[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 it and my goal is to get it to GA status. I haven't written an article in years, so I'm a bit rusty.

Thanks, Burningclean [speak] 07:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the first paragraph needs to be tightened up some, but otherwise it's good. When I first read the line "which prompted them to write and record the album to the best of their abilities" I read it as an inference the writer made based on it being their first album on Roadrunner. The line did not make sense until I read the writing and recording section. Maybe something like: "Produced by drummer and guitarist Adam Dutkiewicz, this was the band's first album on a major label, and they devoted significantly more time to the writing and recording process." Then put the current reference [6] afterwards to increase credibility. Or just put the reference on the current line.

The line "a positive message through the music" in the first paragraph also. Perhaps a reference also from the writing and recording part to support this, for people that do not want to read the whole article.

In the Artwork and packaging section, the line "As Killswitch Engage was signing to Roadrunner Records, the band had made sure that written into the contract was for D'Antonio to produce all of Killswitch Engage's artwork." To me, it sounds better without the "had" but that's really being nitpicky. Jesterhead57 (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above comments were left on my talk page. I'm just pasting them here so I can show that issues were addressed. Burningclean [speak] 22:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acute limb ischaemia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello! I have, along with a few other undergraduate biology students, been assigned this Wikipedia stub for a class project. We're quite new to the Wikipedia world, and would love some help (especially from people much more qualified than ourselves). We seem to be having quite a lot of trouble actually finding information, so any advice would be very much appreciated! Thank you very much! AU Biology Undergraduate Students

Comments from Cryptic C62

[edit]

Hi there! To those of you who have never edited Wikipedia before, welcome! Ya'll have done a pretty solid job of expanding the article, but there is definitely more room for improvement. Here are some pointers, of varying degrees of importance:

  • In general, focus on writing paragraphs rather than lists. All of the lists in this article can (and should) be written as full sentences with more connecting details.
  • I strongly recommend employing the citation templates, particularly {{cite journal}}. This will make your citations more consistent and easier to read. For example, a citation for Article #1 can be generated using:

{{cite journal | title = Acute Limb Ischemia | author = Walker, T. Gregory | journal = Techniques in Vascular and Interventional Radiology | volume = 12 | issue = 2 | date = June 2009 | pages = 117-129 | issn = 1089-2516 | doi = 10.1053/j.tvir.2009.08.005 | url = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1089251609000316 }}

which gives the following output:

Walker, T. Gregory (June 2009). "Acute Limb Ischemia". Techniques in Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 12 (2): 117–129. doi:10.1053/j.tvir.2009.08.005. ISSN 1089-2516.

  • On a related note, I would try to make your reference names a bit more descriptive than just "Article #1". If the order in which the references are used changes, then the numbering will no longer be helpful.
  • This article should have a History section and a Epidemiology section.
  • The lead should only summarize information that is presented in the body of the article. Many editors (myself included) write the body of the article first, then pick important statements to repeat or rephrase in the lead.
  • Whenever you do start working on the lead, note that the very first sentence is ambiguous: "Acute limb ischaemia occurs when there is an sudden lack of blood flow to a limb." Is ischaemia a condition caused by a sudden lack of blood flow? Or is it the lack of blood flow itself? It is very often the case that the first sentence is the only thing that the reader sees, so it needs to be especially clear.

Hope this helps! Feel free to leave a note here or on my talk page if you need clarification or more feedback. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baragoola

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that with up bit of assistance I can increase the assessment level of it.

Thanks, Blacklord (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments by Peripitus

Like the article, and the subject. I'm very pleased that it's still around and being cared for. There is some more material I'd like to see.

There are some sources of additional, or more complete, information.

  • heritage nsw - http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_01_2.cfm?itemid=5045045
  • this SMH article - http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/17/1042520776848.html
  • information on the vessel from shipbuilding directories and other books, like: International shipping & shipbuilding directory, 1974; Sydney since the twenties, 1978; Sydney by ferry & foot, 1989; Last ferry to manley, 1984; Manly and Pittwater: its beauty and progress, 1948. I've always found that books and newspapers are indispensible for subjects of this age.
  • there are mentions of the collisions/incidents in issues of "The Nautical magazine" around the same time as the incidents.
  • you mention "three Scottish steamers" but don't name them until later nor give much information on them so the two sentences mentioning them seem out of place
  • I'd like to see more on her construction and physical structure. Was the passenger capacity all seated, all standing or a combination.

Take note not to cut and paste material - it needs to be substantively original work. I can see that:

  • Baragoola was arguably the most popular Manly ferry, this was evidenced by the massive turnout for her farewell trip in 1983 (from baragoola.com.au) and
  • Baragoola ... was regarded as the most popular Manly ferry, this was shown by the large number of people who turned out for her farewell trip in 1983 ... (from the article)
are rather too similar and the change from "was arguably" to "was regarded" is a significant change in meaning.

There are some awkwardly phrased sections and sentences, and some parts that need explaining.

  • What is a 7SKM diesel electric engine ? (I know it's an engine model but this needs explaining if it's mentioned)
  • see what changes I've made to the Concept and construction section. I've removed the abbrevated forms of Mort's and the Manley company as these are the first time they're mentioned in the main article, and tried to make it flow in a more prose style.
  • Avoid the repeated in <date> something happened beginning to sentences (see "Incidents in service" and following). They tend to read as more of a dot-point list rather than prose.
  • Typical of all Manly ferries constructed until 1938, Baragoola's public spaces are laid out to a specific format..... do you mean a "common format" ?
  • "Baragoola (aboriginal for Flood Tide)" - when mentioning this it is best to mention the aboriginal tribe and/or language.
  • when did she change from SS to MV ? was it 1961 at the relaunch ?


an enjoyable read - keep up the good work. Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peripitus, I'll make the changes you recommended. Blacklord (Talk)

List of James Bond film cast lists

[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 struggled through updating the article with half an eye on it becoming a Featured List, but not feeling terribly good about what the result is. As it stands it's no more than a collection of the cast lists (which can be obtained from the individual film articles) and there seems little point in simply copying those. I've run up three other partial versions which may make for a better list (and closer to the FL status too). Does anyone have any thoughts as to which would make for the better page?

Thanks, SchroCat (^ • @) 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hey Schrocat. I share your concerns with the list as you have it here now. It is pretty much a cut-and-paste of cast lists from each of the individual film articles and offers not much at all in the way of additional functionality or information.

  • I think all of your litter trays are better than this one you have under review.
  • Version 1 is pretty much the same as version 3 as far as I could tell except for headings like "James Bond" which gives you (to my eyes) an odd-looking mix of two- and three-column tables.
  • Version 2 has that bold blue mid-banner for each of the categories of actors, I quite like it aesthetically but I'm not sure how it works from an WP:ACCESS persepective. It may be that it's just fine, but it's probably worth check with User:RexxS before you redo all that work just it for it to be inaccessible to screen readers.
  • I think, if I had to state a preference, it'd be for version 1 because, at least, that allows me find out all the Bond films where Bond was played by Dalton which, at least is additional to the functionality you provide with this current list.

Hope that helps, would be more than happy to provide additional comments upon request. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RM, how's things? You're right to think of the Access point for version 2 - it just doesn't work from that point of view. The difference between 2 and 3 is that version 1 is one large table (possibly over large) whilst version 3 has a series of tables, broken into categories. I'm really not sure which has the most issues surrounding it! Thanks for your input - at least it confirms that the current one is rubbish and version 2 probably won't work! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metalloid

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is currently rated as B+ class. I'm requesting a peer review to assess if it meets the WikiProject Elements A-class criteria. These criteria are:

  • A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style (using <ref></ref> tags and {{cite book}} and similar templates), and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
  • A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
  • A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
  • A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
  • A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

Much of the literature about metalloids is superficial. There is some good stuff out there in chemistry land but the signal-to-noise ratio is very low, and the history is convoluted and relatively obscure. I think the article is comprehensive and pulls all of the many threads together, into a cohesive whole. Grateful for others' views about this.

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback. Stand-alone one sentence paragraphs now make up around 10 per cent of the paragraph count. Half of these occur in the Origin and usage section which, by its nature, includes quite a few chronologically ordered usage examples. Hope this helps. Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by R8R Gtrs

[edit]

The article reads decent. Really decent. It has a specific style. I don't know if that's a feature or it should be changed-- so I won't give general comments about this.

  • The lead seems too short (there should be a style guide). I personally think you could add a para discussing basic properties and uses slightly more closely  Done
  • Stand-alone one sentence paragraphs. Know, already mentioned, but I think they can be further integrated. Know they sometimes seem good, but (again) I personally would integrate most (not all, maybe though)  Done
  • Liked your short descriptions, especially the Mendeleev note on tellurium
  • Would maybe enlarge slightly the common uses (especialy glasses and semiconductors -- the latter are among my first associations with the term "metalloid."  Done
  • Sections Other metalloids and alike-- maybe useful to point out the whole spirit of the term "metalloid" may vary (given different authors and purposes, chemical or physical, etc.) Got the idea?  Done
  • In 1954, Szabó & Lakatos-- many of such could be treated somewhere else, in a daughter article maybe (although I remember one such), do they really need a place here? The article is very long anyway. The same maybe applies for the History section-- the info could be copied into a new article called "Outline of metalloids" or alike.

Visually, the refs seem good, except for non-standard author names, and many ISBNs are missing (but also maybe don't exist) If the refs are fine, only cutting some excessive detail (you maybe think there's no excessive...recommend a daughter article), some more superconductor info, [Done] and a slightly longer lead probably qualify for A.

(I've been short in writing, yet hope the comments are helpful)--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is great feedback: concise; constructive; balanced; thoughtful; and doable. Thank you very much! Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62

[edit]
  • In order to improve readability, some of the citations in the lead may be removed per WP:CITELEAD. In a nutshell, information in the lead should (usually) be presented elsewhere in the article along with a citation, so it is (usually) not necessary to give citations in the lead.
Good advice. The lead has some citations because there is some controversy associated with the term metalloid, its meaning, and its application. I'll look into your suggestion further, however.
I've now removed most of the citations from the lead, in order to improve readibility Sandbh (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it rather odd that the lead describes the classification scheme (or lack thereof) before giving any meaningful information about metalloids or their significance. I strongly suggest rearranging the content in the lead.
Well, since there is no agreed definition of a metalloid I thought it would be useful to start with a general definition, and then take it from there i.e. what is a metalloid?-->which elements are metalloids?-->what are their properties?-->what are they good for?
  • "They are metallic-looking brittle solids," Solid at room temperature? Or always solid?
I don't think there's a need to be that specific, at least in the lead. Same as there wouldn't be much point in saying, 'Iron is a (metallic) solid, at room temperature'. Later in the article, when it matters, these things are clarified e.g. when noting the electrical behaviour of the 'common' metalloids in liquid form.
  • "with intermediate to relatively good electrical conductivities" Good for whom? If a material scientist is trying to reduce the electrical conductivity of a particular alloy, "relatively good" might be bad. Perhaps you mean "relatively high"?
No, I mean relatively good in the common-use sense that 'metals are good conductors of electricity' (Hill & Holman 2000, p. 41). This is elaborated in the physical properties table, which notes that metals have 'good to high' electrical conductivity values; metalloids 'intermediate to good'; and nonmetals 'poor to good'.
  • "Chemically, they mostly behave as (weak) nonmetals, and have intermediate ionization energy and electronegativity values, and amphoteric or weakly acidic oxides." I'm not a fan of the "fact, and fact, and fact" construction. Are any of these characteristics related to each other? If not, consider this phrasing instead: "Chemically, they mostly behave as (weak) nonmetals, have intermediate ionization energy and electronegativity values, and form amphoteric or weakly acidic oxides."
Nice rephrasing, thank you.
  • "Being too brittle to have any structural uses they or their compounds instead find common uses in glasses, alloys or semiconductors." Does "they" refer to the metalloids, or their oxides? Does "structural" mean "load-bearing" or "having a well-defined shape"? If they are too brittle for structural use, why are they used in alloys? "Or" should be "and". Possible rewrite: "Semimetals find common use in glasses, alloys and semiconductors, though they are too brittle to blah blah blah..."
Good call on 'they' and 'or'. Will fix that. 'Structural uses' means as in, '...pure As has no structural applications' (Russell & Lee 2005, p. 421) or 'The precious metals gold, silver, and platinum are transition elements used in coinage and jewelry. Others, such as iron and its alloy, steel, are valuable for their structural uses.' (Moore, Stanitski & Jurs 2008, Chemistry: The Molecular Science, vol. II, 3rd ed., p. 1063) or 'Because pure tin is relatively weak, it is not put to structural uses unless alloyed with other metals.' (The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1994, vol. 11, p. 785). Not all alloys have structural uses, e.g. common solder, so I'm not sure what confusion arises around saying metalloids are too brittle to have any structural uses, but do find uses in alloys.
  • "the development of solid state electronics, from around the 1950s or early 60s, onwards." Is it up to the reader to decide whether it was the 1950s or the 60s? The development only happened once.
Good call. It depends on who you read and what is regarded as the start point. I think Double sharps' edit, 'from around the 1950s to early 60s onwards' has addressed this.
This edit just introduces a new problem. It suggests that the 1950s was the starting point (fine), and that the development continued to the present day (fine)... but then what's the significance of the early 60s? I suggest employing either of the following: "the development of solid state electronics, from the 1950s onwards" or "the development of solid state electronics, from the 1950s to the early 60s".
Have addressed this by being clearer re which decade goes with what item. Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use single-sentence paragraphs. Ever. There may be exceptions to this rule, but they are so rare that I have never come across one. Expand, merge, or delete all single-sentence paragraphs. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader, not to present them with a barrage of unrelated statements.
WP:BETTER and WP:LAYOUT both provide for the use of one-sentence paragraphs, albeit sparingly (which is a good qualification). I note the advice given in Usage and abusage: A guide to good English (Partridge 1999, 3rd ed, p. 238): 'II. Do not shred the story...into a sequence of very short paragraphs, for this is an irritating trick...of slick journalists. III But to interpose a one-sentence paragraph at intervals – at longish intervals – is prudent. Such a device helps the eye and enables the reader (especially if 'the going is heavy') to regain his or her breath between one impressive or weighty or abstruse paragraph and the next.' Other authors dismissing the prohibition on one-sentence paragraphs include Trimble (Working with style 2000, 2nd ed., pp. 92–93); Garner (The elements of legal style 1991, p. 67); and Bernstein (The careful writer 1965, p. 324). All the one-sentence paragraphs in the article are related to their predecessors and successors. I understand your point however and will look again at the one-sentence paragraphs to see if they really are warranted as such. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so "never ever ever" might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but I do firmly believe that some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs in this article should be addressed. Near metalloids contains a plethora of teeny weeny paragraphs that could easily be merged or expanded.
OK I've consolidated the 'near metalloids' paras. Sandbh (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I don't know that I would recommend adhering to the guidelines proposed in the stylebooks you've mentioned, or at the very least they should be taken with a grain of salt. Those books were, after all, published before Wikipedia was created. The very nature of information has changed drastically since then. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that there is a continuum of rules pertaining to the use of one-sentence paragraphs. At one end of the continuum is scientific writing in respect of which, as far as I can tell, all style guides say never use a one-sentence paragraph (except maybe for the last paragraph). At the other end of the continuum are tabloid newspapers, which seem to be written using only one-sentence paragraphs. I gather encyclopedias are somewhere in the middle, probably more towards the scientific paper end. Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and has a melting point several hundred degrees higher than that of steel." citation needed
The intent of the sentence was to give the reader an idea of the relative fusibility of the applicable metalloid. Since the sentence could easily be verified I wondered if it required a citation. Judging by the spirit of WP:VERIFY ('…in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for…any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged') I thought not.
  • "The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small size" Size meaning mass? Or volume?
As in the common use meaning of height, width, depth et cetera. For example, 'The chemical nature of boron is influenced primarily by its small size…' (Greenwood & Earnshaw 2002, p. 145). Since this is the language used in the literature I thought it would also be OK for the article.
  • "This gives an idea of how close boron is to the metal-nonmetal borderline" This phrasing may be appropriate for a textbook, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. The simplest solution would be to replace "gives an idea of" with "indicates".
Well spotted. Will do.
  • In Tellurium, what is the purpose of quoting Mendeleev? I appreciate that he contributed to the foundations of modern chemistry, but his words are both outdated and easily paraphrased.
I included Mendeleev's words for several reasons. The primary reason is that I was inspired by Bond (2005, p. vii) who wrote that, 'I can also remember papers that are becoming lost in the mists of time, and I shall refer to some them, as they still have value. Age does not automatically disqualify scientific work; the earliest paper I cite is dated 1858.' Other reasons are: (2) Mendeleev's writings, for his time, are amazing in their coverage, presentation and continuing relevance; (3) this particular quote seemed to be particularly apt; and (4) as way of prefacing Mendeleev's later reference to the concept of metalloids, although he didn't refer to them as such: 'It is...impossible to draw a strict line of demarcation between metals and nonmetals, there being many intermediate substances'.
Upon further reflection I've relocated this quote into a note. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to provide the above feedback. Sandbh (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Roberts

[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… First subject of a series of articles I'm planning to work on some of the most tragic baseball figures in history. Here's the story of the first black player in Pittsburgh Pirates history. Started his rookie season, but had a short Major League career. After spending about 8 years trying to return to the Majors, he retired and was killed by drunk driver soon after. What's sad is that nearly all his former teammates didn't know about his death until almost 20 years later, when the local newspaper decided to do a piece on Roberts. But he had a huge and very unstated impact in baseball along the way. A bit on the shorter side, but I want to see if this is FA material.

Thanks, Secret account 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments short article but a lot to say about it!

  • One dab link, "ground out" needs to be fixed.
  • Could mention in the lead he was mostly referred to as "Curt" since the lead starts with Curtis...
  • "became the first black Major League player for the Pirates. After becoming the " became, becoming... reads a little repetitive.
  • "and weighed 165 lb (75 kg)" in the lead, was his weight important, you said he was considered "short" (not short and fat, short and slim... whatever)...
  • As a complete outsider, I find the infobox a little confusing because it's presumably (?) an MLB box, although that's not clear really. Roberts played for more than just one team but someone scanning the infobox will get a slightly skewed impression.
  • Also, though outside this review, no reason for that infobox to have bold links...
  • FAC is good aspiration, mostly though they don't like refs in the lead because you shouldn't be saying stuff in the lead that isn't expanded in the main part of the article.
  • "the same high school Frank Robinson, Vada Pinson, Bill Russell and Curt Flood, who went to all within a few years of each other.[3]" not sure of the grammar, and as a non-expert, no idea who those people are so worth just saying "future MLBers" or something similar.
  • "for a $10,000 sum.[7][5]" always prefer seeing refs in numerical order.
  • "Roberts two errors" needs an apostrophe.
  • "were competing for the second base job" -> "... teammates competed for second base..."
  • "Roberts had his " had or "made"?
  • "Later Career" -> "Later career" per WP:HEAD.
  • "becoming an journeyman in" grammar.
  • "He played.." new para so "Roberts played..."
  • "When his baseball career ended, Roberts worked as" not Roberts here, just he.
  • "an assistant to a radiation laboratory" in, not to.
  • "most of Roberts old teammates" apostrophe.
  • "Roberts couldn't hit with" avoid contractions.
  • "the most notable whom was" grammar.
  • "were black.[4][2]" ref order.
  • "Negro League greats," no doubt true but non-encyclopedic without direct quotes.
  • Refs - pg. or p.?
  • Use en-dashes in refs per WP:DASH.
  • Avoid the double period (e.g. "Reference LLC..")

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all the concerns. With the dab link, like I mentioned in the GA review, the term is perfectly explained and there isn't much of a suitable article for it so this is one of the few exceptions in which it is ok. With the infobox, I put the Monarchs but minor league teams can't be in the infobox per normal baseball guidelines of MLB players. And the bolding comes from the infobox template so I can't do much about it. Thanks Secret account 23:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Found some interesting sources that might help in expanding the article.

  • This has some interesting material on Roberts' minor league career and why his major league career didn't last longer.
  • This mentions forms of racism he faced and some things about his fielding ability.
  • This discusses how often Roberts got hit by pitches in 1951 and says it was part of a pattern of black players getting hit in the Western League.
  • This says that he set a Pacific Coast League errorless games record in 1955.

Not sure how much these sources will help you, but hopefully they will assist in resolving potential concerns about the article's length. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Douglas-Home

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've substantially revised and added to this article, and would like to get it up to FA standard. Comments and suggestions will be gratefully received on any aspect of the article – length, balance, proportions, prose and indeed anything else. One particular point: I have tried to follow the Manual of Style on capitalisation of job and other titles, and where the MoS is silent or incomprehensible I have had recourse to the Guardian style book and the practice of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (though drawing the line at the latter's "earl of Home"). I find such resulting forms as "lord chancellor" rather jarring, and I'd welcome comments on this. Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy this peer review! I'll deal with the above points forthwith. I haven't set any timetable for FAC, so there is absolutely no rush for your next set of comments (to which, however, I look forward very much, foreseeing a spirited tussle, without bloodshed, naturally). Tim riley (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
  • Part I of mine as well.
Lede
  • I would start the third paragraph with Macmillan's illness and resignation.
  • I would move the mention of Home's pushing through successor elections to his other accomplishments as PM.
  • The mention of his stiffness on television should probably be moved close to the discussion of the 1964 election. There is something to say for moving the 1964 election to the fourth paragraph, but a case could be made either way.
  • "his Conservative successor" Suggest omit as unneeded. Home would be unlikely to serve in anything else than a Conservative cabinet and the successor is implied.
  • "retired from politics." Perhaps "active involvement in politics"? It's just the juxtaposition with the translation to the House of Lords ...
Early life
  • There seems to be a need for citation in the first paragraph.
Member of Parliament
  • "of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" Suggest omit, it seems implied in the fact that this is when we're talking about.
  • "The 11th earl, Dunglass's great-grandfather, was the only earlier member of the family to be a government minister, serving as under-secretary at the Foreign Office in Wellington's 1828–30 governmen" Perhaps "Uniquely in the family, the 11th earl ..." That avoids the awkwardness as you try to move around the fact of Alec's later service.
  • " Eton or Oxford. He had not joined the Oxford Union as budding Oxonian ... " Suggest "Oxonian" be deleted as not really needed, and the triple Ox ... is a bit much.
  • "as the Conservatives were then called in Scotland" when?
  • " "a property-owning democracy", based on industrial democracy " Can the second democracy be altered? I'm not really sure what is being driven at anyway.
  • "Dunglass was not persuaded by the alternative, socialist ideal of common ownership." The word alternative might be wrongly taken to be intended as a noun,
  • "the chancellor of the exchequer," Suggest caps C and E.
    • Ah, well, this is the problem I mentioned in my preamble at the top of this page. I think I am following the prescriptions of the Manual of Style, and where that is silent or incomprehensible I have followed the Guardian style guide and the ODNB, both of which sternly abjure capitals for "chancellor of the exchequer". It looks odd to me, but these are formidable supporting authorities for the MoS. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1936 Dunglass married Elizabeth Alington, whose father, Cyril Alington, had been his headmaster at Eton, and was from 1933 Dean of Durham; " I didn't know Home was Dean of Durham.
  • " There were three daughters and one son of the marriage: Caroline, Meriel, Diana and David, who inherited the earldom of Home on his father's death" I would separate the daughters, and then the son, who inherited the earldom upon his father's death. Lest anyone assume all four inherited it.
  • "through appeasement of Adolf Hitler." I would suggest "through the appeasement of Germany, led by its chancellor, Adolf Hitler."
  • I think Lord President of the Council has to be capped. It may be you have other ideas though.
  • Regarding the quote box. That colour looks similar enough to the one some time ago I observed in one of your articles. You can change the colour in the quote box, look here for colours.
Postwar
  • "as he would soon inherit the earldom." I would throw a "likely" into there somewhere.
    • I think this is probably covered by "widely assumed"
  • "by-election was scheduled" I take it this means it was already given a date when Attlee called the election?
  • You might want to make it clear that Home was not then Foreign Secretary; the modern term is Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
    • He was foreign secretary under Macmillan and foreign and commonwealth secretary under Heath. I have tried to stick to the title prevailing at each period.
  • "When the invasion was abandoned under pressure from the US in November 1956, Home worked with the dissenting members of the Commonwealth to build the organisation into what Hurd calls "a modern multiracial Commonwealth"" In two months before Eden resigned? Suggest this might be better in the next section, where it would go well with the African nations getting independence.
    • It was during the crisis that I was getting at. After the crisis was over the dissenting members of the Commonwealth rallied round supportively to a perhaps surprising degree.
  • "forcefully expressed" I would put a hyphen.
  • Your minimal use of capitals surprises me. Surely at least "Cold War"?
    • Again, this is an attempt to follow the best current UK usage.
Part II to follow. Looks very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm grateful for this, which I'll enjoy dealing with over the weekend (after a hiatus throughout Saturday, and possibly Sunday morning, when I am briefly emerging from retirement to do a tiny bit of paid work for HMG.) Tim riley (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trust the paid work does not involve editing Wikipedia, or you may be hit with lighting bolts from Zeus! I will probably not complete this before the weekend; I am traveling and time not driving or sleeping is limited.
Certainly not! A spot of copy-editing of an official report on a subject I have never dealt with in Wikipedia. Absolutely no rush for further comments, though they will be welcome as always at your leisure. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2nd tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Section 1.2 header: "Member of parliament" - um, Member of Parliament?
  • end of second para: "not persuaded by the alternative, socialist ideal" - either omit the comma or add another after socialist
  • 3rd para: is there some good reason why National Government is in quotes?
    • I dithered about this: I put the quotes in to flag up to any non-British readers that although all national governments are national governments the National Government was something quite other. I'm not bound to the quites with hoops of iron and will blitz them if you recommend it. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5th para: "parliamentary private secretary to the junior minister at the Ministry of Labour ... same position under the chancellor of the exchequer" - how about a) telling us who the junior minister at the M of L was and b) clarifying whether the "same position" was to another junior minister under Chamberlain (and, if so, who?) or as pps to Chamberlain himself.
    • Redrawn to make all clear. (He was indeed Chamberlain's PPS)
  • 6th para: "the Archbishop of York, William Temple and the Bishop of Durham, Hensley Henson." Sounds as if William Temple was a third party; suggest either "William Temple, Archbishop of York and ..." or "Archbishop of York (William Temple) and ..."
  • The Hirsel is a rather surprising redirect to Lake of the Hirsel. Suggest turning the redirect into a stub about the house and telling us more about it somewhere in the article.
  • Note 2: "the intention that a disclaimed peerage would lapse permanently .... if this provision had remained a condition of disclaiming his earldom...": an intention and a provision seem to me to be two different things.
More nit-picking with my fine-toothed comb when time permits. --GuillaumeTell 10:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: As I have come late to the Vass party, I won't do a prose nit-picking exercise since others seem to be doing that. I do have a few quibbles about this excellent biographical article on a somewhat enigmatic figure:-

  • Is it possible to do anything about the presentation of the first paragraph of the lead? All those bolded names - it looks a bit of a mess and not especially welcoming. That's a pity, because in general I think the lead is a model for what this section should be: clear, lucid and a comprehensive summary of the article.
    • I'm outvoted on this: another regular editor agrees with you on this point, and has firmly told me so. I'll see if I can make the lead work without the litany of titles. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One slight factual error in the lead: you refer to "...a sexual scandal involving a senior minister in 1962". The Profumo affair erupted in 1963, not 1962. And I am unsure whether Profumo should be described as a "senior minister"; he wasn't in the cabinet and was subordinate to the Minister of Defence.
  • Home's involvement in the D'Oliveira affair, as recorded by Peter Oborne in Basil D'Oliveira. Cricket and Conspiracy: The Untold Story (2004) is a little less innocent than suggested in the article. Oborne says that in his meeting with Vorster, Home was "no more robust with Vorster than Chamberlain had been with Hitler thirty years previously." He skirted around, but did not address the issue of D'Oliveira's acceptability directly. Furthermore, Home advised the MCC to drop its policy of seeking assurances from the South Africans about selections for the 1968–69 tour, and to let things be, opining that "the odds were 5 to 4 on D'Oliveira being allowed in, if selected". And D'Oliveirs might lose form and not be selected, in which case the issue would go away. As a result of this "do nothing" advice, the MCC was quite unprepared for what transpired when D'Oliveira was selected.
    • Very interesting indeed. You wouldn't get that impression from Thorpe's 1997 biography of Home. I can see I'll have to pop down to the British Library for a spot of reading before I go to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have Oborne's book, and will craft an appropriate couple of sentences if you wish. Oborne writes from a generally right-wing perspective (pol. ed. of Spectator, Mail on Sunday columnist etc), so I think his strictures carry some weight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a very handsome offer which I gratefully accept. Absolutely no rush. Don't hesitate to cut or alter what I've said so far. Tim riley (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now done so; please check it out. I have also added Oborne to the sources. However, I find myself a little worried about the second MCC-related controversy, concerning the replacement of Brian Close as captain of England. My recollection (I was about 14 at the time) is that Close lost the captaincy because of some blatant time-wasting tactics in a county match, whereby Yorkshire avoided defeat by taking half an hour to bowl five overs. This behaviour was widely condemned, not just by the MCC establishment. There were no doubt some MCC class warriors who were only too anxious for an excuse to replace the rough-hewn Close with the gentlemanly though generally unsuccessful (as a captain) Cowdrey, but the plain fact is that Close handed them their excuse on a plate. To imply that the only issue was social class is perhaps misleading.
  • Maybe the "Reputation" section could be beefed up a bit. What, specifically, have historians said about him? Has anyone gone beyond the assertion that he was a nice polite man? (Later: Some of the survey results reported in Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are quite telling. Not all of them are based on ill-informed opinion).
  • The section heading "Douglas-Home's government, October 1963 – October 1964" should read "Douglas-Home's cabinet, October 1963 – October 1964". His "government" included a large number of second tier and junior ministerial posts not listed here.
  • I am somewhat at odds with the "Titles and descent" section, which taken together with the opening to he lead is surely going to perplex our American friends. It seems particularly overcomplicated to suggest that even the addition of a post-nominal represents a change of style and title. The five genuine names, and the reasons for them, are fully covered in the text and I see no benefit in spelling the whole things out again here.
    • This is an attempt to accommodate the susceptibilities of an earlier editor, who evidently adores Debrett and has added countless such lists to UK bio articles. I turned his/her bulleted list into prose, but I find the whole thing pointless and unencyclopaedic, and will gladly blitz it if there is a consensus to that effect.

That's all for the moment, though I may poke around a bit more while the review remains open. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3nd tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Chamberlain and war
Postwar and House of Lords
  • "in the Conservatives' defeat in the landslide Labour victory" - "in the" twice sounds rather odd.
  • "He remained with the bank until he took ministerial office five years later" might be rewritten and placed near "Home was appointed to the new post of minister of state at the Scottish Office" two paras later.
    • Redrawn.
  • "When Eden succeeded Churchill as prime minister in 1955 he promoted Home to the cabinet as secretary of state for Commonwealth affairs". No (if Wikipedia is to be believed) he wasn't, he was promoted to the cabinet as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to which there should be a link.
  • final para: Butler "damaged his chance of succeeding Eden" etc seems to me to be jumping the gun as at this point Eden hadn't resigned. Suggest inserting some version of this near the start of the next section.
Macmillan's government
  • Lord Salisbury wasn't Home's immediate predecessor at Commonwealth Relations (that was Lord Swinton), though (briefly, in 1952) he was a predecessor.
  • This section has "Commonwealth relations office" twice and "Commonwealth Relations Office" once - need to check the rest of the article. I prefer the latter (and, like Wehwalt, also prefer capitals), especially as WP article titles (e.g. Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations) use caps. En passant, I don't think that the Guardian style book's preference for lower-case is suitable for titles in encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper!
    • In truth, I'm pleased that both you and Wehwalt vote for capitals for job titles. I can live with "prime minister", but "lord privy seal" looks plain daft to me. I've given all job titles caps now. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord President of the Council: no mention of why this post of Home's was given to Hailsham in 1957 after only 6 months or so (especially as this post "was largely honorific") - or indeed why he got it back in 1959. BTW, is there some good reason why the lengthy infobox in the top right-hand corner places the "in office" sections headed Foreign Secretary and Lord President in reverse chronological order?
    • Hailsham was made chairman of the party, and was made Lord President to give him a post that entitled him to sit in the cabinet. I think this is a bit of a diversion from the narrative here, though. As for infoboxes, I loathe them with a Florentine fourteenth-century frenzy. I didn't put the blasted thing there and I assume that whoever perpetrated it is following a general format. I'd drop it altogether if I thought I could get away with it. As it is, I have blitzed a second infobox on a cricketing theme, which took the bottom of the infobox sprawl as far down the page as the Munich agreement. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign secretary
  • 4th para: "Soviet nuclear missiles were brought to Cuba, provocative the US." - either "provoking" or something like "which the US [or JFK?] regarded as a provocative move".
  • "Despite a public image of unflappable calm, Macmillan was by nature nervous and highly-strung." Ref needed, if you can find one (and my vision of SuperMac pre-night-of-long-knives has now disappeared completely).
    • Ref added
  • "The lord chancellor, the attorney general and the solicitor general" - I'd include their names.
Successor to Macmillan
--GuillaumeTell 10:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, concluding
Successor to Macmillan
  • Is there no article that can be a hatnote in this section about the leadership crisis?
  • "Conservatively-inclined" Can another phrase be proffered here?
  • I seem to recall some Wilson quotations of his delight at the idea of facing the aristocratic Douglas-Home in the election. One might be worthy of inclusion if you can find it.
Opposition (1964)
  • "together with a life peerage" If the source says whether this was granted in Home's resignation honours, it might be worth noting.
    • No. Home offered Butler an earldom (most unusual for a cabinet minister who hadn't been PM) but Butler declined. The offer of Trinity and the life peerage came from Wilson some weeks later, with Douglas-Home's approval. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Douglas-Home either did not know, or chose to ignore, the fact that Heath had privately made a donation to PEST." Well, if it was private, why would he?
  • If I recall correctly, the balloting is organised by the 1922 Committee, the backbenchers. If that was Home's touch to assure impartiality in the process, it would be worth a mention, I think.
  • "unilaterally declared" I would pipe to Unilateral Declaration of Independence
  • "rebels" in view of the insurgency carried out Rhodesian, er, independence, I would clarify you are talking about the "government".
  • "The second controversy was not one of race ..." this sentence makes for difficult reading, consider rewriting and possibly splitting.
  • "after the 1964 general election had" omit, not really needed and so you'd avoid double use of "election".
  • "that he would lose, and " Perhaps recast along the lines "if he lost, Powell would ... " After all, Heath was safe if he won.
    • But I want to make the point that Home expected Heath to lose. I think I'll leave this as is.
FCO
Legacy
  • " He was also the only prime minister to have played first class cricket." The list of first and last may expose you to claims of trivia. I suggest that this can be easily sacrificed to mollify them, as you've already said this.
    • Blitzed in toto.
  • Titles
Some sourcing needs I think.

Well done. I have no doubt Alec will soon join his old boss Neville in the FA pantheon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful to all three reviewers above for throroughness above and beyond the call of duty. The article is noticeably in better shape now than when I put it up for PR. I'll leave the review open for such further comments as anyone may feel moved to add. Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th tranche of comments (slowly getting nearer to the end) by GuillaumeTell
Prime Minister
  • Order (rather than order) of the Thistle looks better
  • Yes it does. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In particular Wilson demanded how "a scion of an effete establishment" - I'd have a comma after particular and "to know" after demanded
  • 3rd para: something a bit odd about wikilinking BBC television and then BBC three lines down. Perhaps also a mention of "That Was The Week That Was", to which I assume you refer?
    • If it had just been TW3 I'd agree, but TW3 ended in Dec 1963 succeeded by Not So Much a Programme in 1964, and I think two links here would be excessive. I think it was on the latter that Bernard Levin caused a hell of a row by calling Home "a cretin". I'll fix the links.
  • On the same subject, probably when Private Eye is mentioned, shouldn't there be some mention that Willie Rushton stood as a candidate in the Kinross by-election? I seem to remember that his slogan was "Up the Baillie three times daily".
    • Rushton's election posters bore the cruel Scarfe cartoon of Home looking horrifically skull-like. I have wondered if I can get away with fair use, but conclude that I probably can't. I'll ponder on mentioning Rushton; I'll see if he attracted much attention.
      • Later: Rushton gets hardly a mention in the six nationals to whose archives I have access. Perhaps the Private Eye crew were not as important as they thought they were. Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--GuillaumeTell 10:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More good stuff, for which thank you. No rush for the next batch, though I'm looking forward to it just the same. Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

final tranche of comments by GuillaumeTell
Opposition, 1964-70
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1970–74
  • foreign and Commonwealth affairs > Foreign and Commonwealth affairs (?or Affairs)
  • "once again, a second cabinet minister, this time Anthony Barber..." but this time both were in the Commons
  • Macleod: prefer "who had died suddenly on 20 July" (no need for the location)
  • "Some commentators have maintained that Macleod's death and replacement by the less substantial figure of Barber were a fatal blow to the ..." a) which commentators? Ref 161 seems to say that they were all called Maitland; b) (reaching for Fowler) I think it should be "was", not "were" (or "were fatal blows").
    • It's pretty axiomatic that Barber was no Macleod, wouldn't you agree? However, point taken and I'll root out another citation or two. As for Fowler (my idol) he must have been having an off-moment. All right, fish and chips is a good meal, not are a good meal, but thunder and lightning are a bloody nuisance. More broadly, I wondered if in including this sentence I was straying too far off topic. What think you? Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning what Barber (then Rippon)'s title was re the EEC negotiations?
  • "Barber was replaced at the FCO by Geoffrey Rippon ..." sentence is too long and unwieldy
  • final para: who was the "senior British judge"?
  • No comments on subsequent sections, but I'd knock off the Douglas-Home's cabinet, October 1963 – October 1964 section at the bottom, which looks rather odd, and provide the following link - probably up above in the Prime Minister section Conservative_Government_1957-1964#Douglas-Home.E2.80.99s_Cabinet. Incidentally, why did Boyle leave the Cabinet in April '64?
    • I'm not wild about it, but someone (not I) has worked long and hard on it, and I'm loth to zap it. I think I'd rather leave it in situ and see what happens at FAC. Not that I'm imminently thither bound: there are additions to be written arising from comments by you and Brianboulton, above. Boyle was bounced by Quintin and demoted to that betwixt-and-between level of "Minister of Cabinet Rank" without being in the cabinet, when Hogg was made S of S for Education and Science. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am enormously grateful for your detailed comments. I ought to feel guilty at the hours you have put in on them, but, as you may have observed, I am without shame. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing peer review

I think this is pretty much there or thereabouts now. I'll leave this review open for a day or so on the off-chance, before taking it to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders

[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'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status soon. The reviewer should be someone familiar with FA criteria, and willing to nit-pick the article. One particular issue that needs special attention is: Does the article have the proper amount of detail on legal/constitutional matters? Too much? Too little? Should some legal detail be moved into the associated legal articles Dennis v. United States, Yates v. United States, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Or vice versa? Thanks, Noleander (talk) 23:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not an expert by any means on the subject matter but hopefully can provide some nit-picks...

  • Second para of lead, the word "trial" is used five times in three sentences, perhaps consider a minor rephrase to avoid repetition. [Done - Noleander]
  • "of communism: The ..." new to me but just checking that you should have a capital T after the colon... (I know Americans tend to do this after semi-colons so just checking it's the same for a colon). [Yes, that is the convention for this article: caps after colons. - Noleander]
  • "The USSR detonated its first atomic bomb" is it worth reinforcing that this was a test? [Done - Noleander]
  • The Yates case is linked twice in the lead. [Done - Noleander]
  • "the communist revolution in Russia in 1917, communism gradually " mildly repetitive, could you not just have "revolution" pipelinked? [Done - Noleander]
  • You link Russia, why not Nazi Germany? [Done - Noleander]
  • In "Background", you link USSR on the second occasion. I'd also prefer to read "Soviet Union" than USSR throughout. [Done - Noleander]
  • "it made at Yalta Conference" should there be a "the" before Yalta? [Done - Noleander]
  • The Daily Worker seems to be The Daily Worker according to our article. [Done - Noleander]
  • Midway through the "Start of the trial" section we go "trial" wild again. [Done - Noleander]
  • Now I am confused about this capitalisation (or not) after a colon or semi-colon, since you have "progress; the University of California required..." Perhaps you could explain it to me! [The convention is commas and semi-colons are short pauses, and dont lead to a capital; periods and colons are long pauses and get a capital. My understanding is that the MOS is flexible on this and only requires that an article pick a convention and stick to it consistently. - Noleander]
  • What is ACLU? [Done - Noleander]
  • "over 140 persons" why not "140 people"? [Done - Noleander]
  • "Prosecution witness Angela Calomiris " no need to repeat the first name. [Done - Noleander]
  • "the seven years Calomiris was " she rather than repeat surname. [Done - Noleander]
  • "Another important witness for the prosecution was Louis Budenz, a former communist,"->"Budenz, a former communist, was another important..." [Done - Noleander]
  • "Budenz also testified " -> "He also testified". [Done - Noleander]
  • "F. McCabe.[46][23] " not sure it's mandated but I always try to put refs in numerical order. [Done - Noleander]
  • " and writes that " surely "wrote"? [Done - Noleander]
  • The Washington Post appears to be The Washington Post. [Done - Noleander]
  • "[65]). " would have thought that ref should go after the period. [I agree. But that is using a template to automatically calculate present-day dollars; and the template puts the footnote before the parenthesis. Nothing can be done at the article level to change that. - Noleander]
  • "sentenced to three years in consideration " vs "to two years in prison" why the discrepancy? [The sentence was nominally 5 years; the judge subtracted 2 yrs to get a 3 yr sentence; the defendant is commenting on the 2 year reduction. - Noleander]
  • "was provided by Civil Rights Congress, a non-profit " you've already explained what CRC was above and already linked it so this isn't really necessary. [The prior mention does not mention "non profit" nor "bail", both of which are introduced in the 2nd occurance. So, I think readers benefit from the extra detail. Or, I could move "non profit" & "bail" up to the first occurrence ... but that may not be optimal. - Noleander]
  • Our article seems to capitalised the Berlin Airlift. [Done - Noleander]
  • Vinson caption needs a period. [Done - Noleander]
  • Dashiell Hammett has two l's and two t's. [Done - Wow. Good catch! - Noleander]
  • "Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2385, remains on the statute b" that inline link seems odd, we don't normally do that do we? [That is common in legal articles. Prior reviews of this article pushed hard to have more legalese ... so I'm reluctant to undo that, since it would go against a prior reviewers recommendation. - Noleander]
  • Be consistent with how you refer to Benjamin Davis, either that or Benjamin J. Davis or better still, Benjamin J. Davis, Jr. In any case, use one format throughout. [Done - Noleander]
  • Ref 25 for instance doesn't appear to be a reference, more a footnote. [ WP:LAYOUT permits informational footnotes & citations to be placed into a single section, named Footnotes or References. Or they can be in 2 sections; this article uses a single "Footnote" section. - Noleander]
  • Ref 27, second Time needs to be italicised. [Done - Noleander]
  • "The Hiss-Chambers Case" shouldn't that be an en-dash? [Done - Noleander]
  • Refs 94, 117 need an en-dash also. [Done - Noleander]
  • Ref 92 and 101 and 117 and 121 and 123(and there may be more) are online refs so really need publisher/author/publication date/access date information wherever possible. [Done - Noleander]-
  • "Budenze's " suddenly an extra e in his name? [Done - Good eye! - Noleander]
  • "- Black quoted by Mason" should be an en-dash. [Done - Noleander]
  • Is it New York Times or The New York Times? Be consistent. [Done - Noleander]
  • Ref 133 should be a pp [Done - Noleander]
  • Birdnow title needs an en-dash. [Done - Noleander]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can you help with a big issue: please take a look a the three related articles Dennis v. United States, Yates v. United States, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and then give some input on whether the level of detail on legal/constitutional issues in this article is appropriate? In other words: should more legal/constitutional material be moved from those articles into this article? or vice versa? Another editor has suggested that the level of detail is not quite right, and I've improved the article to address their concerns; but I'd like a third party's opinion to ensure it is okay now. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DGG
  • I was asked to comment.
first, there is no improper overlap with the article on the First Amendment,; they are both general articles, and the free speech issues in these trials are just one of the many free speech issues discussed in that article. I see no problem here with respect to the Yates and Dennis articles This article is for the general issues,and would be incomprehensible without some degree of detail on the appeals cases. I think it's approximately right as is. On the other hand, the two other articles are both insufficiently detailed for decisions of their importance. They need to discuss much more deeply the arguments and the decisions, and the subsequent judicial and legal history.
Thanks for that assessment: it is important that this article not have too much or too little legal detail, since other articles already exist for that purpose. After I finish getting this article through FA, I'll go back and work on the other articles and bring them up to standards: there is a lot of work to do on them, for sure. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made one or two changes to avoid drawing conclusion or oversimplifying. I'm goingto look through it once more for that. How to handle lede paragraphs in articles like this is very trick: some things cannot be summarized fairly in a few words, and may need to be left for the body of the article
Thanks for the changes, they look good. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a technical issue, I think the references would be best changed to a 2-column format:the resulting columns in the 3-column format are too narrow.
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike mixing content notes with bibliographic references. This is particularly important here where many of the content notes have long quotations. There are techniques for separating the lists.
Not done - The FA criteria permits either approach to footnotes: it is considered an aesthetic decision. In principle, I dont mind separating them, but it would be a rather error-prone process at this point, so I'd rather just leave them alone. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The later history of only 8 of the 12 is given. The others need it also. Carl Winter has no individual article; one could easily be written from just the material here. The attorneys need articles also. Their participation in this trial is sufficient for notability.
Done - Added other 4 defendants to Aftermath section. Regarding other articles: I agree that articles could be written on some of the participants, but I only have so much time  :-) and absence of other articles is not a bar to FA status, per WP:RED. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Robeson portrait is of very peripheral relevance & should be removed even though it is PD. A photo of the judge would be more important; he is sufficiently important that a fair use justification could be written.
Not done - The article already has tons of law-oriented photos. The whole point of the Robeson pic is to show that the world outside the trial was also interested in the trial. Granted, it is the least relevant pic in the article, and if space were limited, it should be the first to go, but it does illustrate fund-raising & the peekskill riots. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN or OCLC numbers are needed for some books.
If a book is missing an ISBN number, that means that there is no ISBN number. Was there a recent book missing a number? --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the Scales decision can be summed up as "the only case in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction based solely upon membership in a political party." The SC upheld it based only on that charge, but in concert with the evidence for personal involvement. It needs to be reworded.
Done --Noleander (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a harder issue: The section on the people in the second string trials is inadequate. They were covered individually in some detail in newspapers at the time. This should probably be done best in a detailed spin-off article. Perhaps at least one could be started in skeleton and linked. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done - There are several excellent secondary sources on this topic, and they do not cover the second string persons very much at all. The 1949 case gets about 20 times as much coverage as the second string trials. If I were to hunt down and find primary sources (e.g. contemporary newspapers) I'd be engaging in WP:OR, plus there would be WP:UNDUE issues (since I'd be placing more emphasis on the 2nd string trials than the historians do) as well as cherry-picking issues. The bottom line is that modern historians just dont devote much attention to the 2nd tier trials (relative to the 1949 trial), so this article follows that pattern. Granted, an entirely new WP article could be created on the second string trials: but that is a whole other can of worms ... one article at a time :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's the really hard part: a section is needed for opinion about the trials from both right and left wing sources, in the US and especially abroad, at the time and later. It would be interesting to see some comment from Communist papers in the USSR and other countries. There might also be some need for a section on the use of these trials in literature, etc., though I do not have any immediately in mind. I really should do this myself, but it is a multi-day project (unless it is covered in one of the books cited). I don't think this meets the fundamental FA criterion of covering all aspects without it.
Great suggestion. I'll create a section like that ... there is already a small start ("public opinion was overwhelmingly against ...") but that can be expanded a lot. --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... in progress .... --Noleander (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I finally finished this new section ... actually two sections. They are:
Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Public_opinion
Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Public_reaction
They are fairly broad, and include responses from foreign nations. Let me know if you think more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Lots of good feedback. I'll respond to the suggestions individually. --Noleander (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Walsingham

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Seeking independent review of an article recently expanded. Thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few initial points:

  • "Throughout his career, from 1571 onwards..." These two phrases are incompatible
  • (re Frances): "...and married well, to the Earl of Essex" Bearing in mind the earl's fate, I wonder if "married well" is appropriate wording?
  • It is not clear how Lady Walsingham lived "comfortably" in her widowhood, when the family apparently had no money.

I will post full review comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more detailed comments on the first half of the article. Nothing very significant:-

Lead
  • Second paragraph: replace "until" with before"
  • Remove comma after "Queen Mary I of England"
Early years
  • "Francis Walsingham was probably born in 1532..." Maybe a slight rewording to avoid the implication of "probably born"
  • "His father was William Walsingham, a successful, well-connected and wealthy London lawyer who died in 1534, and his mother was Joyce Denny, who was the daughter of courtier Sir Edmund Denny and the sister of Sir Anthony Denny, who was the principal gentleman of King Henry VIII's privy chamber". Too many clauses for a single sentence
  • "Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon, was enrolled in the same law faculty at Padua at the same time as Walsingham". I am not sure why this information is given. There are no other references to Courtenay in the article.
Rise to power
  • "He is credited with writing propaganda decrying a conspiratorial marriage between Mary, Queen of Scots, and Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk". What is meant by the term "conspiratorial marriage"? It might be worth explaining why a supposed marriage between Mary and Howard would have been a matter of Protestant concern.
  • Likewise, a few words explaining what the Ridolfi plot was would avoid readers having to leave the article to follow a link.
  • "A substitute match with the next youngest brother, Francis, Duke of Alençon, was discussed but Walsingham considered him ugly and void of a good humour. Elizabeth, who was 20 years older than Alençon, rejected the idea ostensibly because of the age difference". The Alençon/Elizabeth match was not merely "discussed"; a courtship was protracted over many years (at least ten), and I think there may have been reasons other than age difference that ended it. As the matter is discussed again later in the article, it may be advisable to revise the implication that Elizabeth rejected the idea at this point.
  • Did one "join" the Privy Council, or was one appointed to it?
Secretary of State
  • Another stray comma after "...a potential peace deal"
  • Why did the Queen object to the marriage of Frances and Sir Philip Sidney?
  • "The following year, Sidney was killed fighting the Spanish in the Netherlands, and Walsingham was faced with paying off Sidney's extensive debts." But had he not already agreed to do this, as part of the marriage settlement?

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Espionage
  • Some reorganisation of material might be helpful. The Throckmorton and Babington plots are mentioned in the first line, but the rest of the paragraph is devoted to Campion and the Bartholomew's Day massacre. The Throckmorton plot is discussed in the second paragraph, but the Babington plot is not mentioned until the next section. In the present arrangement it might be assumed that Campion was implicated in one or other of these plots.
Entrapment of Mary, Queen of Scots
  • "the leader of the Dutch revolt" - no previous mention of this. Revolt by whom against whom?
  • I am slightly puzzled by this sentence: "Walsingham instructed Paulet to block all of Mary's correspondence, with the exception of letters that Paulet was to open, read and pass to Mary unsealed." If Paulet was to open, read and pass on letters to Mary, in what sense was her correspondence being "blocked"? Perhaps "intercepted" would seve better
  • "Walsingham deliberately arranged" - middle word redundant
  • Elizabeth "signed the warrant", yet later "claimed not to have sanctioned" the execution. Maybe a brief word to explain this apparent contradiction?
Spanish armada
  • The dispersal of the armada is briefly mentioned, but there is nothing about the events of the armada, which need at least a couple of sentences (when it sailed, when it was intercepted, what happened then, etc) to make sense of the narrative.
Legacy
  • The first two paragraphs, and parts of the third, need to be separated from the "Legacy" section, which by definition ought to deal with Walsingham's influence on events after his death, not things he did and offices he acquired in his lifetime. Perhaps a "Later years and death" section should be created?
In fiction
  • I wonder if this section has any real value? It doesn't tell us anything about Walsingham; in years to come, will these distant portrayals have any relevance? Or might the section grow and grow, to accommodate other characterisations? I would reconsider whether the article is improved by the retention of this section, or whether its effect is rather to trivialise the subject.

In general, a quality product skilfully put together, that with only a few nips and tucks will soon grace both FA and TFA. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Let us hope that the final section "In fiction" will wither and die. DrKay (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Teton National Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the most visited U.S. National Parks, and has a vibrant history, especially in regards to the park establishment. I recognize the article is long but can't see any major things that should be removed. I've run citationbot and reflinks checks and it comes out well...it has 158 references...there has been some minor ce by others, the vast majority of the page was my development, so it mainly needs watchful eyes to see how it complies with MOS and to help on prose.

Thanks, MONGO 15:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, MONGO. I'm reading the article slowly (RL taking its toll), it looks very impressive so far! I've copyedited the first section, "Paleo-Indians and Native Americans", lightly, please check I haven't removed anything that needed to be there, or misunderstood. Please change anything you like back, of course. A couple of queries re that section:
The Shoshones continued to follow the same migratory pattern as their predecessors and have been documented as having a close spiritual relationship with the Teton Range. A number of stone enclosures on some of the peaks, including on the upper slopes of Grand Teton (known simply as The Enclosure) are believed to have been used by Shoshone during vision quests.[9] In 1868, the mountain dwelling Shoshone were relocated to the Wind River Indian Reservation east of the Wind River Range in Wyoming.[7]:
  • It isn't known how many Shoshone resided semi-permanently in the region...however, the relocation was to the east slopes of the Wind River Range...and after I correct this guesstimate with an actual fact as far as distance...that it is less than 100 miles to the southeast.MONGO 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so well up on extremely ignorant of the geography involved — did the relocation mean the Shoshone were moved away from the area they had the close spiritual relationship with? Or did they remain in physical contact with the Teton Range? It's all in Wyoming, isn't it, so that description isn't so much help. Does the implied narrative end in spiritual disaster, or what? Perhaps that could be clarified with a few words.
‪Would it be possible to make some of the many synonyms ‬in this section ‪for ‬"probably", ‪"is believed to"‬, etc,‪ active instead of passive? ‬(‪Who believes it‬)‪? Is it perhaps in some cases actually *known*?‬ All the "believing" within the same passage sounds awfully cautious (though perhaps properly so?) and a bit repetitious, with the same form of words many times. Back later! Frutti di Mare 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I will make these adjustments...had noticed this myself..kind of akin to weasel wording which needs to be avoided...thank you!MONGO 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, you said before that the Shoshone "were relocated", and now you say they "relocated", which makes a whole different impression. Did you mean to change that? I suppose the move wasn't exactly their own idea? Frutti di Mare 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You're right and I see you've corrected that. U.S. Government policy had always been to relocate Native American tribes to reservations...I haven't been able to find any information on precisely how many Shoshone were orginally forced onto the Wind River Reservation, but tribes usually followed their chiefs and this case, we're talking about Chief Washakie.--MONGO 01:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is really very well written. Excellent flow! A couple of details in the next section, "Fur trade exploration":
The explanation of what the name means (="the big breasts") feels a little belated — it fits here, but how about just a mention in the lede, too, or right after it? (I realize that the sooner it comes, the more of a vandal magnet the article will become. Watch out for additions of Great Tit to the "See also" section. :-) )
Hehe...well, I hope not, but this is likely. I took a stab at adding this matter to the introduction.--MONGO 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How was the struggle for control of the fur trade an offshoot of border disputes in the region? Wasn't the fur trade substantially the reason there were border disputes? Frutti di Mare 18:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
They were part of the disputes as the region was claimed by both the US and the UK...and not settled until the Oregon Treaty of 1846. Adjusting this for clarification.--MONGO 02:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Organized exploration and settlement":
Ranching increased but then the wolves were extirpated? Is there something missing here? I would have thought the connection was cause and effect, rather than opposition—if there isn't room to explain, might it be better to not mention the wolves at all in this section?
I removed this...good point...it was on a tangent to the section and has more to do with Yellowstone NP to the north since that is were the reintroduction of the species was done...--MONGO 02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doane "enhanced the aura of wildness for the region"—mm, what? Strange use of "aura"—not sure what you mean. Enhanced the region's reputation for wildness? Frutti di Mare 22:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I reviewed the source again and feel that it is of minor significance to this article..so I simply removed it.--MONGO 02:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Establishment of the park":
Sorry, but I feel this section is rather too detailed, and might be shortened. Noting your special mention of the park establishment in the request above, I realize that shortening this particular section would amount to killing your darlings... but, while each fact separately is interesting, putting so many of them (so many US presidents, so many names altogether, and so much change back-and-forth of local opinion) into one section has made the text a little heavy. In other words, while it's long for a section, it still feels perhaps too condensed for comfortable reading. How would you feel about summarizing it, with more emphasis on results than process, and moving the present content to a {{main article}}? Frutti di Mare 20:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
What I want to convey is the "fight" for the development of the park against local interest groups which had a powerful lobby in Congress...there were three fights actually...the first was to incorporate the region into an expanded Yellowstone NP (which did not happen). The second was simply to preserve the mountains and the third was to keep save Jackson Hole and add it to the park...I do think your suggestion of streamlining this section and perhaps creating a main article on another page is not a bad one...I'll look at this tomorrow when I can dedicate more time.--MONGO 20:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Ah. I had trouble seeing that three-fight overall pattern (seeing the wood for the trees), I got distracted by all the people and groups and organizations putting their oar in. It might be good to emphasize the overarching narrative more. Frutti di Mare 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

:::On the obverse of this peer review request (the talk page), I have copied the section, adding a short intro before I create a new main article...I think I can trim out the following from section in the grand Teton article...1)discussion of the dam construction (which I will need to add elsewhere though) 2)stick to the emphasis of the struggle between environmentalists and local interests, and 3)simply ensure the dates for the original park (1929) the monument (1943) and the combination of the two (1950) are explained...that should eliminate two paragraphs from the section and I'll do this soon...?--MONGO 20:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed it some...will look and see if I can trim more and make it more streamlined and focused.--MONGO 00:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed it more...I think I have stuck with the primary details...and that the message is still conveyed. Creating a main article on this matter was a good idea...several entire books have been written just on this topic alone.MONGO 13:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, MONGO; the section is much more reader-friendly like this. One cavil, though: to the non-US reader, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation isn't a household name, and not at all self-explanatory: so the second sentence sounds like it's heading in some different, unknown, direction. "Some agency built a dam; what about it?" Light breaks with the phrase "irrigation for agriculture" two sentences ahead, but it's an unnecessary stumble. Mention irrigation, or commercial exploitation or something like that, immediately after the first sentence? In every other way, this reads very nicely now. Frutti di Mare 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks...I added less than a sentence...I think it now explains who and why the dam was originally built...let me know if this is still insufficient...--MONGO 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Park management":
I've recast a couple of phrases in this section and moved the sentence about the many visitors, experimentally, from the end to the beginning. Please see what you think.
Looks better by far..thank you.--MONGO 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"…through partnerships with other entities, 10 million dollars is hoped to be raised to acquire private inholdings by 2016" — I'd really like to have an active subject there. What entity is primarily doing the raising and hoping, and being contrasted with some other entities? Frutti di Mare 23:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Added a little to this...since some of these are current events and ongoing, its not going to remain stable overall...its actually of minor consequence to the article compared to other issues covered...MONGO 13:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History of mountaineering"
"Langford and Stevenson are believed to have only climbed to the location of The Enclosure, even though some believe they made the first ascent to the summit." "Are believed" and "some believe" are pretty much equivalent, aren't they. I suppose they can't be called weaselly, since there's a citation, but the way of putting it doesn't make the reader much wiser. It sounds a bit like a stage in an edit war about Bigfoot, if you see what I mean. What's the preponderance of informed opinion, if there is any?
What makes the first ascent controversial is the fact that Langford was also the first superindendent of Yellowstone NP...he said he and Stevenson "climbed" the mountain, but his descrptions of what he saw enroute have never been supported by others who we know did make it to the summit, including Owen in 1898...also, Owen had twice before failed to reach the summit and only succeeded with the lead climbing by an experienced mountaineer named Spalding...however, for more than 25 years, it was believed that Langford had made the first ascent and even Spalding was in disagreement with Owen over the matter...Owen was very influential in Wyoming politics and even after Langford died in 1911, Owen continued to discredit his claims...I'll try to. Further clean up the weasel wording later today.MONGO 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Glaciation"
Smooth! Very clear and well structured.
  • "Fauna"
"Grand Teton National Park has four species of reptiles such as the wandering garter snake and the less commonly seen valley garter snake and rubber boa.. " Three out of the four snakes are enumerated under the rubric of "such as"; that's just tantalizing. What's the fourth? Alternatively, maybe you'd prefer to mention just one or two out of the four by name? Frutti di Mare 14:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I just changed such as to which are...MONGO 16:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But, MONGO. With that, you really need to name four species, not three. Frutti di Mare 17:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I think I got this worded better...3 species of snakes and one species of lizard...MONGO 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mountaineering"
Just a detail: does the reference say that overnight stay permits are free? On a quick check, I can't find any mention of it. Plus, if the actual permit is free, that's rather a technical point, as they recommend advance reservation ("The park backcountry is very popular"), and that costs $25. Skip "free", perhaps?
I am going to slightly expand this section yet and make one longish paragraph...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camping and hiking"
I'm a little worried about the encyclopedic quality of the first two paragraphs here. The third paragraph has fine encyclopedic information IMO, except only the sentence "Hikers should be prepared to share some trails with horses", which is phrased as downright advice to prospective visitors — not what encyclopedias are supposed to do. The first paragraph, with all the specific figures about which kind and size of vehicles are allowed at which campground, certainly is close to being mere instruction and advice. That's useful when planning a trip, of course… on the other hand, the section contains links to the "Campgrounds" page of the "Plan your visit" brochure (which the info in the paragraph comes from). Wouldn't it actually be still better for the trip planner to go straight to that page? Of course it has even fuller instructions and figures than the article. But I'm really not sure about this. I see Mav, below, praises the section as "exactly on point", so perhaps I'm over-fussy about this kind of stuff.
You're quite correct...I've cobbled the sentences together better (?) I hope and eliminated the travelogue aspects of the discussion...it may need more tweaking yet, but wanted ot convey the various types of vehicluar access campgrounds available, and elaborate on how backcountry camping is regulated...in researching the issue, found that "front–country has a hyphen but "backcountry" generally does not...I took out the sharing trails wiht horses and just left the fact that horses are permitted on most trails...(from personal recollection though, horseback riding was rarely seen above the valley floor as the trails to the passes are quite steep...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boating and fishing"
A little dubious about some details in this as well. I commented out the sentence "The license can be purchased at several places within the park and the permits are sold for yearly or one day access" as excessive for an international encyclopedia. The rest of the section is of general interest (perhaps not every word of it), in that it gives a sense of the protective measures in place to make sure the park isn't over-used; but that sentence seems to be only for the benefit of those making plans to visit. Advice/information of that type is easily available to them elsewhere on the web.
Trimmed as advised to emphasize conservation issues...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accommodations"
"Exclusive" cabins is too much adspeak, IMO. There should be some adjective, no doubt.. I can't think of a good one. Actually "luxury" sounds more neutrally descriptive, to my ear. (Or, hey, how about "expensive"? :-)). Frutti di Mare 21:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I eliminated this issue...--MONGO 05:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede
Oh, I forgot, I meant to copyedit the intro last. I wanted to spruce up the phrasing about the drive-in campsites ("more than 1000 drive-in campsites are in the park"), but realized I don't really understand the force of the sentence Backcountry camping is available by permit and is closely regulated to prevent overcrowding, while more than 1000 drive-in campsites are in the park. Does the term "backcountry" imply that it's not accessible by car, so that there's a contrast between "Backcountry camping" and "drive-in campsites" (hence the "while")? Is that it? I don't think everybody understands the term fully, however obvious it is to U.S mountain men such as yourself, MONGO. ;-) I've wikilinked it, for a start. You might want to make the whole sentence smoother and clearer; I feel a bit out of my depth with it. Frutti di Mare 20:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes...front-country means sites can be driven right to or very near to, whereby backcountry means non-vehicular access sites...this needs to be made more concise yet explanatory...will attend to that shortly...MONGO 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. What a good idea idea to focus on the trails rather than on camping-and-permit stuff which was only dodgily encyclopedic to begin with. Frutti di Mare 08:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you...the hiking trails needed a mention in the lede for sure...Under history of mountaineering, I wanted to add a historical image and found one which was taken by a member fo the first unquestioned ascent of Grand Teton, but the ownership of this image is not clear though it does date from 1898...on another tangent, for brevity I was wondering if it is necessary to spell out Grand Teton National Park in every instance as if it isn't clear what the topic is after the name of the park is clearly delineated...it can't say just Grand Teton since that might confuse a the mountain with the park...the National Park Service abbreviation is GRTE, but that seems less than poetic...thoughts?MONGO 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the abbreviation GRTE is boring and spikey. (And not even an initialism, so it could be confusing.) It would take up less space, but that's hardly the point; it's harder to read, not easier. Your present practice seems fine. I believe you refer to the park area (or, to that area plus or minus a bit) as "the Grand Teton region" for the historical parts, before the park existed; as "Grand Teton National Park" the first time it's mentioned in a paragraph; and most commonly as "the park" in other places, where there's no risk of ambiguity. That's all good. A related cavil, though: sometimes the park is made to sound curiously like an agency, or even a human: "it" erects buildings and administers the Memorial Parkway thing.
.. the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, which is administered by Grand Teton National Park..
Grand Teton National Park, in partnership with other agencies, erected the first air quality monitoring station in the park in 2011.
The second quote amounts to explicitly calling the park an agency. That may be in accordance with the park authorities' own usage, I don't know, but it grates a little on my ear. Is there an administrative body which could appropriately be named as pursuing these activities? Frutti di Mare 16:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Yes...very valid point...I will adjust that immediately!--MONGO 17:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by mav

Reading from the bottom up since almost everybody else does it the other way around.

Tourism
  • Looks good as-is.
Recreation
  • First subsection Mountaineering, is really a history of mountaineering in the Tetons and not about the recreation aspects of that sport. The text is also too wordy and flowery - example: "the peaks of the Tetons beckoned explorers looking for adventure". Text would be greatly improved by condensing it and moving it into the History section. Then a new subsection on the recreation aspects of modern mountaineering (established routes, permits, weather/seasonal considerations, safety, etc.) is needed.
    • Fine points...I had wanted to "tell the tale" about the climb to the summit of the grand only because it seems it is (least I see the same comments in numerous places) one of, if not "the" American mountaineering controversy that never ends...akin though less spectacular (if you're familiar) with the story of Mallory and Irving on Everest in the 1920's...did they make it or not...no one will ever know for sure. Likewise in this case...so shall the section be part of the human history section...in it's own section or simply mentioned briefly and linked to a short daughter article?--MONGO 02:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mav...I moved the mountaineering section to human history, clarified some points, added some to the rock climbing history and will expand the recreation section on mountaineering in the next few days as you suggested...--MONGO 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Camping and hiking" and the other subsections are exactly on point and well-written.
Ecology
  • General comment: If this section gets much longer it will be a candidate for summarizing and moving to its own article soon.
  • "Additionally, though not considered native to the immediate region, the mountain goat is considered an accidental species because it has only been reported once or twice and is not considered to be indigenous." Three "considered"s in the same sentence. Other than that, the section looks good.

More later. --mav (reviews needed) 00:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You solved the repetition problem, MONGO, but somewhat at the expense of flow and focus in those sentences, IMO. Please check out my tweak, it's wide open for further improvement.
@ Mav as well as MONGO: I'm a little worried about the map of the park. The ignorant really need to study it in order to understand the descriptions and relationships in the "Geography" section, at least if they're stupid like me, and it's a very good map.. but the finest print in it is quite difficult to read even at full resolution (789 × 1,112 px). The text of the section is probably as clear as it can be, but text on its own just isn't the best medium for describing complex spatial relations. Mav, you uploaded the map. Do you by any chance have it available in a still higher resolution? (I realize it was back in 2005 that you uploaded it.) It would be helpful if it was possible to access a big-ass version from the image page. It'll hardly help the seriously vision impaired, something that's difficult to do with maps (incidentally, how about some alt text, MONGO?), but it would help the merely myopic and closely-peering like myself. Frutti di Mare 13:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I simply removed the mountain goat discussion and the elaboration on bighorn sheep since the primary large ungulates seen in the park are elk and bison...I'll look around for a new higher resolution map...do yu want one that shows surrounded regions or one that is simply very park specific at higher resolution?--MONGO 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a link to the map image thumbnail...it directs to a pdf version of the park map that allows excellent expansion on the geography...does that help?--MONGO 17:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Yes, it helps a lot. Pity the park is the wrong shape for being conveniently viewed at high resolution on an ordinary computer screen.. but there's not a lot Wikipedia can do about that, no. ;-) Frutti di Mare 20:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Other than a general comment that the article is a bit on the long side and opportunities need to be explored about summarizing and spinning off detail. the article looks good. --mav (reviews needed) 23:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mav...also appreciate your image addition to the paleo-inidian discussion..that section looked pretty bare beforehand.MONGO 11:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hemostasis

[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 student nominated it for WP:GAN and it is an article worth taking to that, but I'm not equipped to assist the student in adding the volume of sources to get it there. What does it need to get there topically in terms of comprehensiveness? How do the sources work for meeting WP:MEDRS? What are good sources for improving? Is there better organisation?

Thanks, LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Well, it failed GAN so I guess there's more to be done from that review.
  • One para is a little brief, per WP:LEAD.
  • Consistency in description, is it "hemostasis" or "haemostasis"?
  • "sub- endothelium surface ." why those spaces?
  • "History of Artificial Hemostasis" don't over-capitalise headings.
  • "332BC " normally add a space before BC.
  • Vascular Spasm - first, don't bold it, second, don't overcapitalise it.
  • "Vascular Spasm - Damaged blood vessels " that hyphen should be an en-dash per WP:DASH.
  • "injured area.[5] [6]" don't put spaces between refs.
  • "Types of Hemostasis" see previous comment re:headings.
  • Don't have bare URLs in the refs.
  • Don't use hyphens for page ranges in the refs (again, see WP:DASH).

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Mansfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man

[edit]
  • "actress who worked in Hollywood and on Broadway" maybe be more specific and say she was a movie and theatre actress (or similar) rather than relying on our universal audience to understand that.
  • You link "blond" but not "platinum blond" which is probably more worthy of a link.
  • "of the late-1950s,[2] Mansfield starred" just "she" rather than repeat the surname.
  • Similarly, you link "cleavage" which, to me, is obvious, but not "hourglass figure".
  • "she enjoyed a successful Broadway run acting in Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? and later the film of the same name in 1957." perhaps "and later starred in the film..."?
  • " which was also produced " both of which?
  • "with rock legend" reads like a tabloid.
  • " blonde bombshells" ditto.
  • "actor-bodybuilder" these days that may be an en-dash, check with WP:DASH.
 Done The lead fixed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jayne Mansfield, a natural brunette, was born on April 19, 1933" really odd place to say she was a natural brunette, as she was "born"!
  • " Vera Jeffrey's father, Elmer Palmer, was largely Cornish area of Pen Argyl, " what?
I don't know what to say about this factor, because I added a source before that says Mansfield's paternal grandparents were from Germany. What happened to that? ★Dasani★ 00:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is about her maternal grandfather. I can't locate the source you are referring to. Was it placed in a relevant place? Can you restore it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was into the slate industry." involved with?
  • "After his death, her mother " replace "her" with Jayne.
  • "attended... attended..." dull prose.
  • "which she advertised " perhaps "which she claimed..."
  • "40-21-35" check WP:DASH again here.
  • " In 1950, she married Paul Mansfield in May" Perhaps "In May 1950, ..."
  • "moved to Los Angeles in 1954. There she studied dramatics at UCLA. " merge.
  • Isn't Fall capitalised?
  • "episode: An Angel Went AWOL; broadcast date: October 21, 1954" episode titles are usually in quote marks, aren't they?
  • "publisher-editor" en-dash?
 Done Early Life fixed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reran " is that a real word? I would hyphenate it.
✗ Not done Rerun is a real word. Check Merriam-Webster. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "just ten days" remove "just".
  • "[23])." move that ref outside and after the period.
✗ Not done I can't. It's part of the template. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Career beginnings (mid-1950s)" section, for FAC I'd expect more refs.
Request. Will need a bit help there. Where do we need a ref? Can you tag the necessary bits? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start, let's see how we get on with that lot and I'll move on with the review if required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Will be addressing all of that by Monday. Is it possible to get a copyeditor involved. The prose is horrible. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Accedie

[edit]
Not sure. I Googled and there is not much information available about Mansfield's Brody, except that he also worked as a lawyer. Was this Brody on Wikipedia actually a lawyer as well? He seems to be from the same time period as her and her mom, so it's possible. ★Dasani★ 23:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to the website cited on the film maker Sam Brody, he died in 1987, while the attorney died in 1967 together with JM. Probably not the same person. Besides there's no reference to the attorney making films. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This phrase: and days later, a juvenile court judge awarded temporary custody of Jayne Marie to William W. Pigue and his wife Mary. Pigue was an uncle of Paul, who was stated to be the natural father of Jayne Marie – I got stuck on it when trying to copyedit, because I couldn't figure out what it meant. Pigue claimed to be Jayne Marie's natural father? Pigue was officially referred to as Jayne Marie's natural father? Does "natural father" mean birth father?
I have no clue either, though Martha Saxton and a few other biographers have stated that. If it remains too ambiguous, may be we can cut that natural father bit out altogether. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way the sentence is written doesn't even make sense. The only thing I understand is that Jayne's husband's uncle is the father of their daughter. I think this sentence needs to be rewritten. ★Dasani★ 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done That natural father bit removed. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blonde" versus "blond" – I was taught at some point in my life that "blonde" should only refer to a woman with blond hair, while "blond" refers to any person with blond hair or the color of the hair itself. I tried to apply that rule here, but I may have missed a few instances. I care very deeply about this rule, even though it may or may not actually exist :-P
You are right. Blonde is female, and blond is generally male. I tried to keep it that way. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, looks good, and I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes after a little more TLC from others. Also, I'm now tempted to go add a history section to Wardrobe malfunction, because it's clearly not something Britney Spears and Janet Jackson came up with all by themselves! Accedietalk to me 22:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs information clean-up, I think. But, that should be on the way. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dasani

[edit]
Thanks. But, I still haven't managed to locate the missing/removed citation you referred to above. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was about her paternal grandparents. Never mind that bit. ★Dasani★ 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two instances of two pictures in a row. One showing her in the movie Rock Hunter and at the premier, prominently featuring her size differences. The other showing her gravestone and cenotaph, featuring differing dates for her death. Besides, for a comprehensive article, it has only 10 images (9 of them free). Is that too many? Aditya(talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ClockC Update I have uploaded and placed the trailer of Rock Hunter. Trying to get through to more relevant images, including a replacement for the lead image. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what it is used to illustrate, it depends because sometimes pictures in an article can actually slow down browsing. On top of that, additional photos prove repetitive. I have seen some FAs with as many as eleven images, but they use them for various purposes (logos, performances, relationships, childhood photos, magazine covers). ★Dasani★ 04:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the update, and there's this information. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later comments from Dasani

[edit]

Comments from Danger

[edit]
To be honest, I am not sure why they put that. Paul wouldn't be a high school sweetheart since they didn't attend high school at the same time. Isn't he just a boyfriend turned husband? ★Dasani★ 22:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see childhood lover written in the lead. But, that too is probably unnecessary. Not sure though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aditya Kabir

[edit]

A sidenote: I like it when Dasani and I, two editors with pink signatures, make a lot of comments on Jayne Mansfield, the queen of pink. ;-) Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's going to be harder. I would like to know, too. One article cites Harry as having been born in 1916. That's all I know. ★Dasani★ 04:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to find out when she went to the schools and colleges mentioned, the starting year and the end year - University of Texas at Austin, University of Dallas, UCLA and Highland Park High School? Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could be mistaken, but from what I have read, it does not seem she ever graduated from college. I've noticed that it is generally not necessary to include the years unless the celebrity graduated. ★Dasani★ 04:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I remember correctly, Paul Mansfield remarried and had four kids after JM, Mickey Hargitay brought up all of her kids, but one, including Jayne Marie and kept getting back to her grave, and Matt Cimbers brought up Tony. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miniapolis

[edit]
  • Education section: I don't know what the phrase "went active" ("While attending the University of Texas, she worked as a nude model for art classes, joined the Curtain Club, went active at the Austin Civic Center, and spent her nights working as a receptionist at a dance club") means.
Multiple errors of judgement while copyediting. It originally read - "While attending the University of Texas, she worked as a nude model for art classes,[1] joined the Curtain Club, was active at the Austin Civic Theater, and worked 7PM to 11PM at the desk of a dance club.[2][3]" I would also want to put in "sold books door-to-door" right after the dance club bit. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film stardom (late 1950s) section: "However, after some misunderstandings Mansfield's Wayward Bus co-star Joan Collins stepped in as her replacement". "Some misunderstandings" sounds uncomfortably vague; I'd either flesh it out with a citation (and a bit more detail) or remove it. As is, it doesn't add anything to the sentence.
There are three instances of information on JM's replacement in the article:
None has a reference/citation, and all are vague. Probably put in by the same editor. I also believe that finding references and expanding/rewriting needs to be tried first. If that fails to improve these parts, removal would be a good idea. Though I think replacement in major films is relevant information. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article segmentation: I think the article should have more of a unified narrative; as I copyedited it, I found myself wondering how Mansfield's second marriage ended and her third marriage began. Her untimely death in a car crash is reported too far into the article; her career and her personal life don't need to be separated so much.
Right at this moment it's so fragmented to keep it more accessible to expansions, which should be done soon. As for her career, publicity and personal life - I probably would recommenced keeping them segmented. Judging by the mainstream media and most of her major biographies (I have no access to Diamond to Dust, the latest major biography), these are the three big components of her bio.
All three marriages will need a bit of improvement - the beginnings, the ends, and whatever is significant. Working on that.
Where to put the car crash (It's in the lead already)? Please, advice. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "United States" is abbreviated either "U.S." or "US"; the abbreviation used should be consistent throughout the article.
  • The article's layout is very good, with images alternating between left and right; it is also very well-sourced.
  • Awards section: "Oscar of the Two World award in Italy"? Sounds like a stilted translation.
This was the name provided by Faris. I don't know if there are other translations. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried to create an article on either. Will be able to conclude after I search through the internet.
Will also need to create an article on Fairview Cemetery. It's entirely feasible. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second marriage section: While I think Mansfield met Hargitay in 1955, it's not clear if that's the case or if Hargitay won Mr. Universe in 1955.
The marriage parts will need bit more expansion and cleanup. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blonde and pink section: "However, her pink earned more coverage than Novak's lavender". Cars, or something else?
Lavendar was Novak's color theme. Shall I add a note about it? Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured lavender was Novak's "official" color, but wasn't sure if she had a lavender car like Mansfield's pink Caddy. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wardrobe malfunctions section: The variation in Mansfield's breast size (regardless of multiple pregnancies and breastfeeding) seems exaggerated, perhaps for publicity reasons; is there a citation for any of that?

Kerry Ellis

[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 hasn't had one in quite a while and much has been added since its last review. It also needs much critique to help its potential status as GA.

Thanks, Stephenjamesx (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comment: There is a dab, "wrench". Also, six dead URLS in the citations. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Most of the time, we don't see refs in the lead because everything in the lead should be expanded upon in the main body of the article.
  • She's British so I'd expect to see this article in British English (e.g. recognized -> recognised).
  • Would link Suffolk in the lead, it's not a common place name for most of our readers.
  • " in 1998, she made" new para, so reiterate Ellis, instead of "she".
  • "After meeting rock musician" would prefer to see that as "Queen guitarist" since that's really what he is.
  • "Despite her misfortune " really? Or did she just not get through?
  • "Ellis has been expanding her " make this past tense.
  • "with rock musician Brian May" don't repeat May's first name and don't reintroduce him.
  • " second studio album with Brian May." again, no need for the Brian.
  • at the Wolsey Theatre where " qualify perhaps with "in nearby Ipswich".
  • If you really want to link pantomime, do it the first time round.
  • "Freshly graduated, " a bit tabloidy so perhaps "Following her graduation" or something more neutral in tone.
  • I think "first understudy" is worthy of a link.
  • Last two sentences of first para of Career beginnings... section are unreferenced.
  • When you abbreviate to WWRY it's in italics, when you re-use the abbreviation it isn't...
  • Several paras without a single ref probably could be improved.
  • (just a thank you: very pleased to see the tables have row and col scopes so screen readers get the best out of it!)
  • Work and Awards sections are both completely unreferenced.
  • Try to avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
  • Not sure the BBC is a work, most likely a publisher.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melville Island (Nova Scotia)

[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 looking for feedback on how to improve it, and specifically whether any major aspect of the topic is missing or neglected. Please be as critical as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (not expecting to find any ref errors!)

  • I would link "Northwest Arm" as I had to Google it to see what it meant in this context.
  • "southeast of Regatta Point." that Regatta Point is in Tasmania. Is that what you meant? Check throughout.
  • Be consistent with what you link to for Deadman's Island.
  • I'm not sure what "thin" soil is, but I guess that'll become clear.
  • "a "fjord-like inlet" between" I thought in FAs we had to attribute quotes to people, sources etc, not just cite them?
  • "on a northwest-southeast-trending fracture " check with WP:DASH that hyphenation should be used here and not en-dashes.
  • "The surrounding water is salty ... " new para, maybe "The water surround Melville Island is salty.."
  • "a haulout shed, a "salt training centre"," what are these?
  • Explained haulout shed, but "salt training centre" I don't know, that's just what the source calls it.
  • "1,500 millimetres" why not just mm?
  • " for ₤65" would use £ and link it to British pound.
  • "After the 1793 beheading of Louis XVI " passive, why not the active " After Louis XVI of France was beheaded in 1793, ..."?
  • Because the beheading is the subject, not the verb - the beheading (of Louis in 1793) sparked a war.
  • St. Domingo is usually just called Santo Domingo.
  • Link didn't go to the right place - Santo Domingo is something else.
  • Well, you're the expert, but I normally expect to see refs in numerical order (Napoleon's Hundred Days.[33][18] )...
  • I can't for the life of me find the discussion, but a while back it was decided that non-numerical order could be used when the refs support different points in the sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by John Toler" who's he and why is he important enough to be mentioned but not have an article or be redlinked?
  • "a pound each" previously all units have been "metric (imperial)" so you may wish to consider that here.
  • Weight of pound wasn't defined in relation to the kilogram until 1878
  • Especially when you mention "gill"...
  • " by the US government." be traditional and go for "United States government..."
  • Ref 74, isn't New York Times actually The New York Times?
  • Yes, but either can be used in refs so long as it's consistent
  • Ref 117, shouldn't that year range take a en-dash?
  • Ref 119, you're the expert, but that doesn't have an accessdate, archive date etc.
  • Doesn't need them - online copy of a book, not a web-only source
  • I know you're the expert, but this is just an archive.org web link. There's no clear indication (to me) that it's an online copy of a book, I would, once again, question why we have accesdates etc, for every single online resource besides these ones. It makes no logical sense to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category is "prisoner-of-war" but I don't see that precisely formatted phrase once in the whole article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Archaeology of Ritual and Magic

[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 recently created it and added much to it, and feel that at this juncture it really requires looking over by someone else. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a well-constructed article already. I don't like wikilinking in quotations as it may lead to something not (or much more that what was) intended by the author. Consider adding a section about style/methodology/conclusions, for example from Davidson "He shows clearly how beliefs may change but rituals persist, and how the existence of a custom may be revealed by repetition." maclean (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Two dab links, (magic and Guildhall Museum).
  • Just check lead number of paras per WP:LEAD, I think four is too many for an article of this length.
  • "Upon publication, it received " new para, reiterate the subject title.
  • Infobox image caption is not a complete sentence so no full stop required.
  • Infobox, no need to capitalised "Hardcover".
  • "had been born" do you mean "was born"?
  • "In his preface" do you mean, "In the preface to The Archaeology..."..."?
  • Don't think you need five columns for footnotes. Probably no more than 2.
  • " pp. 129." just one page, so p. 129.
  • "pp. 128." ditto.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

84th Academy Awards

[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 list could be a FL and I want to know what is wrong.

Thanks, Birdienest81 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not being familiar with the structure of Oscar telecast lists, I looked at a couple of other examples, especially 82nd Academy Awards, which is a FL. It seems to parallel the structure of other lists of its kind. I was a little concerned about OR, especially in the "Films with multiple nominations and awards", since it seems to be complied by viewing the telecast, but this section is in other lists, so I'm fine with it. I also have no problem with using the telecast itself as a source, which is another practice followed in other lists. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Memoriam tribute: Is there any more information about the exclusions? Also, is there a more reliable source than Vulture.com?
  • Changes to award categories: This section, unlike every other section, uses the present tense; I recommend changing it to the past tense, to correspond with the rest of the article. It's easy enough, so I'll let you do it.
  • Ceremony information: There's no reference for the first paragraph of this section. You need one to back up some of your assertions, such as the 9% decline in viewership in the previous year. I'm sure you can find references in the list about that telecast. Ref 22 supports the reasons for the resignation of the original producer, but there's nothing there about Murphy's departure as host, so you need to find one. There's no reference for their replacements, not even about Crystal; fixing this is easy, since the information is in other sources, such as ref 4.
  • Critical reviews: This being an Oscar telecast, I'd think that they're be more reviews than the two included. (The "82nd Academy Awards" list has 5.) You also need to improve the prose here; for example: Robert Bianco of USA Today said "Crystal didn't quite meet them[Expectations]. You could simply paraphrase Biano's words, to something like: "Robert Biano of USA Today said that Crystal did not meet the high expectations of many viewers." You could also include more information from the reviews you used.
  • Unlike other lists, there's no "Controversies" section, only the section about Cohen. Could you expand the list to include one? That may require additional research, which I'd bet is out there.
  • References: You need to work on this section, and on your references in general. There doesn't seem to be close paraphrasing problems. The ref's formats aren't consistent; they need to be. I recommend and use the templates here: WP:CIT. Ref 8 isn't formatted correctly. Ref 25 states that it's from "Tribune Company", but it's from The L.A. Times, another issue easily resolved with the use of citation templates. You may run into issues with ref 26; it could venture into OR. Is there any other source that states the same information? Ref 30: Is "TV By the Numbers" a reliable source? It states it was "via press release". I recommend finding the PR and using it as your source. Ref 31: Reliable? All other references are from reliable sources.

Nice start with this list. It doesn't need many major changes to it, but I recommend making them and re-submitting for a PR before you submit it to FLC. Let me know how I can help. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

  • There are articles published every year on the Oscar nominees that list the movies in order of most nominations - see here for example.
  • There are also article reviewing the ceremony / telecast itself - see Roger Ebert again here or this from USA Today here
  • I was surprised there was no mention of the Cirque de Soleil performance
  • Or of Angelina Jolie's leg - see here - I do not see any refs to Entertainment Weekly
  • Some refs are not formatted correctly - 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
  • 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 ><>°° 01:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Ruhrfisch's comments, I take back when I said about major changes. This list needs a great deal of expansion and research. There is a lot of missing information, some of which is important. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

[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 going to be hanging out in the WP:PR now.

Yes "C" is for character actor. C-lister. This is as far as we can go, peer review!

This actor could be ending his film career compared to featured media biographies in the Wikipedia. After 2013 April I can expect this actor to become B before becoming classified as a "GA" and while it is a "GA" I can expect it to reach "A" level before becoming classified as a "FA". This is my peer review before requesting peer review and peer review just means I think we should talk about this topic because its article is about as far as we can go for now that if its topic were more important like Jake Gyllenhaal is then it would be "GA" or "FA" by now. Also, discussion sections before the one before this one should be archived as old discussions. They weren't necessary anyway. It just takes Joseph longer than Jake and I think he is not lower than Christina Applegate and Tobey Maguire but is quite even with Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Angelina Jolie, and Brad Pitt. Reese Witherspoon and Donnie Darko were big hits in the start of this century last decade. Kirsten Dunst starred in a Jewish history film, The Devil's Arithmetic, as you can see. The problem with him not being as good as Kirsten Dunst is he hangs out with C-listers like Piper Perabo and Kellie Martin. That's just the topic. That's just him. That's just Joseph. Things aren't our fault!

Hope he makes it to Humphrey Bogart B movie status and Wikipedia A-levels. "GA" class does not exist and "FA" class cannot be until after FAC. He has only since been in Picking Up The Pieces, Manic, Treasure Planet, and Latter Days if we are thinking of his latest film since before Wikipedia launched in 2001 and his 2003 film on Mormons. This is just yet another twentieth century dead guy posing as the living.

  • well-written - short, simple, brief, in a so very Caucasian voice, but its professional standard is as minimal as merely trying to impress the reader on how stupid blonds can be.
  • comprehensive - seeing as the topic is a younger James Dean who survives on family love, its C-list young actor status is short and to the point for we do not want to invade his privacy or even look like we want to stalk him.
  • neutral - I don't want to know him, I just want to help him!
  • stable - Nobody wants a fight with a killer.
  • lead - It tells me who he is, who I am about to learn about, what recent films he is best known or most famous for, then moves on to tell me his first film, his best known and most famous hit TV show, before finally informing me of his most popular indie titles after college.
  • appropriate structure - headings are aligned and titled correctly and properly. six headings are too perfect for a 666 name.
  • consistent citations - online sources properly use footnote citations where needed.
  • Media - Main picture in actor infobox.
  • Length - This C-class article on a C-list actor is on nothing but Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and it does not ramble to useless topics outside of Joseph Gordon-Levitt that Joseph Gordon-Levitt does not have anything to do with. Except maybe the HitRECord. Which Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears to have everything to do with. Until further notice. Wikipedia does not actually exist in the original 2001.

GLGL. Good Luck Gordon Levitt. Be a rock god!

Thanks, CallieMacPherson (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]

List of oxidation states of the elements

[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 feel that it has great potential and might be a potential FL candidate if improved. Also, WP:ELEM currently has a shortage of FLs (we currently have only one) due to delisting, so I think this could be useful in reversing this trend.

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some other references, besides Greenwood & Earnshaw, supporting the inclusion of a –1 oxidation state for the alkali metals could be helpful
  • Oxygen could do with a note commenting on its oxidation state in hypofluorous acid HOF. I suspect this is regarded as being 0. This prompts the question as to whether there are any other elements having an oxidation state of 0 in a compound—I don't know if there are any. Sandbh (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check alkalide for a reference to barium in the –2 oxidation state and platinide for platinum in the –1 and –2 states Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Assuming you are heading to WP:FLC at some point, here are some more basic comments:
  • Don't start "This is a list..." we haven't done that for a couple of years.
  • You need a WP:LEAD which adequately describes what we're about to read.
  • I'm not sure what you'd do, but some kind of illustration or image would be welcome.
  • Try to imagine that you're appealing to readers who don't necessarily understand what "Elem." means, or worse, "Sn"?
  • Expand the table so we include English readable element names.
  • Make it a regular table with row and col scopes and cell boundaries rather than this rather nebulous table.
  • Why is this is notable? It may be interesting, but why should this even exist, why are oxidation states notable? (I know the answer, but you should explain it).
  • You have some entries bold, we don't use bold for emphasis, what's it for?
  • The FIG I illustration is.... well... what?
  • Some work to go, have a breeze around recently promoted featured lists to see what we're looking for, I know this is much more esoteric, but nevertheless, we have some standards that this list currently fails.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC) Incidentally, this checklist may be useful to you). Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revelation (Third Day album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this article to FA-status. The GA reviewer suggested this article is close to that status, and I want to get any major stumbling blocks out of the way before I nominate for Featured Article.

Thanks, Toa Nidhiki05 23:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

That's enough, it's just under half-way, there's plenty to go before you get to FAC I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have fixed most of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Child of Our Time

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Michael Tippett wrote this semi-dramatic oratorio in the early years of the Second World War. It specifically depicts the plight of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis, but Tippett generalises the theme to create a work of sympathy and hope for oppressed people everywhere. The work's most singular feature is Tippett's use of familiar spirituals ("Steal away", "Go down, Moses", "Deep River") in the manner of Bach chorales, as the pillars around which the oratorio is formed. I hope that it might be TFA on an appropriate anniversary (e.g. Holocaust Remembrance Day, 7 April 2013, or perhaps one of the anniversaries of Kristallnacht, 9 November. Comments and suggestions for improvement most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim Riley – I am embarrassed at how little I have to contribute. I've amended a handful of typos, but please check my changes. Otherwise these are the only points I found:

  • Composition
    • End of first para – "slaves songs" – "slave songs"?
  • Wider audience
    • "Carnegie Hall, Boston" – For all I know there may be one in Boston but the one you've linked to is elsewhere.
  • Later performances
    • "ENO ventured…" – slightly value-laden verb, perhaps? (Though I agree with the implication.)
    • "Also in 2005" – some people (not me) get very exercised about starting a sentence with Also.
  • Music
    • "Ternary" – I had to look that one up; and "soli" is perhaps rather an expensive word (to borrow Wehwalt's pleasing phrase). In re ternary I can hear Barry Cryer's voice in my mind's ear defining Ternary as "Like a Turner", but I digress.

To supplement the above meagre donation I have asked a non-Wikipedian friend who knows A Child of Our Time very well to let me have his thoughts on the article, and I'll pass on anything ad rem that he comes up with. – Tim riley (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the above are fixed. Of course Carnegie Hall is in NY, and I agree with Cryer about "ternary". I look forward to your friend's input, if he can find the time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was no more able to pick holes than I was: "Exemplary stuff. I send my congratulations to the author. I rather regret we are no longer allowed to call negro spirituals negro spirituals, but we must move with the times. How right Ian Kemp, who died recently, was to write that 'one of the supreme moments in Tippett's music' occurs towards the end of Part One, as the soprano aria 'How can I cherish my man' melts into the spiritual 'Steal away': 'a [transition] so poignant as to set off that instant shock of recognition that floods the eyes with emotion ... although the soprano continues to grieve in a floating melisma, the spiritual comes as a relief as well as a release'. I have just burst into tears listening to this passage in the Pritchard recording, which I have always found more moving than either of the Davis recordings I've heard. It has the great and sublime Elsie Morison singing the soprano part." Tim riley (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell your friend how much I appreciate his comment. I have had the Pritchard recording since 1974, and none of the others (I haven't heard the latest two) come near it. I agree that Kemp's prose exactly captures that magic moment in Part I, comparable in my view to that instant in Das Rheingold when a beam of sunlight suddenly reveals the gold... Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wehwalt

Here is the first part of my review, the rest will follow, although possibly not until the weekend as I will be traveling the next few days.

Background
  • Can we get at least a soundbite as to the manner in which his parents were unconventional?
  • " Stamford bookshop of Stanford's" Perhaps change the Stamford to "local"
  • "both through his participation in the North Yorkshire work camps " This needs clarification
  • "evident persecution" I would strike "evident"
  • How did Tippett earn a living during the 1930s?
Libretto
  • "Beyond its specific story," I would delete this phrase, or substitute something else
  • "where after much travail" Since you are discussing a journey, I would avoid "where". Perhaps "in which"?
Composition
  • "31 August 1939. Three days later, on the day the Second World War broke out," Well, it broke out on the 1st. The British/French ultimatum expired on the 3rd, and war was declared.
  • " atheists, agnostics and Jews as well as to Christians." Will the source support something like "people regardless of religious belief"?
  • "19th century" possible need for hyphen.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed all these, except the question of how Tippett supported himself in the 1930s. It is not clear from the sources what activities he got paid for and what he did for free. He may have been paid something for organising the music classes at the work camps. He probably got paid some pittance for training and rehearsing the South London Orchestra. He probably did some piano teaching., as well. The sources don't help much, though the inference is that he lived frugally.

I look forward to any further comments you can provide. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, resuming
Conscientious objector
  • "official tribunal" Suggest delete "official".
Premiere
  • "youthful music critic John Amis Tippett" perhaps could benefit from a comma before Tippett
  • Was there any controversy about a performance being given, in wartime, by a conshie, who had even refused to be an ARP?
  • Not as far as I can see. Tippett was strongly supported by the British music establishment (Vaughan Williams, Bliss, Britten etc), and conshies were generally tolerated in the UK during WWII, provided they didn't parade their beliefs too insistently. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite its weaker passages " Since you have not given the reader acquaintance as to which these weaker passages are, suggest change to "despite some weak passages".
Early performances
  • "attempting to establish the North German Radio Symphony Orchestra in Hamburg." This reads a bit oddly, attempting to found something which already has a full formal name? You may want a "what became known as" or a similar construction.
  • "Mátyás Seiber" Can you not contrive to mention him before the quote in which his name appears in the previous section, thus avoiding the need for an unlinked first usage?
  • " Karajan asked Tippett if he would object to an extra interval in Part II; Tippett replied that he would mind very much." Nicely done!
Wider audiences
  • "the two main Israeli newspapers". Hm. Personally I prefer the Jerusalem Post, even if some find them too conservative. Perhaps "two major Israeli ..." without the, er, "the"?
  • "America" I would say "the United States" on first usage, especially as you have an "American" next on the track.
  • "girls' college" Hm. National styles and so forth, but this reads oddly to an American ear. If this was a high school, then girls would be fine, though college should be changed, but if it's an institute of higher education, I would avoid the word. Such places are "maddest folly going", anyway.
Later performances
  • Tippett's death might well be mentioned, I see you have in the lede as his birth and death dates, but the reader may have forgotten, it also helps support the reference in the lede, if someone deems it worth arguing about.
  • "2010 Grant Park Music Festival" A location would be helpful. Chicago?
That's all I have. Excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. Unless stated otherwise I have taken your suggestions on board (with the Seiber issue outstanding). Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Security Essentials

[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'd like to know if this article has the potential for becoming a featured article or if there are outstanding issues.

Thanks, Fleet Command (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has recently retired and will (presumably) not be checking this page for comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Well, the author may be dead but we aren't. I guess it's pretty harmless trying to fix some of these. 91.99.247.120 (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But "dead" is a little bit too extreme. Fleet Command (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, quick comments.

  • Lead's a little brief, see WP:LEAD.
  • Lots of technical abbreviations that a newbie may not understand like VGA, RAM...
  • "(IA-32[23])," etc. check ref placement.
  • You abbreviate it to MSE but then never use it. Would reduce the article length and repetition significantly.
  • Check image captions, complete sentences take a full stop, incomplete ones don't.
  • Magazine titles should be in italics.
  • Why the sub-heading under "Issues" when there are no other sections?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs.
  • Don't overcapitalise the external links.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead's a little brief, see WP:LEAD.
  • Lots of technical abbreviations that a newbie may not understand like VGA, RAM...
  • "(IA-32[23])," etc. check ref placement.
  • You abbreviate it to MSE but then never use it. Would reduce the article length and repetition significantly.
  • Check image captions, complete sentences take a full stop, incomplete ones don't.
  • Magazine titles should be in italics.
  • Why the sub-heading under "Issues" when there are no other sections?
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the refs.
  • Don't mix date formats in the refs.
  • Where?
  • Don't overcapitalise the external links.
(: 91.99.247.120 (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other things

  • Not keen on the unnecessary bold in the infobox for IA-32, x64 etc.
    • I do not care about boldness myself. But in the past, I have seen a lot of people arguing over whether bold is needed or not, with no results; so, I pass it for optional style choice. ArbCom says there should be no edit dispute over such matters and one should leave them be. So, do you still think it is wise to touch it? Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only two of those five "Size" options have specific references, are the others covered elsewhere?
  • Check for consistency - anti-virus or antivirus?
    •  Done
  • "for short[7])," I think that ref should be placed other side of the comma.
    •  Done
  • For both links to Hertz, you could consider linking to Hertz#SI multiples which is a little more specific.
    •  Done
  • "People's Republic of China" I think most people just refer to it as China these days.
    •  Done
  • "Softpedia" our own article on this doesn't have it in italics.
  • Just a feeling, but the article seems to suffer from many very short paragraphs.
  • PC World appears to be PCWorld.
    •  Done
  • Check refs are fully populated, e.g. ref 13 is just a title, no publisher, author, accessdate, publication date etc.
    •  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. You have good eyes. I have left comments accordingly. Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Adams

[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'm considering a nomination at FAC, which would be my first. Before going there, I want to know whether this article on an early baseball personality can be brought to the point where it has a realistic chance of passing, and what I can do to improve it. In particular, I'm looking for comments on prose issues, jargon-related concerns, and whether the article has sufficient context to be understandable. Note that sources on the topic are relatively limited and I've already squeezed out what I feel is worth mentioning about Adams; however, I should be able to add some more background on baseball in a few areas if it's deemed necessary. I'll act on all comments to the extent that I can, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Thanks, Giants2008 (Talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

Overall, this is looking good. It certainly has an excellent chance of passing. I had no real jargon concerns, and I think the "baseball-speak" is explained extremely well. Context looks good, there were just a couple of parts where a little more detail may help. A few prose points, but possibly picky and none of them a big deal. Let me know when it goes to FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "he has been credited as a significant figure in the sport's early history": Who has credited him? Fans? Critics? Historians?
  • "Adams began to play baseball in 1839" suggests he had never played the sport before 1839; the main body seems to say that this is just one possible theory as others say he went to Yale to play.
    • Removed that bit from the lead due to the multiple theories, which take an excessive amount of space to describe for a lead section. It's enough to know when he started playing for club teams. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a player, he received credit for pioneering the shortstop position": From?
  • "Adams made baseballs and helped in the production of bats; he also umpired games sometimes.": Not sure about made; possibly "manufactured" would work better here? And "helped in the production of bats" is a little vague, even for the lead. How much did he help? Finally, it may be better to say "he also occasionally umpired games" or "he also occasionally acted as umpire".
  • "voted into other positions": A little vague?
  • "advocate for rule changes": I may be wrong, but is it not "advocate of"? But that one may be a minefield!
  • "he led the new organization's rules and regulations committee": My personal preference would be for "led the rules and regulations committee of the new organization".
  • "Adams set the field's bases 90 feet (27 m) from each other": Maybe better as "Adams ruled [too strong for his role?] that the bases on the field should be 90 feet (27 m) apart".
  • "Adams began working in the medical field in the late 1830s, and practiced in New York City during his time as a member of the Knickerbockers. In 1865, he left the field": field…field
  • "credited him as" sounds a little clumsy.
  • It seems a little odd that the lead's last paragraph covers his medical and personal life then goes back to his baseball. Maybe better to move the last sentences beginning "Adams' contributions…" to the previous paragraph?
  • Maybe worth saying who John Thorn is (i.e. historian John Thorn or John Thorn, a baseball historian…")
Early life
  • "U.S.": Not sure, but I think I would prefer this to be spelt out here, but not a big deal.
  • "After being schooled at Kimball Union Academy in New Hampshire (from 1826 to 1828) and Amherst, Massachusetts' Mt. Pleasant Classical Institution": Do we need parentheses? If it is important enough to include, I would remove them, particularly as such information is not given for the second school. Also, why the abbreviation of Mt.?
  • "Daniel Lucius Adams attended three colleges": Why not just "Adams"? I don't think there is any danger of confusion with his father at this stage.
  • "in a letter penned in 1832 or 1833 that he had begun playing": Better as "began playing"?
  • "asking him where he had left the items in the family's house.": Confusing here. To what does this refer? If it is where she refers to the "bats and balls", I don't think it is necessary. If it is not that, I am lost!
  • "Researcher Gary O'Maxfield has stated": I think "Researcher Gary O'Maxfield states…" is better construction here.
  • "saying the opportunity to play baseball was one of the reasons": I think "baseball" is unnecessary here.
  • "he went into the medical profession, joining his father": I initially thought this meant joined his father in the profession, but apparently it was in the same place. Maybe this could be cleared up?
  • "The club attempted to organize its first game…": As they were evidently successful, would "The club organiszed its first game" be better?
  • "The Knickerbockers had a 2–2 win–loss record in 1857 in competitive games": in…in never looks great; what about "in competitive games during 1857"?
  • I appreciate that details for his games are probably very scarce, but it there any indication of how his performance compared to other players? My understanding of modern baseball is rudimentary, but as it was evidently a very different game then, it may be useful to have some yardstick with which to measure him, if possible.
    • I'm not finding much of anything in my sources about elite players of the 1840s–early 1950s. It doesn't seem to have been studied. One of the books says that baseball back then was more about recreation/exercise than competition, and so the most talented players "did not really matter". It doesn't seem like they're known in any case, and the researchers don't seem to know what to do with the surviving run totals to determine them. Is it worth adding a sentence or so to the article saying that determining the most-skilled players wasn't emphasized back then? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Playing style
  • Forgive my ignorance, and this is probably not directly relevant, but has the role of shortstop has changed since Adams invented it? In other words, does he still relay throws or is there a different emphasis now? The article implies that they "plug a gap" in the field, but I'm afraid my baseball breaks down at this point!
    • The emphasis, and positioning, are both significantly different now. I put more on this in the Legacy section, since I felt the information fit best there.
  • "he played at every position except pitcher": played at or played in?
Equipment maker and umpire
  • "Adams found that the ball became more "lively"": What does this mean in baseball terms. In cricket it would probably mean that it swung or moved around more (probably owing to a similar effect), but I think even if the meaning is the same, some clarification would help the general reader.
  • "He personally made baseballs": As above, I think manufactured would be better here.
  • "Author Peter Morris credits Adams' ball-making efforts with helping to prevent the Knickerbockers from going under in their first few years.": Not sure about "with helping" here, and the sentence is a little lumpy. Maybe better to say "According to author Peter Morris, Adam's ball-manufacturing efforts helped to keep the Knickerbockers in operation during their first few years". And it is not clear from what went before that his sales of baseballs went to the club.
    • As a matter of fact, sales didn't have anything to do with the quote. They had a limited number of baseballs in those days, and without balls they couldn't have played at all. This should now be a little clearer. I also re-wrote the sentence in accordance with the prose suggestions. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who did he assist in making bats?
  • "One notable game he umpired": Maybe better as "One notable example" as everything else is mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • "Adams became the first umpire to use a new rule allowing for a strike to be called against a batter who did not swing at a pitch in the strike zone": Possibly worth mentioning what the previous rule was.
Knickerbockers and NABBP executive
  • "The Eagle Base Ball Club, desiring a unified set of rules, sent a message to the Knickerbockers requested that a committee be formed.": Something not quite right here: either "requesting" or missing "which".
  • "Adams himself was considered a "respected" figure": By who?
  • This section may be a touch listy: "In XXXX, Adams was YYYY".
  • "tasked with getting local clubs to send delegates": "getting" lacks a little elegance! Maybe "encouraging"?
Number of players and game length
  • I know it is linked, but probably worth saying who Spink was. Also worth saying why there was the discrepancy in the accounts, if known.
Distance between bases and campaign against bound rule
  • "The rule change was proposed to the NAABP annually by Adams but did not pass": From what year, and how many times?
    • Seems like it was every year from 1858 (the NAABP's first year) through 1861, and the next few years after Adams retired. One of my source books had good details on this, which I've incorporated. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • "They had four more children from…": I don't think we need the number; just "the others were born between…"
  • I would be inclined to merge this with "Later life" but even if not, I think it would make sense to place it before that section, rather than after his death.
    • I did merge the content into Later life, and I think it works well there. It expands that section a bit and takes care of the stubbiest section that the article had before. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Similar to above, I might be inclined to move this to the end of his baseball "career" rather than at the end of the article, but really not an issue if you don't agree as it is a matter of personal preference.
    • I personally like having the Legacy section at the end because it provides an ending of sorts to the article. I'd rather leave the content there, if it's not too big a deal. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Another image or two would be good, if possible. File:Doc Adams.jpg is on commons, but the publication information is a little ropey and I'm not sure it would survive an image review unless more can be found out about it.
    • I can't prove that image was published pre-1923, and have removed it from the article before for that reason. I'll see about getting some kind of image to go with the playing career section. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I found an old drawing published before 1923, which I added into Playing career. Wish there was more I could do, but given the era I should probably feel lucky to have any illustrations at all, so I can't complain too much. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a problem with the external link in ref 7.
    • Oh, great. The Harvard people seem to have decided to remove most of their archived articles. The Internet Archive appears to have a version of the article, but there are technical issues at the moment (not sure if they're related to what happened on the Harvard site). I'll give it a day or two, and if there's no change I'll have to start replacing cites. Most of what that source covers is available elsewhere, so the situation isn't dire. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't look like the Internet Archive version is working properly, so I'll have to go through and re-source these items. In case I don't return here, note that this will be done before an FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not watch peer reviews, but please ping me if there are any issues or comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Brezhnev

[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 to nominate it to FA (I know I it has a long way to go, but this is only the beginning).

Thanks, TIAYN (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I recently peer reviewed the article on Brezhnev's legacy, it is interesting to read the article on the man himself. This seems generally well done, though there are numerous small issues that will need to be addressed before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are many FA biographies on political leaders at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government_biographies
  • In the lead, I would mention that his WWII service was as a political commisar (not a military officer) as most readers will assume such service during a war means military command
  • Working One of the most difficult criteria for most articles to meet at FAC is 1a, a professional level of prose. Here the second Breshnev in the sentence could just be "he": In 1952 Brezhnev became a member of the Central Committee, and in 1964, Brezhnev succeeded Nikita Khrushchev as First Secretary; ...
  • When explaining things, do so at the first instance. So "Dniprodzerzhynsk Metallurgical Technicum (technical college)" is fine, but is at the second occurrence
  • Removed Problem caption A photo of Brezhnev taken in 1936. First off, it is not a fuill sentence and so does not need a full stop (period) at the end. Second, the caption should be more descriptive - the photo page says it was when he served as Director of the Technicum, so I would put the in the caption (it is already pretty obvious it is a photo)
  • Done Also the image File:Brezhnev1936.jpg uses the template {{PD-URAA}}, but does not say where and when it was published to meet the terms of this license (website is .
  • Removed File:Khrushchev and Brezhnev.jpg does not have a source - where is this image from? Scanned from a book? From a website? This also uses {{PD-Russia-2008}}, which seems like a more reasonable license than PD-URAA
  • Fixed (someone removed the references) There is one citation needed tag, and much of the first paragraph of Personality cult has no refs but needs them.
  • Removed (an IP added it) The references are not formatted consistently and some of them need more information (this will be checked at FAC). For example one ref is just Yatsko V. Russian folk funny stories and needs publisher, date accessed
  • See above Also what makes the preceding reference a reliable source?
  • Done As with the Legacy article, I am not sure why some books are listed in the bibliography, but others are in the references section.
  • Done There are several broken Special:BookSources... links in the current Refs
  • Working The Removal of Khrushchev section is confusiing to me - I expected there to be more about the conspiracy and why they decided to removed Krushchev. Instead there are sentences that just seem to assume the reader knows the details like this Vladimir Semichastny, head of the KGB,[13] was a crucial part of the conspiracy, as it was his duty to inform Khrushchev if anyone was plotting against his leadership. This is the first mention of the conspiracy, by the way.
  • (Specify please; I only see 1 image...) WP:MOSIMAGES says not to sandwich text between two images, but the two images in the Consolidation of power section forma sandwich on my monitor.
  • (Replaced image) File:A dead Brezhnev.jpg needs a fair use rationale for this article (currently only has one for the death and funeral article)
  • (I've removed two) There are a lot of sections - could the number be reducded?
  • (I fail to see such a section) Section headers need to follow WP:HEAD - don't start a header with a definite article in most cases, for example.
  • This needs a copy edit - unclear antecedent to his in the second sentence For instance, when Moscow City Party Secretary N. G. Yegorychev refused to sing his praises, he was shunned, forced out of local politics and earned only an obscure ambassadorship. His main passion was driving foreign cars given him by leaders of state from across the world. (Obviously Brezhnev liked to drive cars, but the preceding sentence is about Yegorychev, so it seems as is the "his main passion" refers to Yegorychev).
  • The MOS says once a person is introduced, to use their last name only in most cases. So it should be just Kruschev and not Nikita Kruschev after his full name is used in the lead and perhaps first use in the body of the article
  • Working Watch WP:OVERLINKing
  • Working No mention of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Kruschev allowed his One Day in the life of Ivan D... to be published, but under Breshnev he was hounded by the KGB and eventually deported
  • 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 ><>°° 22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)-[reply]

Olecranon bursitis

[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 comments on the new information added in order to ensure its appropriateness. i also want to make sure that it looks professional, clear and concise with sufficient information to ensure enough information is incorporated into the page. Thanks, Iruntoomuch (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62
  • This article needs a lot more sources! Google Scholar turns up over 3,000 results. I suggest you read through some. If you need help formatting references, drop me a note. As a general rule of thumb, every statement in the body of the article should be supported by a citation, either immediately afterward or later in the paragraph.
  • The information in Symptoms can and should be presented in full paragraphs, not as a list.
  • This article should probably have sections for Diagnosis and Epidemiology. See Subarachnoid hemorrhage as an example article.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supracondylar fracture

[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 contribute information on supracondylar fractures to the public. I hope this article will give a better on sight on what a supracondylar fracture is and how to diagnosis it. Some sections that may need reviewing are the mechanisms and the diagnosis

Thanks, Jcmalimban89 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article definitely needs more citations, particularly to peer-reviewed journal articles. Google Scholar turns up 6,000 hits for the subject. As a rule of thumb, every statement in the article should be supported by a citation.
  • Try to avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs. The Patho-anatomy section, in particular, should be expanded.
  • Similarly, try to present material in full-sentences rather than lists.
  • If you do need to use lists, they are created by placing an asterisk (*) at the beginning of each entry.
  • I don't believe that PhysioAdvisor.com can be trusted as a reliable source. Their objective is not to provide neutral, peer-reviewed information; it is to sell products.
  • Subarachnoid hemorrhage, which is a Featured Article, might be a helpful model for how to expand this one.

Feel free to contact me if you need more assistance. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon ice cream

[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 constructive criticism and opinions from others on the subject. I believe the article to be of high quality but that as always there is room for improvement.

Thanks Jenova20 11:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I though this was a fascinating article. It's well-written (the structure, tying together The Two Ronnies, Scott Aldrich and Heston Blumenthal neatly and cohesively, is excellent) and the prose and grammar is generally good. A few suggestions:
  • A couple of sentences in the Notable uses section are unsourced, and the section as a whole needs a bit of an overhaul (why, for example, is the appearance of bacon ice cream on Escai Sucre's menu in any way notable?).
  • There are some sources in the article which don't pass WP:RS, [7], [8] and [9] are blogs, for example, which are user-generated and thus unreliable.
  • There's a smigin of WP:OR in this sentence: they have created a bacon ice cream which tastes like butter pecan - implying that the ice cream was a butter pecan with candied bacon - the source says that one reviewer thought the flavour was similar to butter pecan, but no implication about the concoction of the ice cream is made.
  • The Reception sction needs a bit of work. Nico Ladenis showed his disapproval for the Michelin Star system by suggesting that bacon ice cream shows such a desperate need for originality in very graphic language is a bit euphemistic - say that he compared it to vomit, or simply lose the phrase about his "graphic language". The "debate" in the LA Times doesn't seem to actually have existed - two articles, espousing different viewpoints, were published, but linking them to imply a debate does not seem to be supported by the sources, and constitutes undue synthesis. And does the sentence about "Udder Delight" belong under this heading?
  • Reviewing against GA criteria, it's generally well-written and MOS-compliant; the information is verifiable and most of the sources are sound (some improvement needed, though); its coverage is appropriate; different viewpoints are presented without undue weight given to any; it's generally stable (bar the odd vandal) and the image is properly tagged, free-use, and well-captioned. I'd say this only needs minimal tweaking to be a GA.
Now, if you'll excuse me, reading that has made me feel a little peckish... let's see what's in the freezer... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking you meant FA right Yunshui? The article is already GA. Thanks Jenova20 16:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I meant GA. But that's because I'm a pillock and hadn't spotted that the article had already passed that particular bar. Let's look at it again from an FA perspective...
  • Engaging, brilliant, professional prose Not entirely. Parts of the article certainly qualify; the Origins and Heston Blumenthal sections are fine. There are some clumsy sentences in the Reception section (e.g. The end result she described as nauseating and "too sickly for words" would work better as She described the end result as nauseating and "too sickly for words"), and the Notable uses section reads like a list that's been reformatted to prose (haven't checked the history to see if this actually happened). The article needs some copyediting, especially in the last two sections, before it would meet the FA standard.
  • Comprehensive I think the article almost passes this criterion; it covers all of the major developments in bacon ice cream history and gives several descriptions of the manufacturing process (without, I'm pleased to see, trying to include a recipe). The origin of the concept could use more definition; if there's more information on the connection to savoury Victorian ice-cream, I for one would be interested to read about it. At present, the implication is that The Two Ronnies originated the idea, but that's not supported in the sources.
  • Well-researched Not that this isn't a well-researched article (25 citations for 17,000 bytes is pretty thorough), but as noted above, not all of the sources meed WP:RS. I think better sources are needed for some of the claims; at present, the references section is a bit bloggy in places.
  • Neutral Several views on bacon as an ice cream flavour are offered with no particular weight being given to any of them, and the article's tone is encyclopedic. It's possible that too much of the article is dedicated to Mr Blumenthal - a whole section (the largest) on a single chef, plus more than half of the Recipes section, seems a bit excessive. I think it would be necessary to emphatically demonstrate that Blumenthal is an integral part of bacon ice-cream history to justify this much coverage. I'd also suggest merging the Heston Blumenthal variation subsection to the main section on him; the fact that his work is described as a "variation" suggests that it's getting undue weight.
  • Stability As noted above, fine.
  • MOS Lead is fine; structure is pretty good (I would expect to see the Origins section as item 1 on the contents list, though, and it might be better retitled as History); citation style is consistent and uniform (using the {{cite}} template).
  • Images As noted above, the one image is fine. In an article of this length, only one image of the product is really necessary (although if free pictures exist showing the ice cream being made, for example, they could perhaps be added).
  • Length Stays on topic and uses summary style correctly. Most FAs I've seen are a bit longer than this, though there's no actual prescription that I know of regarding length. Personally, I don't think there's much room for expansion without the article becoming too tangential.
Hopefully that's a bit more helpful. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful indeed. Thanks Yunshui. WormTT · (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've got to be honest; I'm surprised this passed a GA review. The organization strikes me as a little haphazard, and it veers off-topic in places. Specific comments below.

Lead:

  • "is a modern invention in experimental cookery" "Modern" is a relative term. I think it is best dropped and an approximate date for the creation of bacon ice cream added later so the reader can judge whether or not it is a "recent" invention. Also, pretty much everything was at one time an "invention" and "experimental". What would be wrong with something more literal like "Bacon ice cream (or bacon-and-egg ice cream) is an ice cream flavour generally created by adding bacon to egg custard and freezing the mixture."?
  • "Although it was a joke in a Two Ronnies sketch" As a U.S. resident, this doesn't tell me a heck of a lot. I gather from the Two Ronnies article that it was a variety show in the U.K. How about something more like "The concept for bacon ice cream originated from a 1973 sketch on the British variety show The Two Ronnies."? Done
  • "it was eventually created for April Fools' Day." When? How long after the sketch that inspired it aired? Who created it?
  • "Heston Blumenthal experimented with the creation of ice cream". Same problem here; I don't know who Heston Blumenthal is or why I should care. Just a few words of context would help. Also, do you mean he experimented with the creation of bacon ice cream here?
  • "It now appears on dessert menus in other high-end restaurants." High-end restaurants where? Everywhere? Is it more popular some places than others?

Recipes:

  • I really feel like the Origins section should come first. You start off talking about how bacon ice cream was invented in 1992, but we don't learn any of the details until we learn how it is made. Seems odd to me. Done
  • "only came to the forefront in the 2000s" Came to the forefront of what? Should probably be rephrased.
  • "a standard sweet ice cream recipe, often vanilla but other suggestions include coffee, rum or pecan." Whose "suggestions"? How about something like "a standard sweet ice cream flavor – vanilla, or less commonly coffee, rum, or pecan."?
  • "The saltiness of the bacon will then highlight the sweet flavour of the rest of the ice cream." According to whom? One person may think it highlights the flavor, while another feels it ruins the flavor, overshadows the flavor, etc. Also, why the shift from present to future tense in this sentence?
  • "According to one Wired.com article," Wired.com is a news site, according to its article. Why is it a good source for a recipe for bacon ice cream? Is the author of the article a culinary expert? Also, when was the article published? This gives the reader an idea how new the idea of bacon ice cream was at the time.

Heston Blumenthal variation:

  • This suffers from the same problem as the lead. Who is Heston Blumenthal, and why should I care? This section just starts by telling me how he makes bacon ice cream. Why do he and his recipe get so much attention in this article? Is his recipe now the standard? Is it more commonly prepared than other variants? Why does his recipe merit more examination than, say, the guy who makes his bacon ice cream with a pecan ice cream base, as mentioned earlier in the article?
  • "In his book, The Big Fat Duck Cookbook" Again, a year of publication would be helpful here. How much time elapsed between the ice cream's initial creation – which we still know nothing about at this point – did Blumenthal create his variety?
  • "Considerable time is taken for the creation of the ice cream" How long? How does it compare to the usual preparation time for ice cream? "Considerable" is to general.
  • "This infused mix is precisely heated" What is precise about the heating? Why does it have to be precise?
  • "put through a food processor" Is there a more precise verb we can use here in place of "put through"?
  • "Blumenthal has since updated his recipe" Since when? Presumably, since the publication of his cookbook, but as it stands now, we don't know when that was either. How much time elapsed between his publication of the cookbook and the update? Where was it updated? In a new edition of the same book or in a different book?
  • "to include an addition ten-hour period of soaking the bacon" Presume you mean "additional". Done
  • "prior to baking" I thought the bacon was roasted.
  • "He has also changed the presentation" From what? We don't have any information about how it was presented before.
  • "Liquid nitrogen" should be linked on first mention. Done

Origins:

  • "This sketch went on to be included in the "Best of The Two Ronnies" DVD." This is basically irrelevant to the concept of bacon ice cream, isn't it?
  • "Bacon and egg ice cream was eventually created" Eventually? When? We don't find out until several sentences later that it was in 1992. Also, do we know if Aldrich was inspired by the sketch or if it was just coincidence? If so, how did a U.S. resident come to learn of a sketch performed two decades earlier in the U.K.?
  • The article seems to imply that creating some outlandish ice cream flavor became a tradition for Aldrich beginning with his 1982 gravy ice cream. We get a list of other odd flavors he concocted, but the list ends with "in 1991". Were all of those flavors created in 1991, or were they done one at a time on April Fool's Day between 1982 and 1991. If they were all in 1991, what happened in the intervening years?
  • "In 1992, they made 15 US gallons (57 l; 12 imp gal) of bacon and egg ice cream which he gave away free to anyone who would try it." "They" made the ice cream, but "he" gave it away. It isn't clear who "they" is, but presumably if "they" made it, "they" gave it away. Also, "they" made fifteen gallons of ice cream, but they gave "it" away. Don't you mean they gave "them" (the gallons) away? Did they give them away by the gallon? Or did they just give free samples?
  • "Despite their names, the ice creams generally received positive reviews." I suspect it was despite the unusual flavors instead of despite the names. Who gave the flavors positive reviews? Professional food critics? Customers? If customers, did they fill out a survey? How were their opinions collected?
  • "they have created" Why the shift in tense?
  • "implying that the ice cream was a butter pecan with candied bacon" Presumably, we don't know for sure what they made it with? If not, who opined that it tasted like butter pecan or that it was probably made with butter pecan and candied bacon?
  • "The owner had included" Again, why the shift in tense?
  • "where the tasters were allowed to suggest changes and give opinions on the flavour." And they said what?

Heston Blumenthal:

  • Oh, look, we're back to Heston Blumenthal! And we finally figure out who he is and why we should care, although we still don't really know why so much of this article is about him and so little about the other folks who have created bacon ice cream varieties. See what I mean about organization?
  • "Heston Blumenthal is a celebrity chef who applies scientific method to food." OK, maybe it's just me, but I'm not seeing the connection between the scientific method, in its most general sense, and this guy's cooking. Now, if you combine the first two sentences to say something like, "Celebrity chef Heston Blumenthal owns The Fat Duck in Bray, Berkshire, and is famous for creating unusual dishes by following the principles of molecular gastronomy.", I'm buying that, since "molecular gastronomy" (a decidedly cool term) is clearly connected to cooking. Done
  • "Using his scientific method to create ice cream," There it is again! How about just "He creates ice cream by..."?
  • "Once the mixture is cooked, it should be cooled as fast as possible (Blumenthal regularly uses liquid nitrogen in cooking) while being stirred." This strikes me as an odd sentence. Two sentences ago, we were clearly talking about Heston Blumenthal making ice cream. Now, we are saying "it should be cooled as fast as possible". Well, if he's the one cooking it, that's his problem, right? Then, we have this weird parenthetical about liquid nitrogen, which makes sense to me, since I've seen someone freeze and shatter a tennis ball using liquid nitrogen, but may not make sense to a reader less familiar with it. How about rephrasing to say, "While stirring the mixture, Blumenthal cools it as fast as possible using liquid nitrogen." It flows lots better, and gives the casual reader some idea what the liquid nitrogen is for. Done
  • "In an article explaining the concept of "flavour encapsulation", Blumenthal points out that flavour is much more intense in encapsulated bursts, rather than being dispersed in a solution." To me, this belongs two paragraphs earlier, when the idea of "flavour encapsulation" is first mentioned, but not explained. Done Jenova20 11:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the paragraph, we're left to assume that he adds bacon, otherwise, this whole discussion is rather irrelevant to the topic of bacon ice cream. Might be helpful to note.
  • "Blumenthal's bacon and egg ice cream, now one of his signature dishes, along with his other unique flavours, has given him a reputation as 'The Wizard of Odd'" I'd drop "along with his other unique flavors", as "one of his signature dishes" implies that there are others. Also, the creation of the 'Wizard of Odd' nickname should probably be attributed to someone.
  • "In the 2006 New Years Honours List, Blumenthal was awarded an OBE for his services to food." A U.S. reader like myself has no idea what an "OBE" is. Who awards it? Is it rare? Prestigious? Do a lot of chefs get it relative to folks in other professions? Partly done
    • Your partial improvements have helped. I wonder, though, about the phrasing "Blumenthal was awarded Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". To me, this sounds like a title more than an award. I would have expected "Blumenthal was awarded the title Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" or "Blumenthal was designated (as)/dubbed an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". To use more familiar terms for me, a person can be awarded an Emmy but they are designated as a Kentucky colonel. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blumenthal has stated that one ambition is to create an ice cream with flavours released in time-separated stages, for example bacon and egg followed by orange juice or tea. Once he perfects the technique of separating the flavours, he would attempt mussels followed by chocolate." This is only tangentially related to bacon ice cream. If he ever does it with bacon ice cream, then it belongs. Otherwise, not so much, I think.

Reception:

  • "Bacon ice cream has received a mixed reception, as a combination of sweet and savoury flavours it was designed to be controversial." I think this is a run-on sentence. Done
  • "Blumenthal's combinations have won him awards such as 'Best restaurant in the world'" As designated by whom? I'm pretty fond of a local joint down the street.
  • "three Michelin stars" Out of how many? Or is the Michelin star an award that he has won three different times? Also, neither of these designations seems to have been explicitly for his bacon ice cream, unless I'm missing something. If not, they are much less relevant to this article, if they are relevant at all.
  • After reading the article on Michelin stars, it seems that three stars is indeed a big deal. Still, the award is for a restaurant, not for a specific dish, such as bacon ice cream. You might move the mention of the stars exclusively to the "Reception" section (removing it from the "Heston Blumenthal" section) so that it is only associated with Ladenis' criticism, which does refer back to bacon ice cream. I could see something like "Blumenthal's restaurant received three Michelin stars. In criticizing the entire Michelin star system, rival chef Nico Ladenis singled out Blumenthal's creation of egg-and-bacon ice cream, saying...". I would obviously flesh that out some, but that's the organization of information I would use. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting that bacon ice cream shows such a desperate need for originality in very graphic language." I saw the note in the GA review about the graphic nature of the quote by a rival chef. I get it, but I think that the narrative should at least parenthetically instruct the reader to see the pull-quote. Otherwise, the connection between this part of the narrative and the quote isn't explicit. Personally, I'd be fine with including it inline. It isn't that graphic, it gives some punch to the article, and it really encapsulates the rivalry between the two chefs uniquely. Of course, I ate a hamburger while reading Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, so you can't always go by me! :)
  • "Trevor White has suggested that the Heston Blumenthal has latched onto a culture where we cannot get enough of the new and are spoiled by choice" OK, who's Trevor White? And was he talking specifically about bacon ice cream or about Blumenthal's cooking overall? If it is the latter, this article really seems like it is veering off into being an article about Blumenthal, not bacon ice cream.
  • "Janet Street-Porter is highly critical of Blumenthal's cooking philosophy, explaining that it was pretentious." Who is Janet Street-Porter? Without knowing, we might surmise that she's just a bad cook and that's why her attempt at recreating Blumenthal's ice cream went awry. Also, there is a shift in tense within this sentence (i.e. "is critical" to "was pretentious").
  • "The Delaware "Udder Delight" ice cream maker, Chip Hearn" Oh, we know his name. Why didn't we mention it earlier instead of calling him "the owner"? What does the fact that he created the ice cream as a gimmick have to do with its reception? Partly done

Notable uses:

  • "it appears on the menu at Espai Sucre in Barcelona" I assume this is one of the "high-end restaurants" mentioned in the lead, but without any context, I don't really know that.
  • "with descriptions such as "innovative" and "spectacular"." Where are these descriptions? On the menus in the restaurant? In reviews of the restaurant's bacon ice cream? Why doesn't this restaurant's variety of bacon ice cream get as much space in the article as Heston Blumenthal's?
  • "In the United States, bacon was one of the themes for dessert at the Fancy food show." And? Did someone there make bacon ice cream? If so, who? How did folks like it? By the way, I'm not familiar with the "Fancy Food Show". Who sponsors it? How often is it held? Who comes to it? What do they do there? When was bacon dessert the feature there?
  • "In 2006, two separate contestants created versions of bacon ice cream in the reality series Top Chef." And? Did they win? Did the judges like it? What did they say about it? How were their creations the same? How were they different? How did they compare to Heston Blumenthal's, since he is apparently the be-all-and-end-all of bacon ice cream chefs?
  • "Andrew Knowlton, a judge, dismissed it as not original." Interesting. This seems to indicate that bacon ice cream has become rather commonplace, relatively speaking anyway, yet all we have is scattered references to it being served New York, Delaware, Barcelona, a few cooking competitions, and, oh yeah, at Heston Blumenthal's place in Berkshire. I'm wondering about the broadness of coverage in this article.

I hope this doesn't come across as too harsh. I really was looking forward to learning a lot about bacon ice cream in this article, and I was kind of disappointed. I learned a little about how it started, a little about how certain people make it, and a whole lot about some guy named Heston Blumenthal that I had previously never heard of. This could be a really cool article, but I just don't think it's there yet. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 19:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acdixon, I'm stunned by the effort you've put in here and will endeavour to address everything as soon as I can. For now, all I can give you is my heartfelt thanks. I couldn't have asked for more and I'm flabbergasted. WormTT · (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's easily a month of work there...I'll help out if i can Worm Jenova20 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad to hear that you found this useful. I was worried I would come off as overly negative. I've been on the receiving end of several of these, and I know there is a fine line between constructive criticism and being unnecessarily snarky and pedantic. Glad to see you don't think I crossed that line. I'm just starting to get into content reviewing. Gives me something to do while my FACs languish for the apparently mandatory month and a half before they draw enough comments to pass. I'll keep this on my watchlist as long as I see periodic activity, but if you need to move it elsewhere so you can continue to work after the PR closes, just let me know where to watch. This is an irresistably interesting topic, although it's unfortunately too far out of my area of expertise for me to be much help in actually expanding the content. I would love to see it get a five-star treatment and maybe make the front page one day. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look through all of the comments, but in regards to your first one about the usage modern and experimental, that is what Heston Blumenthal is known for. [10] [11] Perhaps it would be useful to follow up with the mention of gastronomy or molecular gastronomy (if a stronger linkage between Bacon ice cream and molecular gastronomy can be shown). Currently the article only uses molecular gastronomy to describe Heston Blumenthal's cooking, with small linkages to the ice cream in the blockquote that refers to "flavour encapsulation". I'd be happy to help as well if you would like it Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm focussing on my other possible FA candidate (Doom Bar), and I'm away from Friday for a little over a week, so I'm not going to get this done short term. There's an awful lot of really good suggestions by Acdixon, so if either (or both) of you want to put any into effect, please do. Might be a good idea to stick a {{done}} after any points you do, so we don't end up re-working anything. I'll have a look at the structure when I get back if either of you find that too daunting.
Acdixon, there is a possibility you went slightly over the line towards harsh - but I don't see it. When looking at something for FA, you either get harsh now, or harsh later, and since yours was so full of constructive help - it was absolutely what the article needed. WormTT · (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forza Motorsport 4

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working towards nominating this as a Good Article. I have a to-do list on the article's talk page, however I'm looking for things I may have glared over or missed entirely. Any feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Teancum (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think the track list is important, it defines the content of the game. You've only listed the new tracks in the article, but I should be able to find out what all the tracks are (particularly the real ones), although that might be better suited to a separate track list such as List of songs in Rock Band. - 188.222.170.156 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's been a subject of debate over the years -- when to include lists and when not to. I don't know that I'm opposed to it, I sortof agree. If I add it, however, I want to do it right, and in a eye-pleasing way. --Teancum (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read through thoroughly. I would suggest moving the section about the Porsche license from the DLC section to someplace else, either under development or a new one entirely. Also Clarkson's voiceover for the DeLorean has been taken out of the game as of sometime in 2011. Turn 10 has made no comment on why. Not sure if thats notable enough to mention. Otherwise its a good article, a bit dry, but accurate of the game and its content.

Racingfreak92 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch on the Porsche section. As far as the DeLorean I can't make the change without something to cite, but as you said, there's been no comment on the situation. It could even very well be a bug or something (who knows?). --Teancum (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually on that note I remember that the reason I put it there is that a Porsche DLC pack has been confirmed. Since it was all related I didn't want to break it up. --Teancum (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm soliciting a peer review for the Istanbul article because I'm hoping to bring this to WP:FAC next month. I have worked on this article on and off (largely off) for the past two years, and recently, I put in a lot of effort to try to get this finished before the summer. This is, as you can see, a very long article—and that is one of the issues I need addressed—so I've broken it down into areas where I feel need the most help (some of which require reading little to none of the article). Of course, those with the will and desire to read the entire thing and provide more lengthy feedback are free to do so!

Article length: By my estimation, the article has about 85 kilobytes of prose. This is below the 100-kB upper limit suggested by Wikipedia:Article size, but it's still quite long. Obviously, Istanbul is a very large city, with many aspects that need to be covered. But, I'd appreciate some feedback on which sections need some cutting down, and in what way. Notice that several of the sections do not have daughter articles. Recommendations on whether I should create said daughter articles (although I am not putting time in expanding them into comprehensive, self-sufficient articles) or just delete the information altogether would be appreciated. However, when saying a section is too long, please actually read the section first. The length requirements are not hard and fast (some articles just necessitate more), and so I would like assurance that you believe a section is too long because it has unnecessary detail, not because it just looks long.

References: Half the article's length is due to references. Are there too many references? Not enough (oh God)? Things referenced that don't really need to be? I'll try to go through the books to see if I could reuse print references more often (many of those listed are only used once), but is what we have now a problem? Also, are there some references that aren't good enough?

Image choice: What do you think of the number, quality, and relevance of images in the article? (Yes, I know many of them need alt text, but I'm not writing alt text when images are being replaced and readded left, right, and center.)

Missing information: Is there information missing that you believe should be in the article? Does the article spend too much time on certain points, when it should be focusing on something else?

Note that I have not proofread the article from beginning to end, so nitpicks about grammar or spelling, while fine, are unnecessary. I'm confident with my English ability, and I'll allow the folks over at FAC to find whatever I end up missing. Note also that part of the reason for putting forth a peer review is so that I don't have to respond to feedback immediately (unlike at FAC, where doing so can sink a nomination). So, it might be days before I fix something you think needs to be fixed.

Thanks, -- tariqabjotu 05:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by İnfoCan: Missing information

The article has gone through a lot of improvement during the last year, thanks for your efforts. You are looking to shorten the article but actually it is still not comprehensive enough. I haven't read the article in detail but I can see that there are some major aspects of the topic that have not been touched upon:

1) The city and province have had the same boundaries since 2004, so they should be covered together. The two geographic entities differ only in their administrative details and histories, while all other aspects of these two entities (economy, transportation, climate, culture, etc.) are identical. So, to avoid content forking (as it has happened on the Turkish Wikipedia), their articles should be merged. The merger was previously discussed here, there was consensus (those who were opposed turned out to be uninformed) but nobody got around to implement it. If the merge is to be done, then the Administration section should discuss the municipal and provincial administration separately. Similarly, because historically the boundaries of the city and the province have been different, their histories should be reviewed under separate subheadings. The Turkish Wikipedia has plenty of information on the administrative history of the Istanbul Province here and the administrative subdivisions of the Istanbul province [12][13][14].

2) The article lacks sections on the the environment (environmental issues, fauna, flora and water resources), the military (strategic importance, military installations), and traditional culture (cuisine, folklore, local celebrations). The Turkish Wikipedia has information on most of these topics [15] (except the military).

Best wishes. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'm going to act on either of these points. I was kind of hoping with the "Missing information" category, people would also suggest information that should be replaced. Since you don't do that, I find myself hesitant to add even more content without just cause. Regarding the Province information, it seems illogical to add separate sections on the history of the province and separate the provincial and municipal administrations. While the boundaries are coterminous, if the Istanbul Province still has some meaning today, and had some meaning in the past, it ought to remain at its own separate article, where information on that can be written in great depth without cluttering an already oversized article that should focus on the city.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure does not stipulate the inclusion of sections on the environment or the military. That being said, water resources are already mentioned in various parts of the article. Environmental issues (like what?) can probably be mentioned in the geography section, if they are especially notable. The Culture section is one of the areas that I believe could use some help (that's a very challenging article to write from a distant vantage point). I feel cuisine is already covered in enough depth, but folklore and local celebrations could be added, replacing other information currently about leisure and entertainment. If you have some ideas or content to contribute, that would be great (especially if you have reliable sources -- and not just anecdotal evidence -- supporting them). Even if you don't have such sources immediately available, feel free to share what you're thinking of, and I can try to find sources corroborating your points. -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have changed your view regarding the city and the province needing to be discussed together [16]. The issue of complexity can be handled by daughter articles but from an organizational point of view, but the city and province articles need to be merged because otherwise you will get content forking. I believe the other topics mentioned are needed to make the article comprehensive. Use Google Translate on the relevant Turkish Wikipedia articles to get an idea of what is missing. Given the restrictions on article size, these topics have to be dealt with superficially and again the reader would have to be directed to daughter articles. Unfortunately I don't have time to work on this article, so feel awkward making these suggestions. I am sure you will do a good job pulling the article together. --İnfoCan (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the aim of the merge is to just replace Istanbul Province with a redirect to Istanbul, I'd probably be fine with that. After all, the Istanbul Province article, as it exists now, contains nothing that isn't in the Istanbul article. But, if, as you suggest, a merge will necessitate explaining a different system of administration or talking about the history of the entire province (information that, years later, still isn't written in the Istanbul Province article), then, yes, I do withdraw what I said. A history of the city of Istanbul should not require going in to depth about areas that 100 years ago were not considered part of the city, but are/were part of the province. That's just unreasonable.
I've looked at the Turkish version of the Istanbul article and, while it contains some useful demographic information only available in Turkish, its Culture section looks very similar to the Culture section here prior to me cutting it down. The information present there is already presented here in summary format, and I see nothing about folklore or local celebrations. The same can be said about the rest of the article. Frankly, I don't think the Turkish version of the Istanbul article is something we should be striving for; it is the opposite of concise. -- tariqabjotu 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should look at the Turkish version of the Istanbul Province article [17] to see sections on the environment (fauna, flora, etc.) and folklore, cuisine, local celebrations. It is not concise and it is redundant. But there is some useful material.
The current section on Administration is actually adequate for a top-level summary. I think the Istanbul Province article can just be deleted and daughter articles on the History of Istanbul Province and Subdivisions of Istanbul Province be created.--İnfoCan (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments

  • Using the prose size tool, the article has the following Document statistics: (See here for details.)

File size: 590 kB Prose size (including all HTML code): 125 kB References (including all HTML code): 22 kB Wiki text: 159 kB Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12059 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 1448 B Images: 646 kB

Since Wikipedia:Article size suggests trimming anything than 50 kB (10000 words) of readable text, this seems like it might benefir from some trimming. Note that this can be as simple as tightening the text. One example - look at this paragraph on airports

Istanbul has two international airports, the larger of which is Atatürk International Airport. Atatürk International, located 24 kilometers (15 mi) west of the city center, handled 37.4 million passengers in 2011; this ranks it the eighth-busiest airport in Europe and among the thirty busiest in the world.[252] Sabiha Gökçen International Airport opened on the Asian side of the city, 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of the European city center, to relieve Atatürk International. Sabiha Gökçen is dominated by low-cost carriers, with destinations in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa. Istanbul's second airport has rapidly become popular among travelers in the ten years since it opened, in 2001; the airport handled 12.7 million passengers in 2011, two years after a new international terminal opened, and was named the world's fastest growing airport by Airports Council International the same year.[253][254]

This could be tightened to something like this, which is about 2/3 the size:

Atatürk International, the larger of Istanbul's two international airports, is 24 kilometers (15 mi) west of the city center. Its 37.4 million passengers in 2011 made it the eighth-busiest airport in Europe, and among the thirty busiest in the world.[252] Sabiha Gökçen International Airport, 45 kilometres (28 mi) east of the city center, opened in 2001 to relieve Atatürk International. Sabiha Gökçen is dominated by low-cost carriers and handled 12.7 million passengers in 2011, when Airports Council International named it the world's fastest growing airport.[253][254]

I mostly tried to avoid needless repetition, but I trimmed a few things as well. Per WP:Summary style, the focus should be on Istanbul with links to the airport articles and a few details to give the interested reader a feel for what the airports are like - if the reader wants to know more about Attaturk or Sabiha G., they can follow the links. I do not see where it is necessary for this article to say when a new terminal opened at one airport, and at this point in the article a reader should know that east of city center is in Asia (and west is in Europe). Please note that WP:WIAFA 1a is a professional level of prose, so tightening is needed anyway.

  • The biggest pronblem this would face at FAC is a lack of references. There are quite a few statements like this without refs that need them Even prior to the closure of Haydarpaşa, intercity travel by coach was the most popular mode of domestic travel.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Anything which follows a ref, but is itself with out a ref needs a citation.
  • WP:MOSIMAGE says not to sandwich text between images, but on my computer monitor there are snadwiches in Ottoman and Turkish era, Geography, and Public services.
  • Avoid vague time terms like "current" or "currently" - so Hüseyin Avni Mutlu is the current Governor of the Istanbul Province since May 2010.[109] could just be Since May 2010, Hüseyin Avni Mutlu is the Governor of the Istanbul Province .[109] and things like Currently, some sources estimate that three million residents of Istanbul—a quarter of the city's population—is Kurdish,[126] meaning there are more Kurds in Istanbul than in any other city in the world.[127] need a year (ref 126 is from 2005, so I would use that year).
  • ANother one of the FA criteria is stabiity - if there is a dispute on the inclusion of the province in the article, that should be resolved before FAC.
  • 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 ><>°° 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas S. Hinde

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review to improve the overall quality and seek suggestions for improvements.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This peer review has been closed. The rules on the WP:Peer review page clearly limit editors to one open review at any one time (this is bolded and highlighted in red on the WP page). As a review request for Charles T. Hinde remains open, the later had to close. You are welcome to resubmit when the earlier has cleared the process. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tron: Legacy

[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 close to GA, but the reviewer decided to fail while the suggested improvements were being made. He insisted on a peer review, which is why i'm doing this.

Thanks, RAP (talk) 14:11 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment went to review it but was tagged as being in the midst of a major re-work. Probably not a good time for peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do the same but the article is still under construction. Agreed with TRM. Ruby 2010/2013 17:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sorry, but articles under construction are not eligible for peer review. You should resubmit when the construction is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Brundage

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan to take it to FAC and I'd be grateful for any comments on this article.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley
  • Comments on prose etc to follow, but meanwhile a few queries about spelling:
    • You write "metres" (twice). I thought this was the UK form and the US spelling was "meters".
It is. However, it is an international event. I will research how US newspapers describe Olympic events and check back.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "medallists" – again, I thought this was UK not US spelling
    • "bourgeoise" – I was about to knock the second "e" off as a typo, but then thought perhaps there might be a reason for the feminine form that I haven't spotted. Pray consider.
    • "knowledgable" – is this the received US spelling? (over here we shove an "e" in before the "able") – Tim riley (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The others I think I will change per your comments. Thanks for your quick look.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding batch of comments
  • Early life; athletic career
    • "and as prize attended" – probably the usual US-UK thing, but it looks odd to me. I think I'd add "his" before "prize"
    • "a 7 miles (11 km) journey" – 7 mile rather than miles?
    • "Classes at Crane Tech ran from eight o'clock to five; even though the school had no athletic facilities, Brundage made his own equipment in the school's workshop and by his final year was written of in the newspapers as a schoolboy track star." – There's a lot going on in this sentence. The first section doesn't seem to relate to the rest.
    • "coached by the legendary" – peacock word
    • "his mother (where he would live…)" – makes poor old Mom sound like a place, not a person
    • "At Stockholm…" – do the two references at the end of the paragraph cover all the statements in it?
It didn't say "sixteenth" so I shored that up with a quote from Maraniss.
  • Rise to leadership
    • "much of the team made their own arrangements" – conflict of singular and plural here, I think
    • There are a lot of subjunctives hereabouts: "would eventually lose this conflict … a post he would hold for over 20 years… would keep the post … several well-publicized run-ins he would have..."
I'll cut the one about the conflict between the NCAA and the AOA, I think and look at the other.
  • Fighting a boycott
    • "The Depression" – capital needed for The? (and again later under Construction executive)
    • "Stymied at the AOC" – a suitably sporting verb, but a touch informal?
  • Berlin
    • "He believed Brundage behind the replacement" – word missing here?
I think that's proper and the "was" is implied, but would welcome other views.
  • National participation controversies
    • "or as he had come to be known by then, the Marquess of Exeter" – perhaps "or as he was known by then, the Marquess of Exeter" Or for brevity "the Marquess of Exeter, the former Lord B".
  • South Africa and Rhodesia
    • "to honor its passports, a ban the Mexican government … honored" – too much honor (cf Falstaff Act I, scene I)
  • Olympic administration; challenges to leadership
    • "Brundage had been re-elected in 1964" – was re-elected?
  • Munich 1972
    • "captivated the attention of viewers" – does one captivate attention or captivate viewers? I think probably the latter.
  • Relationships
    • Die Walküre "started at 7 o'clock …." I wonder when Brundage said this: before or after the American musician David Randolph (b. 1916) said that Parsifal is "the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it has been going three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20."
Guttman attributes it to undated notes in Box 245 of the Brundage Collection. I looked at boxes from that collection, but not that one. (at his alma mater, which has his papers). It does say that he "remarked" this, by the way.
    • Business reputation: you quote Maynard Brichfod, and have earlier mentioned AB's disdain for public corruption, but I'd like a bit more about Brundage's reputation for square dealing across his career. Despite his many faults he does seem to have been an honest man, and it might be worth a sentence on this if the sources allow.
  • Art collector and benefactor
    • "Due to the war" pops up twice in quick succession

I notice that you don't mention his nicknames "Slavery Avery" (which I can produce citations for) and "Avery Bondage" (which I can't). If you're interested, I have an article about Brundage and the Olympics from 1972 by Chris Brasher that gives a rather favourable British view of him.

That's my lot. I started out thinking I was going to loathe the old cuss, but I ended up half admiring him. A really splendid article. – Tim riley (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the quick response! I am working on these this afternoon. Regarding Slavery Avery, I thought about putting them in and decided against it, they are not true nicknames in my view, but insults. Certainly I doubt if anyone ever called him that to his face. I found a grudging admiration for him, but my reaction was "Wow. If he said that today. Wow."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I'd love to see that article. I think you have my email? Thanks for everything on this, and I have dealt with everything except where noted. If I have not done something and did not say anything, it was probably an oversight and please bring that to my attention.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the check and for the article you sent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is a first instalment. I apologise if any of these points have already been raised in Tim's review.

Lead
  • "In 1912, he competed in the Summer Olympics, competing in the pentathlon and decathlon, but did not medal". The competed/competing repetition should be avoided. Also, I question the use of "medal" as a verb; it sounds like a sports journalist's shorthand. Why not "he did not win a medal"?
  • "In retirement, he married a German princess and died in 1975." Too much conflated here; try to separate the marriage and the death, e.g. "In retirement, he married a German princess before his death in 1975".
Early life; athletic career
  • Close repetition "attended"
  • Can you say what sports equipment Brundage fashioned in the workshop, bearing in mind that he made his reputation as a track star?
  • Is there an alternative expression for "in the field" to use in this particular context? It is vaguely ambiguous, and the word "field is used later in the paragraph with an entirely different meaning. Why not just "and received an honors degree in 1909"?
  • "He was a major contributor to Illinois' conference championship track team his senior year, which defeated the University of Chicago (coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg) on its own field." Needs a tweak; at present the "which" refers to his senior year. I would suggest: "In his senior year he was a major contributor to Illinois' conference championship track team, which defeated the University of Chicago (coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg) on its own field."
  • "Upon his return" → "On his return" (?) Note that the fourth paragraph also begins "Upon his return to Chicago", so one or both will need to change.
  • Is there any relevance to the information that he lived with his mother until 1921?
  • "Leading" is possibly a better description than "well-known" (not known at all over here, and according to the link article they now trade under a different name)
  • Tim Riley always hauls me over the coals if I use constructions like "Brundage biographer Allen Guttmann..." He tells me (and I concur) that "Brundage's biographer" is OK.
  • You refer to "these intrigues", but I don't see anything that resembles an "intrigue" mentioned earlier.
  • The sentence beginning "Avery Brundage found refuge..." needs some subdivision, as it is too long and discursive at present. Also, the phrase "found refuge" may be thought over-poetical.
  • "He later moved up one spot the standings in each event..." - there seems to be a word missing somewhere: "one spot in the standings"?
  • "disqualified on a showing that he had played baseball for money" Odd phrasing. More straightforward would be "disqualified when it was established that..."
  • "Commissions from Edward's political connections and those Avery had made through his athletic career, together with wartime profits, made Avery Brundage a wealthy man.[10] Avery Brundage did not abandon..." Too much name repetition, and why "Avery" suddenly? No sense would be lost with "Commissions from Edward's political connections, and those Brundage had made through his athletic career, together with wartime profits, made him a wealthy man. Avery Brundage did not abandon..."
  • What does "split two games" mean? Sports journalism rather than encyclopedic prose.
Rise to leadership
  • I'm rather confused by the narrative in the first paragraph. The AOC charters a troopship; many of the team ignore this and book their own passages home on a liner. Then: "In response, the AAU founded an American Olympic Association as a separate group which then selected the AOC." In response to what, exactly - travel arrangements? And what does it mean, "which then selected the AOC"? Do you mean this new group chose the membership of the AOC? If so, how come that a newly-formed body was able to assume this power?
Apparently, a troopship, no doubt with four-high bunks or similar, was considered to be beneath America's Heroes. The NCAA saw this as the moment to strike and call for reform. Letting the AOA do the work, and then dominating the AOA, gave the AAU a degree of separation.
  • "In the AAU, Brundage had become chairman of the Handball Committee in 1925; the same year becoming second vice-president of the organization." Does not flow well, with "had become" and "becoming" in the same sentence. Better: "In 1925 Brundage became vice-president of the AAU, and chairman of its Handball Committee".
  • "escaping beyond Brundage's jurisdiction." Second word unnecesary

Will be back with more. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I realize it is a long article. I will look ahead of you and try to head off a few of these prose glitches. I've addressed these in the article to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I will do a tranche on Wednesday (23rd) but will be off-wiki all day on Thursday and possibly part of Friday too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There is no hurry. Whenever you can do it is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next instalment

Fighting a boycott
  • "In a stunning result..." sounds POV/peacock
  • The link on Theodor Lewald goes to German Wikipedia, which isn't a lot of help to most of your readers. Wouldn't it be better to give a little more detail as to who he was, rather than the cryptic description "Games organizer"?
That's fine. I prefer interwiki to red links, but split the difference here, I put the redlink in the image caption and the interwiki link in text.
  • "Carolyn Martin"? Presumably "Marvin". And it would be useful to have a year for her article, which was written much later.
Berlin
  • Guttman already introduced as Brundage's biographer
  • Having described Owens as an African-American, is it necessary then to specify he was black?
  • "This was actually not the case..." - "actually" is redundant
  • "Another controversy which may have involved Brundage at the 1936 Olympics..." Last four words unnecessary; that is what the section is about.
  • "...the Germans were edged out by the Italians for silver, finishing a distant third." Normally, "edged out" implies a narrow defeat, whereas "a distant third" suggests the opposite. Just wondering.
Behind Owens et al. Agree it's a problem.
  • "Stoller recorded in his diary that he and Glickman had been left out of the relay because the two other participants, Foy Draper and Frank Wykoff, had been coached by one of the US team's assistant coaches at the University of Southern California." The inference needs to be spelt out; it is not clear from this what the grounds were for leaving the pair out.
It's like if they suddenly selected a lot of West Brom players for the England football team. The suggestion is that one of the assistant coaches, who had coached the other two runners, influenced the decision. That's still unfair to Glickman and Stoller, but relatively harmless compared to anti-Semitism. I liked Marty, he broadcast Jets games for many years, but I feel he had a bit of a bee in his bonnet on this issue (not that he would bring it up during Jets games).
  • "He believed Brundage behind the replacement" - surely needs a "was"?
  • What was the "Douglas MacArthur Award" for?
Road to the IOC presidency
  • "...the renaming of the AOA to the United States of America Sports Federation (USASF),..." As you spell out the second, you should probably spell out the first. And do you rename "to"? I would have thought "as" flowed better.
  • "Even before the war ended...; Brundage even sent parcels to Europe..." Two evens in the same sentence
  • Clarify when the balloting for IOC president took place, and the date from which Brundage assumed office. . "Extremely close" seems an odd description when the final result was 30 to 17.
Regarding the vote: Guttmann, the only source I have that discusses Brundage's election in any detail, hands me this cryptic passage: "The election was very close. Although the balloting was secret, Garland [one of the IOC members from the US] kept tabs on it and concluded that Brundage and Exeter were tied after 16 rounds, that Brundage was ahead by one vote after 21 rounds. The final tally was 30-17, with two blank ballots, on the 25th round." He then goes on to discuss a paper in Brundage's handwriting (I examined it myself) which lists the members Brundage believed had voted for and against him. Your advice would be very welcome here. I looked at the Olympic Charter, it is not illuminating on this point, but has been amended (for example, they now have term limits for the president at 12 years, which is why Rogge is stepping down next year). My best guess is that the rules then required one candidate to receive the vote of one half plus one of the total number of IOC members, and not all were present. However, that's a guess. I was hopeful of something in the Brundage Collection which would illuminate this point, but I did not see anything.
Amateurism
  • "As enforcement of these rules often fell to National Olympic Committees, Brundage found them less than enthusiastic about enforcing rules..." The "As" is wrong in this sentence. Also "enforcement/enforcing" are close together.
  • You should clarify that the "Sapporo Games" were the 1972 Winter Olympics
National participation controversies - Germany
  • a negotiating session was scheduled for the two German committees and the IOC executive board for Copenhagen." Unfortunate wording, "the IOC executive board for Copenhagen." Probably better rearranged as "a negotiating session was scheduled in Copenhagen..."
  • "In 1954, with Brundage now president" In view of the main section's title, do we need the last four words?
  • Capitalisation of "Opening Ceremony"?
I think that's appropriate. The Opening Ceremony is a specific ritual they go through every couple of years. I think it's a proper noun even outside Lausanne.
Soviet Russia
  • "...with its citizens becoming IOC members..." I'm not sure what you mean here: is it "able to become IOC members"?
  • "The Soviet members were believers in sport, and completely loyal to their nation and to communist ideals." This viewpoint needs to be attributed, oherwise it sits uneasily in a neutral article.
The quote from Guttmann, describing the initial Soviet IOC members, is "were Soviet bureaucrats completely loyal to the Communist Party, which is not to say that they were not also believers in sports." If this is borne out by their actions (and it appears it was), how is attribution required?
  • The comma after "(though at his own expense) in 1954" needs upgrading (semicolon or stop).
  • Maybe date the "Rome Games" (it might have been given before, I'm not sure)
It's in the Germany section. Date added.
China and Taiwan
  • "When the communists triumphed..." I'd use a less emotive word.
  • "the IOC decided that if a either committee..." Something has to go.
  • "that sport" introduced without prior context. I think it needs to be "a particular sport"
South Africa and Rhodesia
  • "To prevent the new nations from overwhelming the ISFs, Brundage proposed that they adopt weighted voting systems to allow earlier members to wield disproportionate influence, which some did". Clarification required as to "they"
  • "For Munich in 1972, the IOC decided to have the Rhodesian compete as British subjects, which there was international agreement that they were." I would replace "have" with "allow" (followed by "to compete"), and change the ending to "which by international law they were."

Final instalment Friday or Saturday. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I look forward. I think I am caught up, but note the above comments and requests. I regret the article is so long but Brundage is a man with a public life that stretched over 60 years and who had many interests.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another chunk (though not quite through):

Olympic administration; challenges to leadership
  • Suggest rephrase: "The PGA-NOC from 1965 demanded a share of television revenue and that the IOC entirely leave the question of amateurism to the ISFs". Two split infinitives in the same sentence creates awkwardness
  • "As the PGA-NOC operated on the one-country, one-vote rule and the IOC did not, a powerful NOC committee would result in a significant shift in power to the Third World." I cannot see why this consequence arises from the one-country, one-vote rule. That powerful NOC would still only have one vote. And it might not be from a Third World country.
  • "de Coubertin's quarrelsome widow" - the description ought to be attributed, or omitted.
Political demonstration at Mexico City
  • "The following day, with Smith triumphant in the 200 meters, and fellow African-American John Carlos having taken the bronze medal, the two men, after receiving their medals from IAAF president Lord Exeter, and as "The Star-Spangled Banner" played, raised black-gloved fists, heads down, in salute of black power". An important sentence, but badly needs splitting in two; otherwise one gets lost in the subclauses.
Munich 1972
  • In the interests of neutral presentation, I would drop "famous" from the image caption.
  • Overall, I think this section downplays the negative reactions to Brundage's speech, the insensitivity of which was in sharp contrast to the comments of Shmuel Lalkin, the head of the Israeli delegation who spoke just before Brundage. Simon Reeve (in One Day in September) calls Brundage's bracketing of the terrorist attack with the exclusion of the Rhodesian racist state's team, "an astonishing display of insensitivity". In The Wall Street Journal, 14 April 2012, Daniel Johnson wrote: "The octogenarian American in his memorial address referred, astonishingly, to 'two savage attacks.' It took a moment to comprehend what he meant, but then Brundage explained: The Munich Games had been marred by the slaughter of the Israelis, yes, but also by the "naked political blackmail" of the African countries that, threatening a boycott, had succeeded in having Rhodesia barred from the Games because of the white-minority government's racist policies ... Brundage's audience tried to comprehend the jaw-dropping equivalence that he had just drawn, between the murder of Israelis and a blow against racism".
In my opinion, views over Brundage's speech have evolved over time. The stadium audience certainly wanted the games to continue, and as the Rhodesian question was resolved, the reaction has become "he should have cancelled the Games". (I don't think the IOC would ever have voted to dothat). I tried to just give a sampling. However, more may be needed and I will look to adding another neutrally-phrased sentence. I haven't used his NY Times obit yet ... hm.
  • Perhaps also worth mentioning that, although the Games "went on", not all athletes continued their participation: the Philippines withdrew their athletics team, the Norwegians most of theirs, and several members of the Dutch squad.
  • Also: at the 400m relay medal ceremony just before the Games finally closed, Vince Matthews and Wayne Collett refused to stand to attention on the podium, yawned and fiddled with their medals. Brundage was furious, and demanded their expulsion from the Olympic Village.
I've made it harsher regarding Brundage. On the matters you suggest, I'd rather leave it with the massacre and reaction to the memorial ceremony. I feel that this has to conclude the section on Munich. I don't think another Brundage tantrum (and they were kicked out of the OV on orders of the executive board) would be a better way, and as I said, he did similar things so the reader isn't being deprived.
Retirement and death
  • "...China, source of much of the art he loved." This is I believe the first mention of Brundage's love of Chinese art, so perhaps a slightly more detailed reference would be appropriate (unless I have missed an earlier reference).
Thanks, I will work through these. The art section's a bit later, I may just do an internal link.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed this batch.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, finally...

Not a lot picked up in the final sections. My main concern is how the article ends (see below)

Relationships
  • As you have already recorded Brundage's second marriage and death, it might be better to introduce this section in a retrospective tense: "Brundage's first marriage had been in 1927, when he was 40, to Elizabeth Dunlap..."
Construction executive
  • It's odd to describe a building as a "17-story $3,180,000 building" as though this was a recoognised type". I'd change it to "a 17-story building costing $3,180,000..."
  • "an onsite concrete mixing plant which also provided temporary office space for the construction." Sorry, I don't know what is meant here.
  • Watch for slightly jarring repetitions, e.g. "...built by Brundage. Built in ten months..."
  • Last paragraph: specify the "Chicago financial district" (for us foreigners)
Art collector and benefactor
  • "By 1948, Butterfield noted..." → "In 1948, Butterfield noted..."
  • Another repetition: "...another major donation in 1969 (despite a major fire..."
  • Private opinion: not too many laughs in the article, but the final (netsuke) paragraph is hilarious.
Legacy
  • I'm not sure about the choice of the final quotation that ends the article. I heard that speech, and have read it over many times since. To portray it as "appealing one last time for a world of fair play and good sportsmanship where race and religion are as irrelevant as political commitment and economic condition, for a world beyond the power even of hooded terrorists..." gives it a quite undeserved heroic dimension. It didn't sound like that, nor does it read like that. And to suggest that Brundage was either "idealistically inspired" or "quixotically unrealistic", as though there were no other explanations for his words, is bizarre. I realise these are Guttmann's words, not yours, but does the article really have to end on such a questionable note?

I applaud your desire to be fair and balanced towards a not very agreeable person (I am having similar issues with Cosima Wagner), but being fair sometimes requires tough judgements. Incidentally, the viewing statistics for the article are interesting; daily traffic has tripled since March. It can't all be your edits. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Runup to the Olympics, plus the controversy about the moment of silence thing, I imagine. With both coming up, it's important to have this article in tip top shape. I've changed the quote, still looking for a better one but this will do if I can't find one. Once I implement these changes, I will close the peer review and nominate at FAC. Thanks to both peer reviewers for their clueful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to seek input from other editors about possible improvements, particularly concerning the lead as well as the sections on themes, reception, and legacy. It has recently received a copy edit, and I am preparing to nominate it for FA. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance, Ruby 2010/2013 17:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogo sapphire

[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 Yogo sapphires are quintessentially representative of Montana and I want the article to be as good as it can be.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X
Not sure the second paragraph of the lead should be up so high; I'd probably bump it down, unchanged, to third or fourth. To me, information about the gemstones themselves should be further to the forefront than information about their provenance. --DONE, to 3rd para

--PROBLEM/Question: Looks nice, but that's not the order it comes in the article, will that become an issue at FA? --MTBW, agree WITH MTBW, PSKY

"It became highly profitable English Mine, which flourished from 1899 until the late 1920s and, under a series of changing owners, periodically operated into the early 21st century." -> I'd stick a "the" in there before "English Mine", perhaps even going as far as to phrase it as "It became known as the English Mine, which continued highly profitably from 1899..." --DONE, 'the'
"At the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris, Yogo sapphires received a silver medal for color and clarity." -> Both here, and when the subject is mentioned again, it would be good to clarify whether this means they placed second in a field of other gems being judged on these qualities, or if they were independently graded regardless of other gems. --DONE
Is there an etymology for why "yogo" may mean "going over the hill" (as in, is it still Blackfoot we're talking about)? --NOT REALLY, JUST VARIOUS REPORTS
Might be worth explaining what "color zoning" is. It's only a minor aside so it shouldn't interrupt flow really. --DONE VIA A () ENTRY
File:PurpleY6Br.jpg and File:Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg are both aligned vertically with each other very close together; perhaps moving one to be left-aligned would create a little variance.
DONE--MTBW
Just checking now, but there are a few duplicate links in there that'll need sorting out. User:Ucucha/duplinks should prove useful. There are also instances when a term is linked after several instances of it occurring unlinked; "dike" is an example of this. --DONE WITH SCRIPT. IF YOU FIND MORE, BE SPECIFIC
"Among other local residents was a young cowhand hired by Hoover, who became the western painter C.M. Russell" -> This needs rephrasing, as it is it makes it seem like the cowhand assumed Russell's identity (Batman-style). Not sure how I'd rephrase it without rewriting the whole sentence and perhaps the following one, though. --DONE VIA REPHRASE
Some of the information in the "early mining" section seems a bit coatrack-ish. I'm not sure we need too much about residents of a mining town when the town itself is already an aside to the main subject.
We have no separate articles on Utica or the area; and the colorful characters are pretty much linked to the same people who started the Yogo mining. May be a place for a spinoff later, but is not replicated anywhere else on wikipedia. --MTBW
"They quickly recouped the purchase price by washing the tailings left behind by previous operators of the American Mine" -> Perhaps a little more explaining what washing tailings is/does. This is the end of the section so you don't need to worry too much about flow.--DONE VIA ADDING WIKI LINK
"Rockhounds" could probably do with a link to amateur geology. --DONE
"Baron organized German and Thai gemcutters and had success in marketing Yogos in America—the first time that occurred in 50 years." -> "the first such success in 50 years" --DONE
"becoming the 14th American company to work the Yogo dike" -> I would spell out "fourteenth" here; using numerals for numbers over ten is fine but in ordinals I've always found it jarring.
QUESTION: What does MOS advise? We can go either way, but it's a pain to keep changing it.-- MTBW
A FA heavy told me that while it can go either way, 14th is the more common and preferred way. I'm sticking with that, 14th. PSKY
"The Thais had even purchased large quantities of naturally colorless Sri Lankan sapphires," -> I'd suggest changing "The Thais" to "Thai businesses" or "Thai traders" or something similar.--DONE
"most often reported as being 9 carats (1.8 g) in size, though it has also been described as 12 carats (2.4 g) and even 18 carats (3.6 g), though the latter number is the carat weight of the gold setting." -> The second "though" could probably be switched to "however".--DONE
That's all I saw looking over things. I haven't had a look at sources though, might check that out over the next few days. GRAPPLE X 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grapple, we appreciate your eyes on this piece. Montanabw(talk) 16:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt

Moved from the sandbox so I can recycle.

Lede
  • "on land once inhabited by the Piegan Blackfeet people" Is this phrase really justified in the lede sentence?
  • Something about the Blackfeet is, it's a big deal when discussing Montana history, doubly so because of promoter's claims about the name. --MTBW
  • You can't have a six paragraph lede. When I brought in one with five, they made me cut it to four. --DONE BY MTBW
Location
  • In view of the map, is quite so much directional information needed? I would cut the Lewistown information as least useful to the reader.
  • Lewistown is the only town that shows up on big maps, no one knows WTF Utica is without looking at the fine print of a big map, and Yogo City isn't on maps at all. --MTBW
  • Consider moving the information on Montana county changes to a footnote.
  • "within Judith Basin County" Hm, unless all these features are entirely within this county, consider cutting this phrase as perhaps not needed in view of the information already given and near in proximity.
  • Also, in the context of Montana, county is needed, this is basically east bumf--k (LOL)
  • Is there any chance of a higher-scale map?
I asked both Pesky and Fallschirmjaeger to make better maps, both said yes, both have failed to deliver. PumpkinSky talk 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look through my stuff and see who I've used in the past. Perhaps someone different you could try.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:MissMJ did a fine job with the maps in Canoe River train crash.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, she hasn't made an edit since Oct 2011. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try Gage, on Commons. He helped me out with the Senate election article maps.
Mineralogy and Geology
Consider moving the blue one (my that's nice looking) to the top of the section. So the reader can look at it while hearing about it. --DONE BY PSKY
I would put the explanation (ease of cutting, etc.) first after saying they have advantages to gemcutter, with the technical details afterwards.
You lose me here. Could you do this in one diff and let us look at it? PSKY
  • "had a longer cooling time," I would say "cooled more slowly. --DONE BY PSKY
  • If Yogos are not alluvial, is there a term for what they are? (don't reply, just suggesting an inclusion). --DONE BY VSMITH
  • "Yogo dike" The link is not on the first usage, even of this section.
Lost here too. "Yogo dike" shouldn't be linked, no article; BUT in the leade there's "hard igneous dike" is that what you mean? PSKY
  • At least to my lay eyes, "mya" seems inconsistently capped. --DONE BY VSMITH
  • "near vertical" hyphen? -DONE BY PSKY
  • "compass direction or strike " consider consolidating with a pipe. --DONE BY PSKY
  • "possible at great depths: Yogos " Maybe put a "thus" in there instead of the colon? --put comma thus, PSKY
  • Although you've mentioned it in the lede, you've not yet said what the English/American Mines are in the body.
  • MTBW comments: It's in there, but sort of buried in the narrative of the history section. Can you offer an idea of how to make it more prominent?
Montana sapphires
  • "Other than the Yogos, all other Montana sapphires come from alluvial deposits." That duplicates a bit from before. --CUT BY PSKY
  • Is it really necessary to tell us these places are in Montana, given the name of the section?
  • MTBW comments: Probably room for streamlined editing, if reassured that the FA reviewer won't then say, "better point out that these are also in Montana" :-P (LOL)
General comment: I don't know if you are locked into a format, but give consideration to starting the body with the history and what is presently the Montana sapphires section, perhaps rolling it in under "history and background" or some such. Consider that it may attract many lay readers who want to know "about them" in the lay sense.
  • MTBW comments: I have thought about that, but I'm a history geek, so have that bias (grin); perhaps VSmith could tell us if that is inconsistent with other gem articles; I don't know if we ARE locked into a format to put the gemology stuff first.
The Yogo article doesn't readily compare with other "gemstone" articles as they cover the gem in general, whereas the Yogo article is about a specific occurrence/mining area. Seems natural to me to focus on the "what it is" (mineralogy & gemology) and "why is it unique" (geological details) before going into the history of the mining/marketing story. But, I guess perhaps the mineralogical and geological discussion could lead to "eye glaze/click elsewhere" syndrome -- and maybe going right into the history section might keep 'em reading longer?? Vsmith (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the answer. I generally lean toward putting the basic facts (gemology) up front for people seeking basic info, and partly due to the length of the history section, but the history is interesting and colorful. I can go either way. Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Other Montana sapphire mines were less successful because of the very low profit margin in sapphires that are not blue. Blue sapphires are extremely rare at Montana sites other than Yogo Gulch." It strikes me that these two sentences can be combined into one. --DONE, TAKE A LOOK, PSKY
I'll pick back up hopefully tomorrow or more likely Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, there is a need for a little copyediting and streamlining, I've been nibbling away at it, but on a small scale. Your suggestions to smooth things out are well-taken and I think we can keep tweaking on this. Montanabw(talk) 17:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. OK, resuming:
History
  • " chased away" a bit informal. --DONE, PSKY
  • For the sake of continuity, you should explain why the 1878 prospecters were not, er, chased away. --TRIED, ONLY A FEW WHITES THERE IN 1868
  • "Though sapphires by weight " Right here, the article seems to make a 180 degree turn, for no obvious reading. I was expecting the discovery of the sapphires to come back, early efforts to mine, etc. There is a tendency for the narrative to wander in this article, and I'm not just talking about here. If you are going to tell a history, tell it consecutively unless you have a very good reason not to.
Cut from there, highly condensed, and moved. --PSKY
  • The relevance of the second, third and fourth paragraphs of the introduction to the subject matter of the article seems minimal. Suggest delete.
It's quite interesting in that it shows the discoverer, Jake, was prominent enough to be in a painting by one of the most famous western painters of all time, as some other real local people. Trim maybe, but not delete. What does MTBW think? --PSKY
Local history huge and critical part of Yogo fame. The wild west romance was integral to most marketing efforts, they are high quality, but very small, so need something more to entice buyers -- otherwise, how can they compete with the Sri Lankan gems... --MTBW
I trimmed some of the local history. PSKY
  • "The Yogo area also produced small amounts of gold, silver, copper, and iron." We already know about the gold, so this reads oddly. You are telling us something we know already, and three things we don't. Also, the bit about gold miners not being interested in gems: As you haven't established gold mining past the early 1880s, and the funny blue stones weren't recognized as sapphires until 1894. It is possible you are saying this is a reason for their disinterest, in which case it should probably go where you are discussing the discovery, as a reason why didn't figure it out earlier. --CUT, PSKY
  • "someone" seems awfully informal. Suggest the passive voice. --DONE, PSKY
  • " lived in Maine but was a friend of some local miners." Perhaps call it a variation, and say "that the schoolteacher was visiting from Maine" and omit the local miners. That way you don't have to do the "still another". --DONE, PSKY
She or he wasn't visiting, Hobson alledgedly mailed them off. Can't exceed source. --MTBW
  • "making the initial determination" Perhaps "surmised that the unusual blue stones were sapphires". --DONE, PSKY
  • " and Hoover was credited as the discoverer of Yogo sapphires." Probably should be cut, really not needed. --HOW SO? IT SEEMS IMPORTANT, PSKY Well, the whole subsection says it, along with the title. The reader doesn't need it spoonfed. OH OKAY ;-)
Critically important; he's the man! --MTBW
  • " but floods so severely damaged the mines" If only the English Mine is meant, I would change "mines" to "mine". Also, I would move the date to just after "flood", thus "floods on July ..."--ALL MINES, CHANGED DATE LOC, PSKY
  • "Yogos were ultimately traced from the alluvium to their source.[31] " I would cut. You really don't need an introduction here. --SEEMS CRUCIAL, OTHERWISE SOME WILL THINK THE MINES ARE IN THE ALLUVIAL??, PSKY Why would they think that? W
We can rephrase, but the unique thing is that they are not alluvial; though originally found there. Basically dumb luck they found the mother lode. -- MTBW
  • "In January 1977, Victor di Suvero and his firm Sapphire-Yogo Mines became next to tackle the mine" Appears to contradict previous sentence.
Will check and fix. --MTBW
No contradiction. The American Mine is the one mine, the dike is the either mother lode. PSKY
Did a rephrase that should clarify. -- MTBW
I think you should merge most of State Gemstone of Montana into the discovery section, where it fits chronologically. The fact that it is a state gemstone can be put someplace else. Also, if you say one of two, you should mention what the other one is.
Good point, a lot of that is dupe anyway. Consider it done.--PSKY
"This issue appeared as a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on August 29, 1984 in an article by Bill Richards entitled "Carats and Schticks: Sapphire Marketer Upsets The Gem Industry" I think it would be OK to mention that a story about Yogos appeared in the WSJ in 1984, but the rest should be consigned to references. -- DONE PSKY
"but ran out of funds before becoming successful and their option expired. " Delete "before becoming successful". Redundant. -_DONE AND ASKED GAGE ON COMMONS- PSKY
"Citibank also had obtained a large stock of Yogos, reputedly worth $3.5 million, as a result of Intergem's collapse: 200,000 carats (40,000 g) of rough, 22,000 carats (4,400 g) of cut gems, and 2,000 pieces of jewelry. This " While this refers to "stock" and is thus correct, there are so many plural nouns between the two that it seems worth a rephrase. DONE PSKY
"staked six mining claims on the western portion of the Yogo dike" Is the number important? --DON'T SEE ANY HARM
"was the sole employee of the mine" consider "worked the mine alone" _-DONE
If any of the Smithsonian's Yogos are on display (if you know), it would be good to say so. Also, I imagine the reason gold as well as gems were donated was to create a piece of jewelry. I would connect the dots. __DO NOT KNOW OF ANY AND DONE
"Simultaneously, their collateral with Citibank, which was their gem inventory, declined because the value of gems was declining; as a result, Citibank called in its loan. " I would say "the value of their collateral" --DONE PSKY
I'll give it one more look in the morning when I'm fresher.
" Montana with claims they were Yogos, while in Europe, Yogos were sold with claims " vary the phrasing. Similar with "among all gems", which I submit in both cases is not really needed, gems don't compete for medals with people, after all. FIXED THE CLAIMS ONE BUT ON "among all gems" THAT WAS PUT IN BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY YOU SAID TO TELL IF IT WAS AMONG SAPPHIRES OR ALL TYPES OF GEMS SO I'M LOST HERE -- psky

That, in combination with various comments by email to Psky and Mtbw, should do it. Looking forward to reviewing at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Billy DeBeck

[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 contains a thorough overview of the subject's life and work, it is fully referenced, fairly well illustrated and, as far as I can tell, it isn't missing any important details. I'm aiming at getting this article to GA status.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 07:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure you need to link "American".
 Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of text squashed between images looks very unprofessional.
Moved them around.  Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "popular in the 1920s and 1930s, featured a number of popular characters" overuse of "popular".
Reworded.  Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in a "big-foot" style." I don't know what that means at all. Should you link Bigfoot?
I've reworded it in a way that I hope is more clear.  Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the South Side of Chicago" any reason for the capitalisation of South Side?
Decapitalized.  Done
  • " had copied from Dana" was Dana referred to as Dana? Seems odd, but if so, then no problem.
He was referred to as "Dana" in the source, but I'm not sure how widespread that is. I've changed it.  Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1915, he and a partner named Carter" perhaps tighten up, "he and partner Carter"...
 Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions that are complete sentences need a period.
 Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had become a runt." excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what that means, is runt of use?
Reworded.  Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about five columns for refs, one or two (max) is fine.
Actually, I'm using the |colwidth parameter rather than a hard number of columns. Setting the number of columns can cause problems for certain users, and is unflexible. By setting the column width, it will automatically display a different number of columns depending on your screen width and resolution. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ISBNs are either italics or not (I suggest not) but not a mix.
 Done CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look over this. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa McDonough

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is stable, seems to be stuck at B-level, and I would like to get it to at least a Good-level article, in preparation for a Feature-level article. Looking for comments on tone, style, and anything else that needs fixing.

Thanks, Abebenjoe (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

The nominator stated on my talk page that FAC was an eventual goal, so if this review seems nitpicky, that's why ;-). Feel free to respond here, I've got this page watchlisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead section should be at least two paragraphs for an article of this size, and probably three would be better
  • Make sure the article would pass a paraphrasing/verifiability spotcheck (I haven't done this)
  • Picture is appropriately licensed, though it'd be nice to have a second
  • Make sure ranges use endashes
  • "He served as the first research director for the NDP's predecessor" - provincially or federally?
  • Does she have siblings?
  • "sociology and psychology Bachelor of Arts degree" - would usually see "Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology and psychology"
  • "the same politician that she once supported back in 1970" - having both "once" and "back" is redundant
  • Make sure that the article is accessible to non-Canadians - wikilink Cape Breton Island, link or spell out MLA, etc
  • "one of the dominate issues" - do you mean "dominant"?
  • "convention was convened" - the repetition is repetitive, as with "moved a motion" later. Check throughout
  • McEachern or MacEachern?
  • visitors gallery or visitor's gallery?
  • Check use of commas before "and" - needed sometimes, but not always. In general, you have too many commas rather than too few
  • "that permeated within Nova Scotia's politics" - not sure "within" is needed here
  • "the province's entrenched patronage system" - can you elaborate?
  • "did not rub-off" -> "did not extend"? Be careful of using language that is too colloquial
  • "made her the longest-serving leader of a major political party" - in general, when making statements of this type, ensure that your frame of reference is clear. In this instance, for example, I think you mean in Nova Scotia?
  • "Under Audrey McLaughlin's leadership, the party suffered its worst defeat since the late 1950s, in terms of seats, when it was then called the CCF" - the bit about the CCF needs to be rephrased or moved, as right now it isn't clear which part of the sentence that's referring to
  • Be very careful about tone and making statements like "a divided party that was self-immolating"
  • "She would continue to win it consecutively three more times" - rephrase for concision
  • Watch for comma splices
  • "there were calls for party renewal, again" - suggest moving "again" before "calls"
  • "Some party activists perceived that the NDP had moved to the centre of the political spectrum and wanted to change that by bringing in social/political activists outside of the parliamentary process" - not entirely sure what this means, can you clarify?
  • "limiting how much control Labour Unions had in the party" - why the caps?
  • Don't space emdashes
  • "The issue that highlighted McDonough's federal leadership, occurred during the twilight of her career: the fight against the Islamophobia and general anti-Arab sentiment that swept through Canada and the United States in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in September 2001" - edit for concision and clarity
  • "She led the charge" and elsewhere - avoid cliched language
  • Wikilink Canada's secret service to CSIS?
  • Use hyphens for adjectives involving amounts, for example "one-year appointment"
  • Don't use commas between month and year
  • Too many commas!
  • "It was announced on December 30, 2009, that she will be appointed..." - given the date, presumably this has already happened? If so, update; if not, explain why
  • Use "p." for single pages, "pp." for multiple
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Be consistent in how you format CBC refs
  • External link title should use dash not hyphen
  • Given her prominence as a pioneering female politician, is she now asked to make speeches for various events?
  • Citation for Baptist faith?
  • Why the caps on Social Worker in infobox?
  • When did she marry? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent, useful criticism. Thank you, it is exactly what I was looking for.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)

[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 on bringing it to FAC within the year. I've assembled pretty much everything relevant I can get my hands on at the moment; though I haven't exhaustively combed JSTOR which I plan on doing this Monday. My main concern is just the flow of information, as the slow growth of the article has meant several trains of thought have been added without any real foresight—this is probably most evident in the "Broadcast and reception" heading, with reviews simply added one after another. I'm also wondering if any significant gaps can be seen in the information present; the episode in question is generally seen as the hallmark of the series and I'm unsure of whether I've been as exhaustive as I feel I have in researching it. If anything seems to have been overlooked I'd need to jump on that quickly.

Thanks in advance; GRAPPLE X 01:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Have now combed JSTOR and Highbeam; short of checking the below-mentioned book that's all sources I've access to exhausted. GRAPPLE X 12:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Have purchased and combed through the Odell & Le Blanc book mentioned below; was of little use for this particular article but I guess I can find use for it elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 15:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to give this page a peruse if I may; I've never actually provided a peer review before, so input from others would be of benefit, but nonetheless, I hope I can be of some help. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comments:

Regarding the lead:

  • In your first note, you state "....titles that are now commonly used." But by whom are they commonly used by ? Fans of the series ? Academics writing about the series ? Those producing the DVDs ? Or all of these ? A little clarification here would be welcome.
  • In the second paragraph, you end a sentence with "in a small rural town"; maybe mention that this town is in Washington State, otherwise the reader might ponder where on earth the show is set ?
  • ""Episode 2" has been well-received since its initial broadcast, with critics finding it to be a ground-breaking episode of television, and has since come to be influential to, and parodied by, several subsequent television series". Perhaps this sentence could be restructured to be a little more readable. In particular, the wording of "critics finding it to be a ground-breaking episode of television" feels a little clunky to me. Not an essential alteration, but I think we could come up with an improvement.
  • "A priori" is usually italicised. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding the plot:

  • "has been shocked by the discovery of the murder of schoolgirl Laura Palmer"; this again feels a bit clunky. Must we have "discovery of the murder of schoolgirl...." or can we simplify that a bit ?
  • " Cooper throws a stone at a bottle placed some distance away, and considers those suspects whose names coincided with him hitting the bottle to be of interest." Again, could that be made a little more readable ?

Regarding the production section:

  • in the blue quote box, you state "David Lynch on the episode's red herring ending." You could perhaps give a date after that ?
  • Do we need to link to David Lynch here? We don't link to Michael J. Anderson ?
    • Names are linked on their first mention outside of the lead, and in plain text after that. Anderson's linked in the "Plot" section, but the "Production" heading is the first post-lead mention of Lynch. GRAPPLE X 18:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we refer to the fact that Anderson is a little person; surely that's a significant factor in his portrayal of The Man from Another Place ?
    • I'm not sure, but I could be convinced. I had assumed from the mention of Ronnie Rocket being about a little person that it was implied but I could make it clearer if you think it would help. GRAPPLE X 18:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Series creator David Lynch..." is used at least twice here. It needn't be used after the first occasion.
  • Maybe include the date that Eraserhead was released in brackets ? 1977 !
  • "Anderson has described the process of learning his lines backwards, noting that he first works out the phonemes of each word rather than simply reading it back to front, and that he disregards the inflection of any given word as this helps to bolster the discordant effect of the end result..." The second part of this sentence is in the present tense, but wouldn't the past tense be more applicable here?

(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding the themes section:

Regarding the broadcast and reception section:

  • "The broadcast inspired several complaints concerning the sexual overtones of a scene in which the characters of Ben and Jerry Horne are eating baguette sandwiches." Does this source specify what these overtones were ? Fellatio ? If it doesn't specify then that's okay though.
  • The primary paragraph here could be divided into two fairly easily, and perhaps be the better for it.
    • See this was an issue I was hoping to get opinions on, as I'm not sure how to divide it. There's some, but not much, negative criticism, so I could do an uneven "positive/negative" split; or break it into discussion of the episode as a whole and the dream sequence specifically; or try to break it by the roughly contemporary stuff versus more recent stuff. Which do you feel would work best?
  • "specifically, as having "turned “Twin Peaks” into a water-cooler phenomenon" – stick in a link to water cooler#water cooler effect, otherwise many non-Americans simply won't understand what on Earth such a thing is.
  • "Postminimalism 101 or Absurdism 102" – link to postminimalism and absurdism

(Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding the references:

  • As can be seen from pages I've written (like Dreamtime (Duerr book)), I'm a bit of a stickler for a very neat and tidy footnote section. I think on the whole you've done a good job, although if I may, I'd like to suggest some minor alterations. You reference books in the following manner; "Riches (in Devlin and Biderman), p. 40", and I wonder if a different manner might be preferable. For instance, there is no mention of the year of publication ?
    • I tend only to list the year of publication in the short footnote if there's a need for disambiguation (The X-Files Mythology, Volume 2 – Black Oil has an example of this, several books by the same author). I had been toying with the idea of converting the manual short footnotes to use {{sfn}}, do you feel this would be a worthwhile improvement? GRAPPLE X 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally think that it would be an improvement, but that's more due to my personal opinion on aesthetics; I don't think that there's any Wikipedia policy stating that it is necessary, and I appreciate that it would mean another loads of work for you. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
        • Done; all the short citations now use either {{sfn}} or are manually coded to match it. I've left the long-form citations as they are; though I have seen other articles using all their citations as sfn refs; does the mix of types work alright or would this latter approach be better? The initial switchover was pretty painless but I'm thinking converting everything would be a pretty hefty task. GRAPPLE X 22:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of cited texts, you state the publishing company but not the place of publication; including such information should not be too difficult and would add to the quality of the article.
  • This whole section is titled "Footnotes", with the life of books cited being subtitled "References". If I may, I'd like to suggest an alternative. Consider referring to the whole section as "References", within which can be included two sub-sections, entitled "Footnotes" and then "Bibliography"? This is what I did over at Dreamtime (Duerr book) and A Community of Witches and it seems to work there.


Hopefully these may be of some benefit; overall it's a great article and I really enjoyed reading it. I really hope that this goes on to become a Featured Article (17:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC))

  • Thanks a bunch, I really appreciate the help you've given. Don't be afraid to call in a favour in the future if you have reviews needing done elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I do any work on articles regarding the world of David Lynch I'll certainly give you a buzz if you're interested! Oh, and if you have any articles related to The X-Files, Millennium or Twin Peaks (I adore all three, the latter two particularly), gimme a shout, as apart from when I'm away on work I can make time to lend a hand (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      • I do have a Millennium-related FLC underway but it's got a snowball's chance of promotion due to its small size. I will be working on both Millennium and Twin Peaks first seasons for GA within the coming weeks though. I'll have a look at the book you've mentioned and see if I can glean anything useful from it. Thanks again for your comments. GRAPPLE X 21:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in Michelle Le Blanc and Colin Odell's book David Lynch (2000) that would be of benefit here ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Crisco 1492 comments
  • "It has since been influential for, and parodied by, several subsequent television series." - Perhaps "It has influenced, and been parodied by, several subsequent television series." To me, "influential for" sounds awkward.
  • brie - Wikilink perhaps?
  • "with Ben winning" - Perhaps a different phrasing? To get rid of the ing
  • "Lawrence Jacoby" - What does he do? (Work related, I mean)
  • Note that in American English whilst should generally be "while"
  • "has always identified himself as an artist first, a man fascinted by spiritual realms who's committed to expressing his inner life" - Word misspelled in the original?
  • Palmer's dance while holding his daughter's picture is "a time-honored metaphor for marriage", an "incestuous roundelay" which hints towards his abusive past. - It is or has been seen as?
  • "Gender, power, and culture in the televisiual world of Twin Peaks: A feminist critique " - Misspelling in the original?
  • "a weirdly All-American supernatural system" - Sic?
  • What makes "Den of Geek" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Strikes me that the second paragraph in reception is a little long. Trim it or split it, perhaps?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who plays Ronette Pulaski?
  • The events section seems to lack cause and effect/flow.
  • while working on another film project that was also never made - does it have a title?
  • Other than that, looks okay. Make sure to double check your American English.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having a look at this. I've addressed the prose concerns you've mentioned except for the lack of flow in the "Events" section; I've asked for a copy-edit of the article by the GOCE which will hopefully address this much better than I could manage. As for title of the unfinished film project, it's not given in the source. I would assume it's the same as Ronnie Rocket but I don't want to make that assumption without something to back it up. Den of Geek operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is owned and operated by Dennis Publishing, a publishing company which operates a number of other reliable outlets. Thanks again for the help. GRAPPLE X 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome and good luck. I think for Den of Geek we could perhaps show it being quoted in mainstream sources; that would go a good way to showing reliability.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, the only instance of that I could find with a Google search was the Forbidden Planet website using a few interviews from the site. The source isn't crucial though, so if an FAC review deems it to be unreliable it wouldn't be hard to lose it. GRAPPLE X 23:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious language

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article out of a redirect in March; I made it a DYK and then GA and I would like to see it achieve FA in the next few months. I would really appreciate any feedback anyone has.

Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Thought-provoking stuff, if not particularly digestible. I have read it through once, understood some but by no means all, and will go through it again, more slowly. Here are a few initial points:-

  • I am a little concerned by the lead. I am not sure that it meets the requirement to provide a broad overview of the article; rather it seems to be more an introduction to the subject. The first sentences read like the opening of a philosophy textbook (or possibly of a post-graduate dissertation); they do not, however, draw the general reader in. What, for example, is this reader to make of the second sentence: "Discussion of religious language considers how God can be described, if traditional conceptions of God (as incorporeal, infinite, and timeless) that could render God indescribable are accepted"? While I am not suggesting that a dumbing-down of the article text is necessary, I do feel that, whatever the intellectual complexities of the subject, the lead needs to be as user-friendly as possible.
  • I had difficulty, too, with the short "Problem of religious language" section. The first three sentences I understand perfectly, and I could just about follow Simone Weil, but was completely mystified by Sallie McFague.
  • Many of the authorities quoted are contemporaneous or nearly so. In such cases it is common to use the literary present tense when referring to their works. Thus in McFague's case, she "notes" rather then "noted", "argues" rather than "argued". The same could be applied to most others, though not to ancients such as Thomas Aquinas.
  • Nitpicky point: some of the page ranges have hyphens rather than ndashes.

I will try and post more in a few days. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Brianboulton. I'm glad you've had a look - some parts are certainly quire confusing, a point I missed when reading my own writing. I've improved the introduction and tried to improve the problem of religious language section; let me know if there are other improvements I could make in those areas, or if there are bits you still find difficult. I'll look at the latter two points later when I have more time. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: just started a read through, will probably post more comments.
  • "The stranger claims to be leading the resistance and the soldier develops an unshakable faith in the stranger, even though he is seen to be fighting for both sides – there is nothing that would undermine the soldier's faith in the stranger." This sentence is a bit confusing to me, primarily the middle clause. Who is fighting for both sides? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've tried to clarify that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks clear now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Analogies of games
  • "Donovan proposed that the debate between religions exists and the occurrence of apologists demonstrates that religions interact with each other and so cannot be treated as isolated language games." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence a bit?
  • There's a bit of repetition of words in this section, particularly "language". See if you can cut back on how many times you say that here. Also "played by a greater being who 'plays' characters and individuals." (and I'm not sure the single quotes are right here).
  • " should not be viewed in isolation because it makes statements about secular events" I'm not sure about the use of "it" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those comments, Mark. I've had a look at the language games section and made the improvements you suggest. My only problem is the repetition of language in that section - I'm not sure sure where I could reduce it (perhaps because it's my own work). What would you recommend? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is tricky, I'll check again, not sure if I know how either.
Challenges to religious language
  • General comment, I'm not sure if the comma is needed in the "that, if" statements.
  • Feel free to revert my copyediting if you want.
Myth
  • "Paden believed that a myth must explain something in the world which reference to a sacred being or force;" Did you leave out a word here?
  • Might want to check if the single quotes are used correctly here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I think I'll leave that "that, if" commas in as they are grammatically correct and make the arguments clearer to follow (I think, if you think it's unclear, let me know). Your copyediting look good - thanks. I've fixed the bit on Paden (I'd put "which" instead of "with") and I've slightly reworded the end of that sentence to make the quotation accurate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that might just be a preference issue on my part, no problem.
Analogy
  • You start three consecutive sentences in the middle paragraph with Smedes, see if you can rephrase a little.
  • "He argued that various models of God" Who does "He" refer to here?
  • Make sure you're consistent in how you write centuries.
Lead
  • Why the repeated bold in the first paragraph?
  • "Traditionally, religious language has been explained as via negativa, analogy, symbolism, or myth each of which describe a way of talking about God in human terms. " Should there be a comma between myth and each here?
General
  • Diety, Hick, Wittgenstein, and Simple seem to be repeat linked.
  • I see you have information from Christian, Jewish, and secular philosophers, any hope of finding Muslim or Eastern philosophers? The perspective of Gnosticism might be interesting too. Although, if there aren't sources about it available, don't worry.
  • Otherwise, this looks pretty good, not much to take issue with as far as prose goes, and it's fairly understandable for such a complicated topic, good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback (again!), I really appreciate it. I've made most of the simple changes you've suggested - I'll take a look for Islamic and Eastern philosophers now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been improving it further recently; I've managed to include some ideas from Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism, as well as some alternative approaches. If someone could look over those, I'd be grateful. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Separated shoulder

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was required of me from my professor as the crteria for a group project

Thanks, Koachinyung (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dana Boomer

The main issue with the article at the moment is the almost complete lack of referencing. The anatomy, classification, diagnosis and non-surgical sections are completely unreferenced, and the surgical section contains a majority of unreferenced information. While what references exist are technically reliable, it is better for medical articles to be based on actual medical sources, rather than about.com and the ACC. This could include review articles in medical journals, medical textbooks, etc. See WP:MEDMOS for specifics. It looks like quite a few of the external links could be used to reference the information given in the article. Other thoughts:

  • Additional linking is needed, especially to medical or sports terms that won't be familiar to many readers.
  • The lead should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain unique information. Bullet points are also generally discouraged when the information can easily be presented as text - this is especially true in the lead of an article.

At this point, as I said above, the biggest issue is the lack of referencing. Once this is addressed, I would suggest asking someone from WP:WikiProject Medicine to double check compliance with WP:MEDMOS and proper layout for medical articles. Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotator cuff tear

[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're doing a class project in KIN 412. I added some images to certain subcategories to help with comprehending the information without it being too heavily text-based. Also interested in any comments and/or suggestions for the treatment, mechanisms, and prevention section. Thanks, Jwr0ng (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

I gave feedback on Olecranon bursitis and Supracondylar fracture, two articles being worked on by your classmates. They never responded or incorporated the suggestions. If I give feedback here, will you actually use it, or will my time be wasted yet again? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Mann 1974, p. 112
  2. ^ Peter Partheymuller, "Jayne Manfield", page 25, The Alcalde, Mar 2000
  3. ^ James Robert Parish, The Hollywood Book of Extravagance page 44, John Wiley & Sons, 2007, ISBN 978-0-470-05205-1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/May_2012&oldid=500330592"