Wikipedia:Peer review/September 2012

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.

---

Songs and sketches of Dan Leno

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian and Victorian stage actor was a popular music hall performer and was chiefly known for his many dame pantomime roles that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. During his career, he originated and popularised many songs in his music hall act; some of which were recorded and released to the general public. A few months ago, I significantly contributed to the main article and co-nominated it at FAC, and it was promoted to FA status. As I went along, I extensively researched his recordings and songs and have compiled this short list which now supports the main article. I feel confident that this list is a thorough and comprehensive collection of Leno's works and now, together with Ssilvers, we intend to submit it to WP:FLC for consideration. Before doing so however, we are submitting it for this peer review in the hope that we gain some knowledge about FLC before it's listing. We hope that you enjoy reading this article and look forward to all comments and suggestions. Thanks -- Cassianto^Talk 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking forward to comments. It would be particulary helpful if anyone with experience at FLC would comment about what they think will be needed to pass the Featured List criteria and to let us know what stumbling blocks we might need to watch out for, since we are not experienced at FLC. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments The only issues are that the tables do not meet WP:ACCESS, see also WP:DTT. The other is that this article lists his songs, so I suggest to move to "List of songs by Dan Leno" or similar. As long as their are no albums or other recordings by him, the current title is confusing. Otherwise ready for FLC: Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment. A personal preference would be to keep it all together and go with a name change instead. Could we call this article "The music of Dan Leno" or similar and retain this articles current content? If not, we will have to move. Ss your thoughts? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to be sure what the commenter means. Cassianto, can you ask him/her for more details, please? I'd love to hear from more commenters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done of his/her talk page. In the interests of continuity I will copy my points here:

Thanks for your helpful comment. Could you be a little more specific on a couple of things;

"The tables do not meet WP:ACCESS, see also WP:DTT."

• Which parts of the tables need attention? It's our first FLC so we are not fluent in the criteria or table formatting.

• The two tables need to have a format to meet the access requirements. I am not fluent in English so it is hard to explain properly, so I just give you this example: List of songs recorded by Chrisye. You should change the row lines to "!scope=row" (note the exclamation mark) and column lines to "!scope=col". To avoid bolding add "plainrowheaders" somewhere inside the class parameter. If you want more information I suggest asking User:RexxS, who is an expert in this field.--GoP_T^C_N 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you GoP! Cassianto, can you see if you can get RexxS would give us a review? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"The other is that this article lists his songs"

• Could we rename the article so it doesn't specify a discography and instead call it The music of Dan Leno or The songs of Dan Leno and retain the one article? Any clarification would be great! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a great idea.--GoP_T^C_N 18:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I shall make it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since some of these are sketches, I changed the name to "The songs and sketches of Dan Leno". Better? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the table to see how well it meets the accessibility guidelines of WP:DTAB. To be frank, you've done the most important part by identifying and marking up the column headers with ! scope="col", so that's a good start. The reason for the extra markup is because some visually-impaired visitors use a screen reader that allows then to navigate around a table in any direction. They may want to read down the column of notes in the second table, for example. What the extra markup does is to identify for each cell a column header and a row header that can be announced by the screen reader in conjunction with that cell. For example when they reach 11th row of 3rd column of the second table, then instead of just hearing "Written by Leno", they could hear something like "I'll Be Waiting For Him Tonight", "Notes", "Written by Leno" - I hope you would agree that would be much better for them. For that to happen, we have to use not only ! scope="col" for the column headers, but also we have to choose and to mark up the row headers (I'd suggest the titles are best for this) with the markup ! scope="row". That also alters the formatting of those cells making them bold and centred (i.e. headers), so we often return them to normal weight and left-aligned by using the class "plainrowheaders" in the first line of the wikitable. I've sandboxed examples of how you might mark up the two tables at User:RexxS/The music of Dan Leno - have a look at the edit mode to see the wiki-markup of course. Please feel free to take/use any part of what I've done there, or ask me to show you any changes you want to the formatting - as you can see I've left-aligned the notes to fit in with the left-aligned titles, but you can have centred text if you prefer it (I prefer the left-aligned, but that's merely a personal preference). Does that make sense? I'd be happy to go over it step-by-step if you wish, or you could compare what I'm suggesting here with this edit and the two subsequent ones on List of space stations which added the row headers to a table there. Let me know if I can help any further, and good luck with the FLC. Ping me for a review when you get there at least. --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for the great advice. Yes it did get a bit technical but your sandbox really helped illustrate your points. I agree it is important for visually impaired people and doing that extra bit of work makes it all worth it. I have used your examples and replaced the old tables with them. I hope that's ok. Hopefully the table formatting part of this review is now complete and there are no further issues with this. Could you just check if I have done this correctly and let me know of any other issues re the tables? -- Cassianto^Talk 11:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you found it helpful. Please treat any demos I make as public domain: I don't need attribution and you're free to make whatever use you wish of them. You've understood what is needed perfectly and I don't believe anyone will find fault with your tables from an accessibility viewpoint. You may see requests on other lists for table captions, which are useful to screen readers, but are often redundant to the second-level headers. I usually suggest captions if the table is separated from the section header by substantial piece of text (see List of field marshals of the British Army for example), but as in this case there's little value in repeating the section header with a table caption if one immediately follows the other. Your article is an entertaining read, and I hope to see it at FLC soon. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much RexxS and GoP. I guess we're ready to submit this to FLC now.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Boulonnais horse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's the next one I'd like to take to FAC, and so some more eyes on it would be fantastic. It passed GAN a couple of years ago, and since then has been significantly expanded with the help of a French editor who has taken the article to FA on the French WP. As always, an eye for jargon is especially appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Eye-gouging (rugby union)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get some feedback on the article as I'm considering putting it forward for FL status.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you still interested in getting input on this article? When you say "FL status" do you mean "FA" status? Or are you emphasizing the list aspect of the article? --Noleander (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to emphasise on the list element based on what was said in the previous PR. I suppose I should have written Featured list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording: "has been proven to have ..." - Proven is not quite right for an encyclopedia article: there was no court case. How about "reported"?
• Who? " arresting the perpetrator. " - Name of the perp?
• History? - The History section doesnt really seem to be about History. I'd expect to see some policies/events from many decades ago. For example, the final sentence "In 1992, Richard Loe made contact with ..." seems out of place .. why isnt that in Examples?
• Sections: Consider making a single top level Overview section, and within that include subsections for Definiton, Scales, History, etc.
• Table format: looks really nice.
• Footnotes: I dont think you need to have each footnote twice for each row in the table: just once will be simpler & easier to maintain for future editors.
• Wording: "Sanctions for eye-gouging have been subject to debate depending on interpretation ..." - That is a bit confusing. Can you make it clearer .. what debate? what interpretation?
• Time frame? - When was the "dangerous" rule established? Why is 1992 the first reported case? Wasnt it happening before 1992? If so: was the rule not enforced then?
• Detail? - " The regulations provide a scale .." - What regulations? Specific to eye gouging? or just "foul play" in general?
• Citations: look good ... although my eyes glaze over after awhile, so I'm not always the best judge :-)
• Redudndant: "The IRB could not subsequently cite Rougerie outside ..." - Word "subsequently" seems unnecessary.
• Lead needs more: the Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article: can you add some more text?
• Overall: it is not quite up to FA standards. It looks a bit choppy, and doesn't feel comprehensive. Why dont you implement the above suggestions, and let me know when done, and I'll take another look.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Doing... (Going to be out of town tomorrow, but bug me if I don't have something posted by the end of Sunday, EST.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• The fact that the lead needs more to summarize the article suggests to me the article is missing coverage; as Noleander points out, the "history" section doesn't really touch on a lot of history at all. Rugby's been around for hundreds of years by now; there's nothing in historical rules about the offense, or even that there were no rules about same?
• I know nothing about rugby; that said, it seems odd to me that the "definition" starts out without defining in what terms foul play is defined? Is there a single worldwide codified set of rugby rules? Who maintains them? Is that who defined the foul play and subsequent quotes? (You mention the Rugby Board later but I'm not sure just by reading the article if that relates to the above content.)
• Prose has issues, such as overuse of commas ("Although Matt Iles, the player alleged to have injured Harding, was found not guilty by the RFU, who could not determine which player was responsible,[15] Maidstone RFC were fined £2,000 and deducted 50 points after being found "guilty of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game".[16]") and unnec. passive voice ("The incident was also investigated by Kent Police but no criminal charges were brought against Maidstone or the player due to insufficiant evidence.")
• Overall, a solid start, but I think it needs more and then needs to be smoothed from there. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• 
  

---

Golden Sun: Dark Dawn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has many tags that I don't know how to deal with. And I want to improve it to a higher-class.

Thanks, 123456789qwertacct (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Dana Boomer

Hi! It looks like you've made quite a good start on this article. Technically, articles with major cleanup banners should not be brought to PR, but since you've asked about them specifically, I'll explain each of them and give suggestions on how to address them:

• Top banner (copyediting): Basically, this means that the article needs to be copyedited for flow, grammar, spelling, etc. If you don't feel up to doing this yourself, you may want to try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
• Gameplay (translation tag): This is again saying that this section needs to be copyedited, because it reads roughly and has quite a few grammatical errors. A copyedit to address the above tag should also take care of this one.
• Synopsis (in universe tag): This tag means that the section contains quite a few spots where the actions of the (fictional) characters are given like they were real (in other words, like these things actually happened in real life). Instead, these spots need to be rewritten to be more obvious that they are fictional: so, write things like "at the beginning of the game, the characters x and y are seen doing z", instead of "x and y do z".
• Reception (expansion tag): This tag specifies that the tagger thinks the section needs more information on release information. This generally includes things like when the game was first released in major countries, how many were sold (I see you have this for one country), if expansion packs were released, etc.
• There are also a couple of dead link tags, which mean that the URL for a reference has gone dead and needs to be fixed, replaced or archived.

You may also want to contact the editor who placed the tags, to see if he or she has additional comments on the article. I hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Dana boomer. And I'll spend a period of time in this :p--123456789qwertacct (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Bring Me the Horizon

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after putting considerable amount of work into the history and musical style section, I would like to be offered pointers on how to develop the article to a higher level of quality.

Thanks, Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Bade Achhe Lagte Hain

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to drive this article to the path of GA or FA (most probably FA). I have been editing this article since long and want it to see it become a GA or FA. That's the only reason for why I want a peer review of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain.

Thanks, Tamravidhir(২০১২) 10:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Frog

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FA. I have been working on it for some time and feel I need someone with a different viewpoint to point out its faults.

Thanks, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

---

I Could Fall in Love

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to nominate the article at FAC

Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• {{Doing}} (Going to be out of town tomorrow, but bug me if I don't have something posted by the end of Sunday, EST.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)a

Comments by David Fuchs

Some initial thoughts:

• " It was released by EMI Latin on 26 June 1995, as the album's lead single alongside "Tú Sólo Tú", showcasing Selena's musical transition from Spanish to English." — "musical transition" is wikilinked to crossover (music), which doesn't really seem right. By musical transition we're talking about singing in Spanish vs. English, correct? That's a lyrical change, not a musical one, unless her genre also changed.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Lyrically, the song explores a women's intuition, but from a negative output, as she begins to fall in love with a man. In spite of the woman's true feelings for him, the fear of rejection overcomes her." I really have no idea what the "womens' intuition" from a "negative output" means. I think this could be simplified and made a lot less confusing. Also, why is the song's content discussed twice in the same paragraph, but separated by the song credits and genre influences?

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Although "I Could Fall in Love" peaked at number eight on the US Billboard Hot 100 Airplay chart, and number-one on RPM Adult Contemporary and the Latin Pop Airplay chart, it was ineligible for the Hot 100 chart." → Why? It seems odd that this is brought up in the lead but not explained at all afterwards.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "However, it failed to acquire any certifications, despite Selena's death, which took place several months earlier by her friend and ex-employer Yolanda Saldivar." → Why would her death give it more certifications? Because her songs would be more popular after she was dead? Still not fully explaining things.

  • Because her death reactions were compared to those of Elvis Presley and John Lennon. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• The body section for "crossover" still doesn't quite explain. Is the crossover talking about tejano to pop, or is it also referring to the language? The accompanying Wikipedia article doesn't really make that clear and seems to equate mainstream success with crossover, which strikes me as dubious without good sources to back it up.

  • It's talking about her whole musical change from recording song from Spanish to English. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Note: Pausing the PR because User:Gareth Griffith-Jones is in the middle of modifying the article. Stay tuned ...
• I think the lead (in 1st or 2nd paragraph) should state that this song was released posthumously ... that is kind of buried in the 3rd paragraph. The fact that she recorded it, then a few months later was killed, then it was released, is key.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Consider cite bundling: When there are 3 or 4 footnotes for a single sentence, it looks a bit awkward: " .. "confessional ballads"[33][34][35][36]". Consider using the WP:CITEBUNDLE formatting technique so that the four cites use just one footnote in the sentence.

  • Not sure how to do that, note that the link you provided does not give adequate step-by-step on how to perform that. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't have great instructions there. But it is super simple. What you do is find places in the article with 2 or more consecutive footnotes at the end of a sentence, and just reduce them to a single "ref" pair. For example, if a sentence ends with three footnotes like this:

... some sentence.<ref>footnote one</ref><ref>footnote two </ref><ref>footnote three</ref>.

Just eliminate all the middle "refs" and replace them with </br>, then only the very outermost "ref" pair remains. Like this:

... some sentence.<ref>footnote one</br>footnote two </br>footnote three</ref>.

That will do it. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I added it and it doesn't seem to work. Jona^{talk to me} 14:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify wording: The phrase "808 drums" is used twice. Music insiders may use that terminology, but readers may think that is the quantity of drums. Can that be replaced with "TR-808 drums?"

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wording: " Selena sings the first verse, imploring the object of ..." - simpler is: "The first verse implores the object of..." or "In the first verse, Selena implores ...".

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Who? - " Selena believes that her infatuation ..." - That seems to personalize it too much. This is just a song, after all, and could be sung by any female vocalist. Wouldn't it be more accurate to write "The singer believes ..." or something similar? What is the convention in other articles about songs? For an example of better wording, see ".. the song explores a women's intuition, ...".

  •  Not done, the recording should represent its original artist also the overuse of "she" will not be pleased by FAC reviewers and they will ask for alternatives. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wording: "with regards to" is generally not a good idea. So "This success enabled a breakthrough of various language barriers, particularly with regards to the English-speaking audience" should be reworded. Maybe change to "This success resulted in a major increase in the size of Selena's English-speaking audience". Or "Selena's English-speaking audience increased in size substantially as a result of the songs widespread popularity." or similar.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Details needed: "Fearing that "I Could Fall in Love" might sell more copies than the album itself, the recording had not been released as a physical single." - Who made that decision? When was it made: before or after the album's release? Was it the only song treated that way? Why was this decision made? I would think the studio would make more $$ with a top selling single? Grammar: " ...had not been..." doesnt read well, but it should go away if the sentence is re-written to address the other questions listed here.

  • I didn't even know that the song was not released as a "physical single" (a single which is distributed to CD stores for those interested in buying, similar to an album's wide release. A non-physical single is a single that is only given to radio DJs to play on radios for promotional purposes, and therefore because it is released free, it does not qualify for charting on the Hot 100 chart.), but searching online for sources I stumbled upon a high-quality reliable source (Billboard) and it stated that it was not released physically, I have re-read the source again and it gives Sigerson as the decider for that but no other mention is given. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Contradiction? - ""I Could Fall in Love" was released as lead single ..." then " the recording had not been released as a physical single." - Some words need to be added in that first sentence to explain the difference between a physical single and ... what? What is a non-physical single?

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• URL links in footnotes: FN #2, #3, #8, #24, and #67 do not link to Web site URLs correctly. It looks like you are using the {{cite}} template, which is okay; but there is some kind of formatting error. Maybe a hard carriage return is in the wrong place? If you cannot get it to work, just avoid the {{cite}} template and type out the footnote manually.

  • Will fix later. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Meaning? - "Mario Tarradell of the Beaver County Times called "I Could Fall in Love" a "crossover stable"." - I don't know that "a crossover stable" means? I'm sure other readers won't either. Can you explain that somehow? Do you mean "staple"?

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Punctuation: need a space before About.com.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2 year gap? - "received a Music Video of the Year nomination at the 1997 Tejano Music Awards." - When was the video published? 1996? 1997? Why so long?

  • It was 1996, a minor mistake. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Space - "received a Music Video of the Year nomination at the 1997 Tejano Music Awards. [92]" - Remove space between period and [.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Space - "Ivy Silver Series,[112]In addition..." - space after ]

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify - "Credits adapted from Dreaming of You album liner notes ..." - Either these are the credits or not. If they are from the liner notes, that should be mentioned in the footnote/source, not in the prose

  •  Not done per [1] and [2]. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Composer? - "Thomas revealed that he was unable to add any more vocals to a new song, "I Could Fall in Love"." - I'm guessing that Thomas composed the song, but that should be made more explicit.

  • I'm not following here, can you explain what you mean? Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand what that "Thomas revealed ..." sentence means. Suggest re-word the sentence to be clearer. --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jona^{talk to me} 14:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Story clearer? - " Thomas revealed that he was unable to add any more vocals to a new song, "I Could Fall in Love". Therefore, Thomas performed an a cappella version to assist their understanding, with the result that both Selena and A. B. instantly appreciated the existing lyric." - That sounds like a really interesting process, but I cannot quite grasp what happened? Thomas had some lyrics, but wanted more? Or he liked the lyrics but did not like his own vocal rendition?

  • When Selena and her brother arrived at his studio, he did not have the vocals added to the song, he then performed an a cappella. So basically, all Selena had were instrumentation music no backing vocals which isn't the norm in popular music. Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Clarify: - " A. B. added that he wanted Selena to record "I could Fall in Love" for her album." - Again, a super interesting plot point, but needs some more clarity. Selena's manager, after hearing the song, asked Thomas for permission for Selena to record it, and Thomas agreed. If that is correct, try being more explicit.

  • The song was written for Selena no other artist, when Thomas finished singing, A.B. really wanted Selena to record it (even more so). Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• " Right from the outset, ..." - that is a bit slangy, especially in the lead. Reword to be more professional.

  •  Done Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• That is all for now. It is a fine article. I suggest that you implement the above suggestions, then take it to WP:FAC. Let me know if I can be of any more help.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I left some comments and  Fixed most points you have raised. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 15:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

John Adair

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A Kentucky governor who was perhaps best known for a very public and protracted war of words with future U.S. president Andrew Jackson over the conduct of the Kentucky militia at the Battle of New Orleans. Recently found some new resources that allowed me to significantly expand this beyond its GA form. I now think it should be at least competitive for FA status. Looking for comments similar to what the article could be expected to receive at FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Ken Livingstone

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past few months, I have dramatically revamped the introduction and first half of the article, covering the period of Livingstone's life up until the abolition of the GLC in the mid-1980s. I would be really grateful if anyone could peer review this first half of the article; letting me know what I'm doing right, and what I'm doing wrong. Can you see any POV issues? If so, let me know. Hopefully, from there I can go on to finish the rest of the article through to the same standard in the coming months. Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments I had a quick look at the article, here are some impressions:

  There is too much in the top section (too many details, paragraphs too long).

  The writing style is rather disjointed - sentences don't read well, e.g. Here, he failed his eleven plus exam, and so in 1956 began his secondary education at Tulse Hill Comprehensive School.[21][22] In 1957, his family moved out of their council house and purchased their own property at 66 Wolfington Road in West Norwood.[23] Being rather shy at school, he was bullied, and got into trouble with the school authorities for truancy. This is not very logical in its ordering, the writer should re-think this from the point of view of what the reader is thinking about, rather than cramming as many facts in as possible.

  Don't really need to add birth/death dates everywhere, especially not for people who already have their own article (can refer to the link).

  Paragraphs are way too long and unfocused. One paragraph = one idea. The paragraphs here seem more like "how many words can I cram in before I am forced to make another paragraph break".

  Spell-checking might be useful: e.g. I noticed succesfully.

  Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • • Thanks for your input JoshuSasori. I appreciate your input, but do not necessarily agree on everything. I intend to take up your advice and cut down the lengths of most of the paragraphs throughout this article, but am unsure if that is really possible in the introductory sections. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      

---

Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm not sure if it is capable of achieving GA status, so any comments on how to best improve would be appreciated. I know it's quite short and there is a lack of prose.

Thanks, Aaron • ^{You Da One} 11:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gongshow

Looking at several concert tour GAs - including ones for Madonna (Drowned World Tour, Re-Invention World Tour, Confessions Tour), Mariah Carey (Butterfly World Tour), Britney Spears (The M+M's Tour), Lady Gaga (The Fame Ball Tour, The Monster Ball Tour), Gwen Stefani (Harajuku Lovers Tour), and Miley Cyrus (Wonder World Tour) - there appear to be some common characteristics:

• "Background" - interviews/articles discussing plans to tour, announcements of tour dates, reports of ticket sales/venue sellouts.
• "Synopsis" - what the shows typically consisted of, including themes, costumes, choreography, setlists and encores, etc.
• "Reception" - reviews from journalists/critics, and commercial reception is useful as well (how much the tour grossed).
• "Broadcasts and recordings" (optional) - Some of the GAs have this section, which includes related DVD releases and/or TV broadcasts.
• "Personnel" (optional) - Some of the GAs have this section, which includes a listing of the band, production team, etc.

Now looking at the Rihanna: Live in Concert Tour article, I think the "Opening Act", "Setlist", and "Tour Dates" sections look good (assuming the "citation needed"s are cleaned up). As for the next step, I suggest adding sections of prose ("Background", "Synopsis", "Reception") and expanding the lead so that the article is comparable to Britney's The M+M's Tour article. I hope this helps.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Samsung Galaxy S III

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has just passed a GA nomination, and I'm looking for flaws within the article prior to a FA candidacy.

Thanks, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Hi, a few comments: - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "with a significant addition of software features, expanded hardware, and a redesigned physique.": with additional software features, ...
• "In particular,": Don't need that, I think.
• "the design group concentrated on the consumer's desire for comfort and well-being,": Sounds like something a public relations guy would say, so even if it's accurate, axe it.
• "a constant duplication of effort as they had to repeat": There's some duplication and repetition here too!
• "The prototypes, photos of which were forbidden": Well, it would be "taking photos of which were forbidden", but that's a mouthful; reword.
• "the task of transporting them was performed by the company's employees": the company's employees transported them
• In general, this will need more copyediting before FAC, and I generally stick to history articles, myself. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• All done Y, except number four. The phrase prior to as is a claim, whereas the explanation of that duplication comes afterwards. I can't think of an alternative. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    

---

The Rite of Spring

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This began as a joint project with User:Tim riley. Tim, sadly, has withdrawn from Wikipedia, but before he went he supplied me with some very useful source material. So I have carried on with the article and it is, I think, ready now to be peer reviewed. There are some issues around images to be resolved (see article talk) and a bit more polishing. I would welcome comments on all aspects of the article; the centenary of the notorious premiere falls on 29 May 2013 and this would be a great TFA for that day. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Gerda Arendt

• Regretting with you that Tim does not want to be active at the moment, I would like to point out a detail that strikes me and is not yet mentioned in the beginning: the strange translation of the title. In German it would not be translated at all but left the original Le sacre du printemps which doesn't mean a civil "Rite of Spring" but a brutal "Sacrifice of/in Spring". I would be interested in the history of that "translation" and a hint in the lead, also think the subtitle should be mentioned there early. - I will be back when I get to read more of the article, - busy with Kafka ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• On this point, there is a limit to what can be included at the beginning of an article. Already the first sentence, with the name of the work given in three languages, is tending to the cumbersome; to add further explanation or discussion of the nuances of meaning within the title would make the beginning unreadable. There is, however, a clear description in the "Conception" section of the stages by which the title evolved. The English language version of title was adopted pretty early on, since Stravinsky evidently used it in an interview the day after the premiere (it may be worth footnoting this). The English may not exactly reflect the strict meaning of the French, but in my view it is close enough, and is indubitably the name by which the work is universally known in the English-speaking world. I have yet to meet anyone who, having seen/heard the work, has said that they felt misled by the title. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Taken. I still wonder about a reader who comes to the article completely unprepared. - Reading: why is it "Le sacre du printemps" in the lead, but "Le Sacre du Printemps" in "Conception"? I could imagine more details about the music, that section is short compared with Performances. - I remember the exciting Pina Bausch production, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• thanks for acting, but I don't believe what it says now, "original French title Le Sacre du Printemps". In original French it's Le sacre du printemps, French doesn't support capitalisation in titles ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe, but the programme for the evening of 29 May shows "Le Sacre du Printemps" thus. Strictly speaking the lower case format is correct in the French Language, but discussions of the piece in English texts almost always employ the capitals (though Kelly is an exception). There are arguments both ways, and I propose to leave the matter as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do we know what the program for the premiere said? If it had no caps I would at least drop the description "original" and just say "French". I confess that it is still kind of strange to me to read that "The Rite" was premiered in Paris, but I won't torture you more on the topic ;) Great article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have said how the programme rendered the title - with caps. I have removed the word "original"; now let us agree to rest the matter. The premiere was in Paris because the Ballet Russes performed experimental and avant-garde works that would not have been acceptable in the stifling culture of Tsarist Russia; Diaghilev and his cohorts were revolutionaries in absentia. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• A few commnets :

• (2nd para of Realisation) Nijinsky certainly played instruments. He took piano lessons, played the balalaika, and according to Bronislava “could play any instrument” (see for example p122 in her ‘Early Memoirs’). There is a photo of him and Ravel playing Daphnis and Chloe as a duet (I can only find this on the internet http://andrewvanz.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/nijinsky-and-ravel.html). According to the Buckle the photo was ironically taken by Stravinsky!

• Yes, I know that Stravinsky was being retrospectively unfair to Nijinsky. In an earler draft of the text I included Bronislava's defence, but dropped it as marginal detail. I will footnote it, however, as it is of some interest. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Yes, unfair indeed given that by then the poor man was not capable of answering back...)

• (last paragraph of Realisation) Monteux and the Rite is a fascinating and complex history over 50 years... I do realise that you cannot develop it in an article like this (it could probably make a separate article), but I feel though it is a bit blunt, it’s more than a ‘conscientious professional’ who later told people ‘he detested it’

• There were clearly lifelong issues between Stravinsky and Monteux, and each sometimes gave vent to their felings in excessive terms (cf "that frightful butcher"). This article is not the place to explore that relationship; the exact Kelly quote which I have paraphrased reads: "At the Eastman School in the 1950s he was asked about his first reaction to the piece: "I detested it"; and how does he like it now? "I still detest it". Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (last line of Realisation) Piltz was not ‘unknown’, she was a principal with the Ballets Russes. The two Buckle books give a sample of her roles prior to Rite of Spring. Perhaps mention that Rambert had observed Nijinsky coaching Piltz and thought that he should have been the best in the role.

• The source actually says Pilz was "little known to the Parisian public". I have amended the text. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (50th anniversary) Also on Monteux – quite a few sources (Morrison, Canarina etc) say that Stravinsky arrived at the start of the second half of the Rite, not at the end. He stayed in his box and the 88 year old had to climb up to where he was (according to Osian Ellis he ran up the stairs). Canarina notes that the composer had cooled down and changed his view by the end of the evening – and provides a quotes from Stravinsky “Monteux, almost alone among conductors, never cheapened Rite or looked for his own glory in it, and he continued to play it all his life with the greatest fidelity.” I think Stravinsky’s views on Monteux were as fickle as Monteux on the Rite of Spring. (Just for interest the broadcast can be found on a recording blog.) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have been careful to say that the version I give is "according to Berlin". If you can give me full details of the Canaria source (pub details, page nos etc) I will modify the account accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• p301 of Canarina (Canarina, John (2003). Pierre Monteux, Maître. Pompton Plains, New Jersey: Amadeus Press. ISBN 1-57467-082-4.); Morrison p137-8 has the Ellis anecdote, and other comments on the occasion (Morrison, Richard (2004). Orchestra. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21584-X.)

• I have footnoted Bronislava's comments on her brother's instrumental skills. In the 50th anniversary section, I have added the quote from Canaria in the text, and a made truncated reference to Morrison/Ellis in another footnote (there is a limit to how far we should milk this one anecdote, revealing though it is) Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede:

• I would divide the second sentence in the second paragraph at the semicolon.
• "After a mixed reception" I would include the word "critical", given the riot.
• "and the ballet eventually gained worldwide acceptances on the basis of innovative performances directed by the world's leading ballet masters." A bit awkward Perhaps (for the whole sentence) "Massine's was the forerunner of many innovative productions directed by the world's leading ballet masters, which gained the work worldwide acceptance."
• " original choreography, long believed lost, was recreated" If it was recreated, isn't it a new arrangement? Perhaps "reconstructed"?
• "analysts have discovered a considerable grounding in Russian folk music, a relationship that Stravinsky was later at pains to deny." This makes for a rather muddled chronology, given what is said in the body. It makes it sound well after the fact, almost current.

Background

• I would mention Igor's date of birth.

• I am advised by Tim that, when a person has a blue link, it is not WP practice to include their dates.

• "In 1901 Stravinsky" I would say Igor Stravinsky.

Not sure. There doesn't seem to be any doubt about whom we're talking

• "St Petersburg". Is this how it is expressed in Britlish? I tend to spell out the name of the Russian city to distinguish it from the seat of the Dark Lord in Florida. Just bringing it up.

• Yes, that's how we normally write it.

• "a Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor (1903–04);" As there is no verb anywhere in the sentence after the semicolon, I question it. I tentatively suggest also, a comma after the first 1908 in the sentence.
• " In 1907 he began" Who?

• I think the pronoun is OK here; the construction of the previous sentence, in my view, makes the identity clear. The alternative is a close and unnecessary repetiton of "Diaghilev"

Structure

• You appear inconsistent on ending the rightmost entries in the table with a period or not.
• "is caught twice" Slightly unclear.

Creation

• "However, in his 1936 autobiography he describes " Past tense perhaps?
• " the French translation" As it is not a translation, exactly, perhaps "the French rendering"?
• "pagan prehistory" I blinked at this twice and am still none the wiser.

• It is given thus in the source. I think the word "pagan" is used here in its pantheistic sense, or "nature-worshipping" as we might say. The prehistory is presumably concerned with how such forms of worship originated. But I haven't read Afanasyev's book, you will be surprised to learn.

Performance history

• Perhaps set the stage, so to speak, by changing the first word to "Paris's"? Given the French influence in Czarist Russia, the Champs-Elysee does not make it completely obvious. Later it does become clear, but all the same.
• " their hatred of the boxes" I am guessing the boxes are where the wealthy sat, perhaps this should be the clarified.

• Awkward to do, without an intrusive note. My guess is that readers will guess as you did.

• " the dance step numbers to the oblivious dancers." The duplication of "dance" may be unavoidable, but I'd strike oblivious. You'd mention it if they were affected, and it seems they weren't, at least so far.

• I meant they couldn't hear his counting, but I'd kind of already said that, so "oblivious" is struck.

• I notice that the full stops are invariably outside the quotes, yet some of these seem like complete sentences.

• I'll have to check that out.

• "Saint-Saëns was not present." Plainly, if he left :) Perhaps "did not attend".
• " rejected an account by Cocteau in which " Perhaps "rejected Cocteau's account that" or similar.
• " the young ballet-master, he writes" In the lede, you used "ballet masters" without hyphen.

Later performances

• " in front of the unaware, wildly cheering audience." Unaware of what?

• Unaware of the tensions underlying this apparently warm encounter.

Ballet

• "who had taken over the Wuppertal ballet company and renamed it "Tanztheater Wuppertal", " perhaps a tangent.
• " New York's State Theater." I would simply use the former name (I was surprised that they have renamed it, "New York State Theatre" If you are seeking to make it clear it is in the city, you can mention Lincoln Center.

• Sorry, don't follow the comment. I understand that "New York State Theater" is the former name for the David H Koch Theater, hence the link. Your allusion to an English spelling eludes me.

• It sounds odd, is what it really is. You expect to hear "New York State Theater" instead you have a slight variation on that. That's really my point.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "the Joffrey Ballet in Los Angeles performed The Rite" You have been calling it the Rite.

Music

• In the Influences section, the way you render lifespans is inconsistent. I would simply expand Copland's date of death to four digits.

• I've removed the lifespans per the earlier note.

Editions

• Is the autograph score extant? Where if so?

• I assume it is, but none of the sources that I have mention where it now is. I might do a little digging. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• As one does, looking for something else I found on the internet this pdf, "Rigoroso (♪ = 126)": "The Rite of Spring" and the Forging of a Modernist Performing Style by Robert Fink, in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 299-362.It says the autograph is in the Paul Sacher institute. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks kindly. As you will see (Editions section, footnote), my own researches, though in slightly different areas, have come to the same conclusion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's all I have. Most interesting and worthy. It should do well at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for these comments. Where I disagree I have said so, but generally I have followed your recommendations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Cassianto

"Conception"

• Link to Princess Maria Tenisheva.
• "...consist of games and ritual dances interrupted by a procession of sages" Stages?

• No, "sages" as in "wise old men". Clarified now, by a link. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"Composition"

• OK.

"Realisation"

• "The Princess Tenisheva's collection of costumes were an early source of inspiration"? For some reason "was" sounded strange, perhaps as it followed a plural.

• It has to be "was". Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Diaghilev decided that Nijinsky's genius as a dancer would translate into ability as a ballet-master, and was not dissuaded when Nijinsky's first attempt in this role, Debussy's L'après-midi d'un faune, ended in controversy and near-scandal because of an overtly sexual gesture introduced by Nijinsky." -- Seems a bit long without a full stop.
• "Diaghilev decided that Nijinsky's genius as a dancer would translate into an ability as a ballet-master..."?

• Sentence slightly reworded, and divided by a semicolon Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

More on the way. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I say more on the way, but I in fact lied. I have read through the remainder of the article with great pleasure and ease and see no further issues. An eloquently brilliant article as always! --Cassianto^Talk 00:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look forward to your remaining comments. Can I ask your opinion on another matter? At the foot of the articles are three templates: "Igor Stravinsky", "Ballet" and "Fantasia". The first two are unobjectionable, but the third, I think, has no place here. The connection with Disney's 1940 Fantasia is interesting but of only minor significance; the template in my view puffs it up into a matter of importance. I propose to remove it, but would welcome some other views on the matter before I do. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Disney Fantasia has little meaning for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that and thought it was strange. I would elect to remove it. I think it's inclusion here is a tenuous one. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, while I am at it, here is another request. I would like reviewers to listen to the sound sample (12 seconds) of the opening bassoon melody (use the link in the music example, "Music" section). This soundfile survives from the article before I began the expansion; it has been created using Sibelius 5, a score writing program widely used by composers and arrangers. To me, the result is not good; the mechanical tone of the "bassoon" is aggravated by a strangeness in the tempo, which sounds jerky and artificial. In other words, I am not sure that this is a good illustration of Stravinsky's music. I kmow some people believe that any sound is better than none in a music article, but I don't agree, if the sample gives a wrong impression. I would be pleased to have reveiwers' thoughts on this, particularly from those who are easonably familiar with the music. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the music to have an informed opinion.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's not very good, very like a computer sound. It would be better to have a real bassoon playing (if possible). Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that, it doesn't help the reader to understand the music. (Thanks for asking me.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Forced evictions in Baku

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some general advice on how it can be improved from its current state. I created/expanded it from the ground up and would like to see it become a featured article sometime in the near future. Thank you for you time. Regards, Master&Expert (Talk) 08:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• "The evictions were first ordered by the city's municipal government as part of a massive reconstruction effort aimed at increasing the appeal of the downtown metropolis.[1] Since then, the number of housing complexes being forcibly vacated has increased substantially.[2]" The "since then" feels a bit off because it's not clear when that is (since 2008, since they first started the construction effort?) Better to give actual numbers on evictions if possible.
• As of my review there's a mangled ref leading the "demolitions" section.
• The issue I see with this article is it's really short, and I don't think it adequately covers all aspects of the topic--or, if it does, then it might be worth thinking about whether the topic is better covered merged in with a parent topic. Among the elements that are currently missing:
  • What is the runup to the government's action? Was it discussed publicly? Was there any protests before the actions actually occurred? The article skips from background to the demolitions. Part of the issue might be recentism and a lack of more specific context in the article--you haven't quite made me understand why this is important yet.
• The "see also" lists a "Human Rights in…" article. Perhaps that's the best place to mention this?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cheers (season 1)/archive1

---

Jayne Mansfield

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
After long hard work this is nearing the quality of a featured article now. Please, provide review on anything that may improve the article. Reviewing work that you lived with for a long time is difficult. Therefore, this needs needs community intervention.

Thanks, Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1
I'm afraid this article is some way from FA level. The prose is choppy and uncomfortable, and there is far too much detail. I'm not sure that Peer Review is the best place for this article at the moment, and to be honest, I'm not even sure it is GA level. A first step is to find a good copy-editor, maybe at WP:GOCE, and cut back some of the text. Then it needs to flow better and remove any redundancy. I have only read up until the end of Early life and education, but found even that short section to be hard work to read. Here are some general comments on what I read.

• The article is very long for someone with so short a life and career. Currently it is 10,416 words, and I'm sure it could be cut right back. I'm sure the same story could be told in around 6-7,000 words.
• There seems to be far too much detail, and even in the lead there is plenty of repetition.
• The lead is too long. WP:LEAD states that a lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs. Also, I'm not too sure why references are needed in the lead, as everything within the lead should be cited in the main article, and only quotes really need a reference here.
• In the short section of the article I have read, there is a lot of redundancy in the prose. For example, "Mansfield was 20th Century Fox's alternative Marilyn Monroe and came to be known as the "Working Man's Monroe". She was also known for her well-publicized personal life and publicity stunts" makes the same points twice, and could be cut back: "Mansfield became known as the "Working Man's Monroe". Her personal life attracted enormous publicity, as did her attention seeking behaviour."
• "Mansfield became a major Broadway star in 1955, a major Hollywood star in 1956, and a leading celebrity in 1957.": Too much: cut back to "Mansfield became a star first on Broadway, then in Hollywood, and by 1957 was a leading celebrity."
• "She was one of Hollywood's original blonde bombshells,[2] and although many people have never seen her movies, Mansfield remains one of the most recognizable icons of 1950s celebrity culture.": Too much for the lead.
• "With the decrease of the demand for big-breasted blonde bombshells and the increase in the negative backlash against her over-publicity, she became a box-office has-been by the end of the 1960s. Her career declined first to low-budget foreign movies and major Las Vegas nightclub dates; then to television guest appearances; next to touring plays and minor Las Vegas nightclub dates; and finally ended in small nightclub dates": Cut back to: "By the mid-1960s, her career was effectively over, and she was reduced to appearing in low-budget foreign films and Las Vegas nightclubs."
• The 3rd paragraph is far, far too detailed for a lead. It could be cut back to a generic couple of sentences.
• "By the early 1960s, Mansfield's box office popularity had declined and Hollywood studios lost interest in her." The lead has already said this, then the rest of this paragraph is again just a list of films, which could be cut.
• "Mansfield was married three times, first to her public relations professional Paul Mansfield (married 1950–1958), second to actor–bodybuilder Mickey Hargitay (married 1958–1963), and third to film director Matt Cimber (married 1964–1966). She had five children: Jayne Marie Mansfield (born 1950), Miklós Jeffrey Palmer Hargitay (born 1958), Zoltán Anthony Hargitay (born 1960), actress Mariska Magdolna Hargitay (born 1964) and Antonio "Tony" Cimber (born 1965).": Change to: "Mansfield was married three times: to her public relations professional Paul Mansfield, to actor–bodybuilder Mickey Hargitay and to film director Matt Cimber. She had five children."
• Factual error? "Vera Jayne's father, Elmer E Palmer, was from the largely Cornish area of Pen Argyl…": Surely Vera Jeffery?
• Is the ancestral information really necessary?
• "As a child she wanted to be a Hollywood star like Shirley Temple like many other young girls of her time.[14][15][16]": Why does this sentence need 3 references?
• Lots of sentences begin in similar fashion: "In [year]….:, "She…", or follow a simple "noun/pronoun verb". This is a little simple for FA level, and should flow better. The prose is very choppy and makes for hard reading.
• "After marriage, Jayne and Paul enrolled into Southern Methodist University to study acting, where lacking finances to afford day care, carried around her daughter Jayne Marie.": Something missing from this sentence for it to make sense.
• Several more examples here of 3 or 4 references to back up a sentence; not only does this look very unattractive, it seems excessive when only one fact is being given.
• "The Curtain Club was a happening campus theatrical society at that time": "Happening" is unencyclopedic.

There are plenty of similar examples throughout the article, just from a quick glance, but these would be a good starting point. I do not watch peer reviews, but let me know if I can be of any further help. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Count of Porto Alegre was one of the main Brazilian commanders in the Paraguayan War (1864-1870), also known as the War of the Triple Alliance. I want to nominate this article for FAC. So, what does it needs? There is a very similar article (BTW, A FA) that might be used for comparison: Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias.

Thanks, Lecen (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Misha B

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this unassessed article for peer review because…I and others have been contributing to this article (sometimes with opposition in areas such as NPOV and BLP :see talk page) and reached a still point where it would be useful to get feedback. I would like to hear any criticisms. comments and suggestions that people may have. At some point I hope it gets assessed too, but despite listing it on relevant project pages this has not happened yet.

Thanks, ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 15:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Paul S. Walsh

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have got it up to GA standard and I would like to get it to Featured Article standard.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• "the world's leading spirits group" is not encyclopedic, in my view. We could do with something more neutral. Is it the world's biggest spirits company by sales? By market capitalization? A statistic is better than a claim, no matter how well cited. As it is, it's somewhat POV.  Done

Leading in any measurement you use: sales, mark cap, volume, number of leading brands... but point taken. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Lancastrian" Cite, even in the lead.  Done

• In the interest of NPOV, I'd recommend balancing the positive with the negative immediately. So something like "While Walsh has received praise for his no-nonsense, "Lancastrian" approach to management, he has also been the target of criticism." Then go on to describe some of the criticism; after that, talk about the positives.  Done

• "longest serving" --> "longest-serving" (compound adjective) Done

• Cut down on the use of adjectives in the lead. A lot of this is just puffery.

I've changed things, see what you think. "Aggressively" could be positive or negative, or neither. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also separate the following into two sentences for clarity, as follows: "One of the FTSE 100's longest-serving chief executives, he has spent most of his career at Diageo and its predecessor Grand Metropolitan. He earned respect for his streamlining of Diageo and his acquisition of the Seagram drinks company."  Done

• Colon after "Pillsbury food business", not semicolon. Done

• "selling off", not "selling-off". Done

• "strong brands": Remove "strong". Done

• "considerable criticism": Remove "considerable". Done

• "the size of his salary" seems like a tease. Tell us how much in the lead.

Well it's changed between 1996 and 2011! I don't want to be too wordy. Besides, it's all speculative at the end of the day. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "keen sportsman": Remove "keen"  Done

"who enjoyed sports"

• "an "outstanding" mathematics": Remove "outstanding".  Done

Okay. "Hero" makes the point. Farrtj (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This made me chuckle a little, I confess: "Such was his appreciation that he would later take his former teacher out to lunch annually." First, I'd say "he later took his former teacher out to lunch annually." Second, it seems a meager reward for someone he considers his "hero".

No it's definitely sincere. He keeps a photo of an RAF place that said teacher gave him in his office. I've seen it in video interviews. Farrtj (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "advanced quite far in the application process" --> "advanced far in the RAF application process"  Done

• Spell out the Co-operative Group Ltd. for people who might not be familiar with it.  Done

• "Whilst at Grand Met he quickly abandoned accounting,": Full stop at the end, please.  Done

• "I wanted to move into sales and marketing," he said later. "I joined with a commitment that that career path would be opened to me and by 29 or 30 I had moved into the commercial area." (add "he said later" in the middle)  Done

• "where by reforming the financial reporting system, he captured the attention of Grand Met's chairman Allen Sheppard" reads better as: "where he captured the attention of Grand Met's chairman Allen Sheppard by reforming the financial reporting system"  Done

• "100-strong": 100 of what? It's not clear here. Employees? Hotels?  Done

• "a real estate bubble": Comma after "bubble"  Done

• "accurately identified": "identified" suffices.  Done

• "The proceeds of the Intercontinental sale were used to purchase Pillsbury for $5.8 billion, owner of the Green Giant and Häagen-Dazs brands, and Walsh was involved in the takeover decision." I think is better phrased as: "Grand Met used the proceeds from the Intercontinental to purchase Pillsbury, owner of the Green Giant and Häagen-Dazs brands, for $5.8 billion. Walsh was involved in the takeover decision."  Done

• "major brands": just "brands" will do.  Done

• "led the focus on concentrating on" shortens to "concentrated on".  Done

• "he is credited with growing from a strong US brand to a brand with truly global reach": "he was credited" and "strong US brand to one with truly..."  Done

• "to form a combine called Diageo" --> "company called Diageo"  Done

• Recommend combining a couple of sentences as follows. First: "In 1996 he was made chairman and president of Pillsbury, which tripled in size and doubled its operating margins between 1992 and 2000." Then: "Grand Met merged with Guinness in 1997..." etc.  Done

• "Walsh argues": "Walsh said" will do.  Done

• "In retrospect, he regrets not selling": "He later regretted not selling" reads better. Also, put a colon before the ensuing quote, not a comma.  Done

• "has frequently been named as one of Britain's most admired businessmen" isn't fully supported by the citation (just one of them)

• "longest serving" --> "longest-serving". You also ought to mention how long he has served as CEO of a FTSE 100 company. You may also want to mention where he stands relative to other CEOs; is he the eighth-longest-serving CEO?

I have the date somewhere, I'm just concerned that it's the sort of information that becomes dated and incorrect *very* quickly. Farrtj (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Walsh is a non-executive" --> "has been a non-executive"  Done

• Further instances of "non-executive director" need a hyphen between "non" and "executive"  Done

• "In 2009 Walsh received criticism": I think "faced criticism" is slightly better.  Done

• "countered with the fact that" --> "said" substitutes well for these five words.  Done

• Generally speaking, I think the article's pretty good. It's certainly GA quality. But I think to reach FA it'll need plenty of massaging and modification. First, the use of block quotes is too prevalent. We should be describing, neutrally and accurately, who Paul Walsh is and what he's done. Quotes from him about him don't add much. Quotes from other people criticizing him are more germane and useful, I would suggest. I think the main thing the article needs is some more contextual meat if it's going to be comprehensive enough to pass FA. We need to know how Walsh fits into his competitive environment and the context of his deal-making. What were other people doing, and how does he compare to them? Lastly, are there no free pictures of him?--Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll confess that having researched this piece, I've ended up liking the guy. I hope a bias hasn't come through. I take your point, and I don't want to come across as promotional, but he genuinely has been a very successful CEO. I've been aware that the article has been lacking decent external commentary on Walsh, but I haven't been able to find anything worth using. And no, there are no free images of Walsh that I can find, sadly. Farrtj (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

---

The Truth (The X-Files)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if promoted to Featured Article one day. It is currently a Good Article, having been promoted earlier this year. Just recently, it was copy-edited and many of the sources were bulked up. Any review comments would be greatly appreciate!

Thanks, Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! As a fan of The X-Files I'm happy to give this one a go for you Gen Quon. It's great to see that you've put a lot of work in here and produced a good article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Introduction;

• The first sentence does not read very smoothly, primarily due to a problem with the following – "the collective name for the 201st and 202nd, as well as the final episodes". I suggest splitting this information into two separate sentences, one stating that these were the 201st and 202nd episodes, and another informing the reader that these constituted the finale to the entire series.
• "They originally aired on May 19, 2002, as part of the show's ninth season on the Fox network." Again, this is not a particularly smooth sentence. How about this as an alternative: "Both episodes aired on the Fox network on May 19, 2002, a part of the show's ninth season."
• "The episode was written by series creator" – but you have already stated that there were two episodes, so this reference to "episode" should be "episodes".
• ""The Truth" was the most watched episode of the ninth season, receiving a Nielsen rating of 7.5, attracting 7.5 percent of the available audience, being viewed by approximately 13 million viewers upon its initial broadcast." Was this the most watched episode across the globe or simply in the United States? This needs to be clarified. Furthermore, this sentence could really do with a rewrite; at the very least an "and" should go in before "being watched"...
• Specify whether David Duchovny is a character or an actor.
• "show centers on FBI special agents who work on cases linked to the paranormal, called X-Files;" Are the special agents called the "X-files" or are the cases called the "X-Files". This requires clarification.
• What are "Black helicopters" and why is the capitalization of "Black" required; indeed, why is the helicopter's colour even relevant ?
• "Carter has expressed an intent to make a third X-Files feature film that would focus on the impending alien invasion revealed in this episode, depending on the success of the 2008 film The X-Files: I Want to Believe." This final sentence seems a little dated considering that the second film has already appeared. I suggest an alternate sentence: "Carter would return to the X-Files universe with a second feature film, The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008), and has publicly discussed the possibility of a third film, which would focus on the impending extraterrestrial invasion revealed in "The Truth".
• Why is there no image in the right hand box, like there is for "Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)" ? If you have not yet done so, I would really recommend that you look at this page, which has already achieved an FA status, for ideas on how best to format this article.

Regarding the "Plot" section:

• "the final colonization of the planet." Specify that the colonization of the Earth is to be undertaken by extraterrestrials, allied with several human forces.

Regarding the "Writing" section:

• "What was kind of nice that Chris" – is there a word missing here ?
• "respect for the elegant in which" – again, is there a missing word that should be here, because it reads as if there is ?
• If you mention Frank Spotnitz, then link to him too.
• Who is Bruce Harwood and why does his opinion on this issue at all matter ? You must mention that he is an actor on the show.
• "elements that call-back to other installments" – would "reference earlier episodes" be preferable here ?
• "In addition, the second season episode "Red Museum," featured the adherents of the Red Museum, who believed that the year 2012 will bring about the dawning of The New Age." Why is this relevant information ? How does this relate to "The Truth". With Wikipedia articles like this, you have to be very explicit so that any reader – even those who have never seen an episode of The X-Files – will understand.
• "an event that the Mayans predicted" – of course, as any Mesoamerican archaeologist will tell you, the Mayan people never really predicted that the world will end in 2012. I think we need to make clear that this "Mayan Prophecy" appears in The X-Files, but in reality is hokum.
• "have all expressed their interests in making one" – this should be "interest", singular.

Regarding the "Casting" section:

• Specify who George W. Bush is.
• Perhaps briefly explain what The West Wing is.
• "season nine DVD"; I'd add "release" to the end of this sentence, just to clarify that the entire season 9 was not found on one singular DVD disk.

Regarding the "Filming" section:

• "spent four to five days to light the set for filming"; this should be corrected to "lighting the set".
• "Manners had to shot each scene"; this should be "shoot".
• What is an ATV ? Link to it.
• "featuring The Smoking Man being burnt up by a missile" Do you mean "blown up" ? Some clarification here would be nice.

Regarding the "Themes" section:

• "has been examined" By whom ? academics, journalists ?
• "as a from" This should be "form".
• "ironic reversal of her skepticism about the paranormal". If by "her" he means Scully, this should be stated.
• "during this scene, Mulder traps Scully's gold cross," -- this needs to be clarified; "traps" how exactly ?

Regarding the "Broadcast and reception" section:

• "heavily promoted The Cosby Show reunion" - how about "heavily promoted reunion of The Cosby Show", it just reads a little better to my ear.
• ""The Truth" did, however, place ahead of the season finale of The Practice"-- Get rid of the "did, however", and convert the "place" to "placed".
• "placing The X-Files number two in the top ten broadcasts" - replace "number two" with "second".
• "Kessenich, did however, maintain that, were" -- this could be tidied up.

On the whole, you really deserve to be congratulated for your work on this article, and once these problems that I have highlighted have been cleaned up, I really think that you should be ready to head on over to FA review. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for your review. I believe I have cleaned up most of the issues. I think I will take this to FAR now! Once again, thank you!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Ecology

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it was nominated for FA status in Sept. 20, 2011 and was knocked down right away. The reviewers left a list of concerns and all of those have since been addressed. Ecology is a very difficult subject matter to contend with, so I feel as though we are fighting an uphill battle. FA's on singe sports player biographies tend to list 200 references, ecology has over 2000 years of work to summarize spanning hundreds of thousands of articles, hundreds of textbooks, and you get the idea. After taking a long break from the article I managed to draw in several scientists with an interest in ecology to join in and assist in putting the article into shape. All the citations have been checked, a sentence-by-sentence copyedit has been completed, images have been checked, and after several years working on this I cannot think of where else to go with this. The history section has grown, shrunk, been chopped, grown, shrunk, and grown again. Every time it gets cut back it seems too incomplete - even with the main history of ecology page, it is difficult to summarize the history - evolution faces this same problem. The history section likely needs the most attention. A diverse peer-review from people with science and non-science background would be helpful, so the non-science background reviewer could flag concepts or parts that are too difficult to understand to a wider audience. Ecology is such an important topic matter that it would be wonderful for the public outreach on the subject matter to get this article up to a FA status. Comparatively, there are few natural science articles making it to the FA status so this is a worthwhile project that needs all the help we can find.

Thanks, Thompsma (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

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

---

Joseph Massino

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The first New York Mafia boss to turn state's evidence. I was planning on waiting until his next expected testimony before I make a push for FA, but apparently that won't be until next year.

There were two issues I still had after I got it to GA. First, in 2011 Massino apparently denied that he ordered the murder of Dominic Napolitano (see here) because he helped Joseph Pistone infiltrate the Bonanno family. The author, Jerry Capeci, is as reliable a source as anything else, but his weekly column Gang Land News is currently on his own subscription website, and no one else covered it. I only found out about it through non-RS sites, [3][4] and I'm not sure how to proceed (his archives don't even extend to 2011, so I can't get a link).

Second, I'm also not too sure about the order I listed the made men who turned state's evidence before Massino (starting here, continuing to next section).

Besides these, and making sure it's accessible for people not familiar with the Mafia, I don't know what else needs to be done before FAC.

Thanks, Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

---

List of Persona 4 characters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been tagged due to lack of references and in-universe style for a few years. I'm not sure whether the tags could be removed, but I was looking for more opinions regarding the prose's style and amounts of jargon. The length from the protagonist's section is considerably longer. Also, some characters listed here have almost no importance to the game's plot and I wondered whether they are suitable for Wikipedia.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The article looks good. However, some characters who have no importance on the list should be removed. We also need to use an out-of-universe style as well. We may need some game quote references as well. The length of the protagonist section needs to be trimmed down. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I still have to see what to remove from the Protagonist's section (probably the whole explanation about the Arcanas, it's full of nihongo). I was going to cite some parts from the other characters section but I decided to wait until seeing what characters are not worth mentioning. Maybe a user with more knowledge regarding the game could give an opinion regarding which.Tintor2 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add that you can cut down on the size of the article if you group the quotes together. I did something like that in List of Tales of Symphonia characters but the disadvantage would be is that you can't reuse the refs, as far as I know. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 14:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Maybe joining references from the artbook would reduce it a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I did a test in User talk:Tintor2/ draft removing two shop characters and the arcanas information. About 10 kylobites were lost leaving a draft with 111 kylobites. Still, once the PlayStation Vita will be released some more references would need to be added, so apparently there is more undue weight.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Murder of Celine Figard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article concerns the tragic story of a French student who was murdered as she embarked on a holiday in Britain in 1995. I started work on it on 22 August and have spent the last few days expanding and developing it into quite a comprehensive article. I think it has potential as a GA nomination so wanted to put it forward for a peer review to find out what else it might need. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Air discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having performed much work on the article, I would like to nominate the article as a featured list soon. Any additional fixes and comments before I proceed with a nomination would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Holiday56 (talk) 10:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why put compilation album in parentheses?, also numbers does not follow WP:ORDINAL which states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words..." Best, Jona^{talk to me} 01:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No compilation albums are mentioned in the article. If you are actually talking about the collaborative album, then it is placed in parentheses in the lead due to the fact that it has its own separate subsection in the studio albums section. I've changed the single-digit whole numbers to words now. Holiday56 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Discography needs to be wikilink
  • Based on my knowledge of featured lists, "discography" does not actually need to be wikilinked. Holiday56 (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• You could use a model article to help you (Mariah Carey albums discography)
  • I've use general featured list discography articles as models for my work on this article. Holiday56 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• No need for references in the lead (for chart performances, and certifications) since they are covered in the article body
  • Editors at peer reviews and featured list nominations have told me to reference chart positions in the lead, and I have continuously done so. Many featured lists reference charts in the lead, and as such I feel that it would be better to keep chart references in the lead. Holiday56 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Too many instances of "the album" and "the single" needs a variety
• The prose could be better, have you tried asking GOCE? Other than that, the article looks good. Best of luck, Jona^{talk to me} 13:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll undergo work on the prose, hopefully to add more variation to its structure. Holiday56 (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    

---

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like for the article to satisfy the FA criteria. I'd like some feedback on the current state of the article. A previous peer review went unreviewed.

Thanks, —DAP388 (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JS

• The article seems to represent a big effort. The references are very complete. Generally it does not read very well. The lead section of the article is not really great. It gets bogged down in details about casting and obtaining rights, and which actor played what part, and finishes with what seems to be a minor award for "Best Film Editing" - maybe there is a positive spin being put on the film's success?
• The long pieces of information about the main cast members in the Cast section should go into a section on "Casting" in the production. Bullet lists are not great things. They're unreadable for most people. Putting long paragraphs after each bullet point is clumsy.
• There is an awful lot on the title sequence. Maybe this needs a lead paragraph to explain why we are going to go into so much detail about the title sequence. At the moment it starts with Tim Miller, creative director for the title sequence, wanted to develop an abstract narrative that reflected the pivotal moments in the novel, as well as the character development of Lisbeth Salander. which is sort of strange, why should anyone care about Tim Miller wants? This needs to be introduced somehow. Is the title sequence famous or noteworthy? Is Tim Miller someone to care about? If so then put that first, right at the beginning, so the reader has some idea why there is a page or so of writing about it.
• The film's American release grossed $1.6M from its Tuesday night screenings - again this is kind of strange, why do I care about what the film grossed from Tuesday night screenings? Maybe some of this detail could be trimmed.
• Since the film is an adaptation of a book and there is another film, I would sort of expect to say something about the other film/book.
• Generally the article does not read very well, there is a very hurried feeling about it. It seems to be rushing to tell more and more things about the director and so on. For example,

  Principal photography began in Stockholm, Sweden in September 2010.[20] Production mostly took place at multiple locations in the city's central business district, including at the Stockholm Court House.[21] One challenge was realizing the Vanger estate. They picked an eighteenth century French architecture mansion located a few kilometers southwest of Stockholm.

  could be something like

  Principal photography began in Stockholm in September 2010,[20] mostly at locations in the business district, including the Stockholm Court House.[21] An eighteenth century French architecture mansion a few kilometers southwest of Stockholm was used for the Vanger Estate.

Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Mami Kawada

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article since around February, since she's one of my favorite J-Pop singers. When I first edited the article, it looked something like this, with few references and needing quite a bit of copy-editing. It currently looks like this. Still needing a lot of improvement, but at least it looks better now, and has more sources. I'm currently asking for some advice on how it can be improved further, what sources I can use, and how the information can be presented. My goal is to eventually bring the article to C or B-class, but I would want to have some clear goals first.

Thanks, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments

  The lead doesn't tell us who she is - Mami Kawada (川田まみ Kawada Mami?, born February 13) is a Japanese pop singer[1] from Sapporo, Japan who is currently signed to Geneon Universal Entertainment. She is also a member of the label I've Sound which performs soundtracks for eroge games and anime. - this is not very interesting stuff. The very first sentence goes into a discussion of what company she works for, rather than the main thing we want to know, why is there an article on Wikipedia about her? The very first thing to put at the very top of the article is "who is this person?" What is unique about her?

How should it be rephrased then? It does mention that she's notable because she performed theme songs for different anime, notably Please Teacher!, Shakugan no Shana and Toaru Majutsu no Index. She's notable because her songs charted on Oricon. Isn't that enough? And her real name is Mami Kawada. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering what you want to say about this person. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I did not expand this article. I am not the one who wrote most of the text. It was the now inactive user, my fellow Filipino Wikipedian FreddyJR who wrote most of it, along with those of the other I've Sound singers. Since he's now inactive, I have more or less taken over his role in expanding the article and fixing the grammar, but due to my inexperience in writing articles, I'm not actually sure what I should do next with the article. That is the reason why I decided to ask for advice here. Due to our policy on content about living people, I can pretty much include only what is found in reliable sources. Unfortunately, there appears to be little to no reliable coverage about her early life or career, so at least I can include that her songs charted and were used as theme songs in anime. I would want the article to become an actual biography, with details about her life, rather than being a discography in prose form. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Mami Kawada's vocal talent was first discovered by Eiko Shimamiya, who was her teacher at the latter's vocal school in Sapporo, Hokkaido. - the writing style is a bit weird, can you get rid of "the latter" somehow? Also surely there must be SOMETHING which happened before that? Or if not, then perhaps write she has not revealed her true identity, or something.

 Done revising the sentence. Unfortunately, there is practically no coverage about what happened before that, not even on her official website. We don't even know her year of birth, but then again it's a relatively common practice in Japan. Maybe I can find more information using Japanese sources, but there seems to be a lack of that as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Too much trivia - almost everything in the article seems to be basically trivia, about what chart positions her singles achieved, or what television programmes they accompanied. I hope this doesn't offend you but the impression is that she must be some kind of cutie-pie to make anyone want to bother collecting trivia about her, a bit like all the articles about Morning Musume members and sub-groups, where there is very little really to say so they make a long article consisting of nothing but trivia. Can you find anything interesting to say about her or show why she is significant?

Can you please explain what parts of the article are like trivia? They look encyclopedic to me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK then, put it another way: the article is a bit boring. What do you want to do with the article? What do you want to say about this person which is not included so far? JoshuSasori (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What do I want to do with the article? Bring it up to C-class or B-class. But again, as the article is a BLP, I should avoid allowing so much trivia facts, although I'm still not exactly sure which is the trivia there. What would really be appreciated would be more information about her early life. I know she's isn't as popular as Nana Mizuki or May'n, but at least there should be even brief biographical details. And I would really appreciate help on where to find such coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Meth mouth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to make this article a GA, or maybe even an FA someday, and would appreciate feedback on changes that would be needed before that point. This is the first article that I've written mostly using WP:MEDRS, so feedback about how I did on that would be appreciated. Also, feedback about wording and clarity would be nice. Also, is there anything that seems to be missing/good way to expand this? Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Minor point - I only skimmed MEDRS, but I assume you probably should explain who the study authors' are in the article itself (e. g. "Goodchild and Donaldson", but with no explanation of who they are in the main text.) Otherwise it looks pretty good. Maybe if one of the specific PSAs that use meth mouth pics is noteable in some way you could note it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, I think I've taken care of both. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Review by Churn and change:
  • Lead:
    • The citation needs to come out. Whatever is in there should be present and cited in the body. Also, the cited source doesn't seem to be accessible by the usual institutional subscription. That does point to a low-impact journal.
      • Ok, I took that out for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • More importantly, the controversy over whether "meth mouth" is truly a separate condition or a more general condition with no specific meth-related symptoms needs to be there in the lead.
      • I added a couple sentences, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The summary: "Legislators have responded by . . ." isn't borne out by the body text. Two legislators proposed a bill in 2007. Since the article doesn't mention anything else about it, I assume it didn't pass?
      • I don't think it did, but then a very similar bill was proposed in 2009, I can't find evidence of that passing either though. I removed the mention from the lead. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Cost of treating inmates taxing prison budget"—not supported in body text. The text tones it down to "some prisons" and the citations present this as largely a Midwest and South problem (NY Times says both, the Desert is focused on Utah).
      • Good point, I toned it down a bit. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Characteristics:
    • "Meth" is acceptable wording. Merriam Webster's doesn't mark it informal or colloquial in either its general dictionary or its medical dictionary. General and (2nd definition): medical Government agencies use it in fairly formal writing: Office of National Drug Control Policy. Helps relieve the tedium of reading methamphetamine over and over.
      • Ok, sounds good, I've done so. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Temporomandibular joint of the jaw is redundant; just "joint of the jaw" and linking to TMJ should be good.
      • Good point, changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The statement on xerostomia: perhaps the word should be introduced somehow before the quote. As it stands, the word is wikilinked and explained on its second occurrence for the technical reason the first occurrence is inside quotes.
      • Good point, I hadn't mentioned it in the characteristics section. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Parafunctional" habit is dentist jargon (perhaps not even general medical jargon) and should be briefly explained and not just wikilinked.
      • Ok, tried to add a brief explanation. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Treatment:
    • A tendency to lapse into jargon. What is "neutral fluoride"?
      • Good question, I'm not sure, so I've removed it for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Oral irrigator-->dental water jet is more understandable and equally correct.
      • Ok, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sialogogues, explained and wikilinked twice (once in the lead).
      • Changed. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Some ce needed here: increase protection against-->protect against.
      • Good catch, done. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • What is "artificial saliva"? The wikilink is a red link.
      • Whatever it is, it isn't very effective so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Society and culture:
    • The cited sources (NY Times and Desseret) present meth-mouth among jail inmages as a mid-west/south problem; by omitting that part, the article implies the statement applies to the whole US. Which may well be true, but is synth.
      • I see your point, rephrased. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Since late 2000s, members of the . . ., is misleading. The citations point to just one bill proposed in 2007, and, best I can make out from the article, dead by now.
      • Is "In the late 2000s, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives sought increased funding" Ok, or should I change it more? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Anti-drug efforts, including those of the Montana meth project . . .": the citation mentions just the Montana meth project. It does say other similar projects were starting in Arizona and elsewhere, but doesn't say they were using the same tactics and were in full flow. The citation is from 2009. Aren't there RSes reporting on how the projects are going, or have they been canned?
      • I rephrased this sentence. I believe that the Meth Project is still going strong, it sure helps to have a billionaire paying the bills, but a quick search doesn't turn up anything recent in terms of their use of meth mouth. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • References:
    • The Goodchild source seems to be cited by nobody in 5 years, at least per PUBMED. So with the Heng article. The Walter article is a new study and seemingly a primary source. It is so new it is still under a publication embargo.
      • I've removed the Heng and Walter sources, Google scholar is showing a few cites for the Goodchild source (if I'm searching right). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • General: The photo: how do we nonexperts know this is a reliable depiction of meth mouth? Shouldn't the photo itself be from a reliable source, instead of being a personal upload? There is one here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/ A fair use rationale would probably work. Here is one award from NIH for researching meth-mouth: http://www.ada.org/news/4432.aspx The funding is for 1.86 mil.
    • Ok, I noted the grant in the article. As far as the image goes, all we have is that the uploader said it was a suspected case of meth mouth. So unfortunately, I guess we have to part with it. I doubt we'll be able to use a fair use, since it's technically possible to get a confirmed picture of meth mouth. Image issues are such a pain here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Hey, thanks so much for taking a look at this, I really appreciate it. I'll try to get these points taken care of ASAP. I marked the ones I've done for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt.

• Only a few

Lede:

• The first sentence of the second paragraph implies that the reason it's hard to treat meth mouth is the danger of behavior from the patient, then why is the term "medically dangerous" used?

• Yeah, the biggest danger is that the reaction between dental anesthetic and meth is potentially fatal. Less of a risk of a dentist getting punched by a tweaker, although one article mentioned that. I've rephrased a bit for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• The prison expense: Same thing, the treatment seems to involve the patient's time and inclination, rather than that of professionals, so why the cost? (I see from reading later that it's the cost of treating methamphetamine abuse in general. Clarification encouraged).

• • Ok, I tried to clarify that sentence in the lease. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Characteristics

• Suggest using common terms in parentheses when dental terms which aren't immediately clear (like buccal) are used.

• • Ok, added one for now, will watch for more. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Parallels have been drawn between the effects of meth mouth and early childhood caries and Sjögren's syndrome," Are the parallels drawn among all three? Some small adjustment may be needed here.

• • Ok, adjusted. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• " hydrochloric acid, used the manufacturing process of meth, contributes to dental decay, no academic reviews have supported the idea." Perhaps you should clarify that it is the use of hydrochloric acid in the manufacturing procedure, rather than the substance in general, that you are referring to here.

• • Good catch, rephrased. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Society

• "members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives" Awkward. Can you combine into "Congress" or rephrase around?

• • Good catch. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

General comment

• The fact that there's little medical literature on this condition may cost you if you bring it to FAC.

Hmm, I haven't brought any topics like this to FAC. I know they're strict on medical articles there though. Well, I'll do my best. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's about it. I won't call it a pleasant read!  :)

---

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there was several important Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart anniversaries in the past year, the most notable being on 5 December 2011, the 220th anniversary of the composer's death. Mozart was a well known composer of the classical period internationally. I am currently revising and updating it to get this article to at least a GAN or FAC. Editors, including Opus33, have been very generous in trying to help improve the article. I would like to welcome any further comments or suggestions on how we should improve the article.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

JS comments

• Lead section has some weird bits, e.g. Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood in Salzburg. or was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era - it is written like it must cram facts and adjectives into a sentence. Should just write e.g. Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood. without the Salzburg at the end, or was a prolific and influential composer without cramming in the "Classical era". The lead section generally seems badly-written compared to the rest of the article. Also then it talks about his death, then suddenly there is another paragraph after that which is partly repeating what is in the first paragraph. It is a bit surprising that the lead is like this when the rest of the article is so well-written. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• A major problem with the article at present is the proliferation of uncited statements. These occur throughout the text, but with increasing frequency in the later sections, particularly the "Style" section where entire paragraphs are citation free. Some of the statements in these sections read as strongly opinionated.
• Overall the article is slight, bearing in mind Mozart's towering significance. Compare the (featured article) biographies of such as Tchaikovsky, Elgar, Rimsky-Korsakov and even relatively minor figures such as Walton and Delius. I am not suggesting that the Mozart article should be padded out with trivial information on the composer's life, but in terms of discussion of the impact of major works such as the late operas, the Requiem etc, details are sparse to non-existent. Da Ponte is mentioned in passing, but the nature and importance of his relationship with Mozart is scarecely examined. The "Influences" section is terribly thin; surely Mozart's enduring legacy needs to be expressed more convincingly than this?
• Suffice it for me to say that at present this is nowhere near a featured article. In my view, it will require much dedicated work by (probably) several editors, to get the article into a FA-worthy condition. Not impossible of course, but bear in mind that there are more than 800 registered page-watchers, many of whom may want a say on whatever the working editors decide to do; many of these watchers will be well-informed. I don't want to discourage you, but it is best to be realistic; there are practical reasons why featured composer biographies tend to be mainly on those of the second or lower ranks, rather than Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Handel, Wagner etc.
• There is, however, another approach which might have some merit. There are numerous subarticles connected to the WAM article via "see also" links: Mozart family grand tour, Mozart in Italy, Haydn and Mozart, Mozart and Freemasonry, Mozart's Berlin journey, Death of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Mozart and Roman Catholicism, Mozart and scatology, Mozart and Beethoven, Mozart's compositional method – not to mention the numerous articles on individual major works. Rather than concentrating on bringing the WAM article itself to featured standard, work on improving the the subarticles, at least a couple of which are already featured articles in their own right. The WAM article itself could remain as a deliberately terse signpost to this array of detailed accounts, while remaining relatively free of detail itself (this approach would possibly have benefitted certain other composer biographies!). Because featured articles are required to stand on their own as comprehensive accounts of their subject, this approach might close off the FA option as far as WAM is concerned, but it could, overall, provide a better servive to the large number of avid Mozart readers. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Eraserhead

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this fella's heading to FAC within the next few weeks and I'd like a few extra stern sets of eyes on it in the meantime. There's only one more major source for me to find and include; the DVD has a 90-minute feature which I'm hoping will let be expand the post-production information a little but I would assume it will repeat a lot of what is already present. I'm also not too concerned about the breadth of the Themes section as every author has a different take and rather than list every single interpretation I've gone with those that seem to be common to a few authors; though obviously there's still room to improve it. And for those who haven't seen the film yet, go do so. It's good.

Thanks, GRAPPLE X 06:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Great to see your work here Grapple X. I'm popping out the house soon, but just gave the introduction a quick look over, with a few points of improvement:
  • If you link to body horror then you should probably link to surrealism too.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd mention that either the film is American or that Lynch is American. Perhaps refer to "American filmmaker David Lynch" ? All too often, pages reach FA-status without even mentioning that the subject of the article is American; this clearly betrays an ingrained American bias within the English-language Wikipedia, an assumption that being American is somehow the assumed norm. Not to attack you for this Grapple X, but its just something that Western Europeans like myself get up in arms about!

    See, I had assumed that the mention of the American Film Institute covered this enough to avoid repeating it elsewhere; much as how I wouldn't specify that the British Academy of Film and Television Arts are English. I could slot it in if you'd like but if I did then I'd probably rework the first two paragraphs to move the AFI mention into the second one instead to avoid repetition. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that it is repetitive to state both that Lynch is American and that the film was produced through the American Film Institute. It is perfectly plausible that a non-American might study at that particular institution, just as Lynch himself tried, in early life, to study in Europe. I don't really mean to be pushy here, but I really think the inclusion of "American filmmaker David Lynch" would be of real benefit to the average reader Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, added. Was toying with the idea of going for state of origin but since it's Pennsylvania and not Montana that figures heavily in the film I figured it would just confuse things. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "through the American Film Institute during the director's time studying there" : where is the American Film Institute ? You should mention that it is in Philadelphia because that city was so influential to Lynch's mindset when creating the movie.

    It's in California; Philadelphia is where Lynch had lived before moving there (and where he had studied fine art). I've added a mention of the AFI's location though that really strengthens my belief that calling either the film or Lynch "American" might be redundant to having specified it was produced in America by the AFI.

    • Ah, my mistake. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "in a strange industrial landscape" needs to be changed. "Strange" is a very POV word; what one person considers strange might be perfectly normal to another. Perhaps replace with "unnamed industrial landscape" or something of that nature ?

    That was meant to imply the surrealism of the film; would just using "surreal" work instead? GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The word "surreal" could be used, but again, I don't think everyone would necessarily concur that the industrial landscape was particularly "surreal" seeing as how there are parts of the world that genuinely look rather like this; instead, it is the events and characters of the film that are more "surreal". It would also be problematic because we already use the word "surrealism" in the opening sentence, and it fits nicely there. We could use something like "anonymous industrial landscape" perhaps, to emphasise that the location of the film is left a mystery ? Midnightblueowl (talk)

I've gone with "desolate". It might seem a little strong but the actual exteriors in the film are generally devoid of anyone but the immediate focus of the scenes (mostly just Spencer but there's the kid who finds his head too). It covers the emptiness that "anonymous" would suggest while also suggesting the off-putting nature of it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• • I think that this single sentence on the film's plot could be extended or complemented by a second sentence, discussing some of the other activities that Henry gets up to in Eraserhead.

    Added a second sentence mentioning the dream vision stuff, and naming the Lady in the Radiator. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "locations owned by the AFI" -- who are the AFI ? I assume that they are the American Film Institute, but you have not mentioned this acronym previously in the introduction.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you could mention that this was Lynch's first full-length feature in the introduction ? Not essential, but could be of benefit.

    Added, along with the below point. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Perhaps mention that the film is in black-and-white (although I assume that there is a better technical term for this) ?
• I'll go through the rest of the page when I get the chance. All the best from a fellow Lynch-lover, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comments, I look forward to anything else you have to offer. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm all happy with the Plot section as it currently stands. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the "Pre-production" section:
  • Perhaps give Lynch's birth year in brackets ? Not essential, but it might interest the reader to know how old he was when he created Eraserhead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Added it in prose; "However, by 1970, he had switched his focus to film-making, and at the age of 24 he accepted a scholarship at the American Film Institute Centre for Advanced Film Studies". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • In the first paragraph, you use "However" to open two sentences in succession; one of these will have to be removed (I recommend the latter). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Removed the second one. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Lynch disliked the course, and considered dropping out when he was offered the chance to produce a script of his own devising." This could be misconstrued as implying that Lynch was considering leaving because he has been offered to produce his own script, so I recommend we change this wording.

    Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "In addition, Greystone Mansion, also owned by the AFI, was used for a large number of scenes" – add the "for" in, as it is currently missing from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Yep, added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "Several board members at the AFI were still opposed to producing such a surrealist work" – only a few sentences previously, you have referred to "such a surrealist", so I think that in this instance we need to find a replacement.

    Changed the first instance to "figurative" ("such a figurative, nonlinear script"). GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Include the years of publication of Metamorphosis and "The Nose" in order to inform the reader that these works were not contemporary with Lynch.

    Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You include a picture of Kafka, but why not Gogol too ? We could stick the two of them in a double image box.

    Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "a rough neighborhood in Philadelphia" – is there a better way of phrasing this ? "a poverty-stricken neighbourhood with high crime rates" ?? Something like that; again, not essential.

    Hmm. Crime is mentioned quite quickly afterwards and I'm not convinced the sources portray poverty so much; there's no indication that the Lynchs were struggling to get by for example. I've changed it to "a troubled neighborhood". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Who is Greg Olson. Is he a film critic ? An academic ?

    Film critic, I believe. Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "In one extreme example of this labored schedule, one scene" – the word "one" is used here in quick succession.

    Changed to "an extreme example". GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  • "and retained his unorthodox hairstyle for the entirety of its gestation" – nowhere previously have we mentioned the hairstyle (one to which I must admit to having sported at a certain point of my life :p) and so the reader might be a little bemused here. I think greater explanation is needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

    Clarified a little; there's also the film poster to demonstrate it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Filming" section:

• "of the AFI wishing" – "of the AFI's wish" would read more smoothly

  Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we link to sound design then we should probably also link to cinematography.

  Fair enough; I went with the former as it's more uncommon but both doesn't hurt. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "the bizarre child" is POV wording; what is "bizarre" to one individual is not to another. How about "deformed child" ?

  Fair enough. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe add the dates of The Elephant Man and Dune in brackets; after all, we state the date of Twin Peaks' Episode 2.

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe link to vegetarianism; surprisingly perhaps, the very concept is unknown in large swathes of Europe and perhaps other areas of the world too.

  This may explain why my old flatmates were so loudly evangelical about it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Post-production" section:

• Perhaps link to test screening ?

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Soundtrack section seems fine to me.

Regarding the Themes section:

• "in films such as David Fincher's 1995 film Seven and the Coen brothers' 1991 film Barton Fink" – the word "film" becomes a bit repetitive here.

  Changed one "works", one to "thriller" (Seven) and one to "comedy" (Barton Fink). That should lessen the use of "film" throughout the heading from 14 to 11 uses. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps a bracket date for Blue Velvet and The Angriest Dog in the World ?

  Done. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps link to subconscious, pacifistic and fatalistic ?

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Release" section seems fine as it is, but I wonder if it could be extended with a short discussion of the midnight movie scene of the 1970s, perhaps with reference to the likes of El Topo and Pink Flamingos. Eraserhead was, after all, a key part of this scene.

There's mention in the "Legacy" section of a documentary that covers this scene; I could expand it there by a sentence to mention that the doc also covers those two films (as well as Night of the Living Dead, The Rocky Horror Picture Show and The Harder They Come). GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd definately include a sentence or two on the role Eraserhead played in the midnight movie scene, and perhaps explain what that scene was to start with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Reception" section:

• Un Chien Andalou and L'Age d'Or could have dates bracketed to them; as should Georges Franju film Blood of the Beasts.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• We should mention Luis Buñuel in the text if we are to include a picture of him.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you link to body horror then you should probably also link to black humour

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• "acid-tripping" should be linked to LSD.

  Got it. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "Legacy" section:

• Perhaps include dates when referring to Lynch's many other works.

  Any not already dated now are. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Add the date for Begotten.

  Added. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's about it from me, Grapple X. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and heartily congratulate you for it. It has my support for going on to achieve FA status, and feel free to gimme a message if you ever need someone to help you in achieving that or reviewing any other Lynch-based articles. Best Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot; your comments have been really helpful. My next FAC's definitely going to be Lynch-based; either this or another Twin Peaks episode, so I'll keep you posted if you'd like. Thanks again! GRAPPLE X 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:
• What does "The film was produced through the American Film Institute (AFI) during the director's time studying there." this mean, specifically that "film was produced through the American Film Institute". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

  The conservatory would have supplied the cameras, microphones, lighting etc, some limited funding, and that kind of thing. I haven't seen any specifics but given the equipment that, for example, Alan Splet had access to despite the budget problems, it's safe to say that the AFI, like any university's film school, was the one handing out the gear. GRAPPLE X 22:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Gardenback was a surrealist script about adultery, which featured an continually growing insect representing one man's lust for his neighbor. Gardenback..." Is there a way to avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word here? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed it. GRAPPLE X 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• What makes "Stewart, Mark Allyn (2007). David Lynch Decoded. AuthorHouse. ISBN 1434349853." a reliable source? AuthorHouse is a Self-publishing company. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing really stands out but the sole use of the book is to cite his own interpretation of the film's themes, which is directly attributed to him in-text; it seemed an interesting interpretation which added something to proceedings rather than repeating them. I could find something else instead but the source isn't being used to ascribe words, actions or facts beyond what the author's own opinion is. GRAPPLE X 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, use your best judgment then, but it might come up at FAC too. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. A book with a similar publishing history (Michelle Bush's Myth-X) was used for my last FAC (Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)) for a similar purpose so I'm confident it should be okay; I doubt I'd consider using the source if it wasn't just to cite its author's opinion. GRAPPLE X 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been speculated that the prop may have been constructed from a skinned rabbit or a lamb's fetus." This is basically Ok, but you might want to note someone notable who speculated this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Added. GRAPPLE X 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if there's a good way around it, but the last paragraph of "Filming" feel like it doesn't flow well. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  It is a bit kitchen-sinkish. Any suggestions on where the information might be better put to use? GRAPPLE X 17:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, but I'll keep my eyes open. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "BBC's Almar Haflidason awarded Eraserhead three stars" Should this be "The BBC's Almar Haflidason awarded Eraserhead three stars"? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'll double check but you could be right. I have an ohrwurm of Fiona Bruce just saying "something something from BBC" but at the same time I can picture George Alagiah using the article. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, "the BBC" would be correct (at least according to BBC). Fixed it. GRAPPLE X 18:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

  lol. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Reception" is pretty heavy on the word "described" or different forms of it, try for some more variation. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Harry S. Truman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to get this article back to FA level and would appreciate a review at that level.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 21:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Mitt Romney

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because several people have suggested it prior to another FAC attempt. (If you're wondering if it's a good idea to make featured a BLP of a high-profile, active candidate like this, there is strong precedent for it. In 2008, the Barack Obama article was FA through the campaign, and the John McCain article became FA during his time as presumptive nominee.) I'm interested in any kind of feedback, but especially on issues of language usage, style, formatting, and the like. (There are lots of editors here looking at content, as you would expect, but few that see it through the prism of MoS conformance, and I tend to lose editorial 'distance' after working on it so much.)

Thanks, Wasted Time R (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• "He signed into law the Massachusetts health care reform legislation": I'm fairly apolitical and I don't know anything about the history of this article and any compromises that have been made ... but in general, it's best for the tone of the lead to match the tone of the article. The article makes a clear case that he promoted the legislation; generally, when news sources report only that an official "signed" a bill, without previously or currently saying that they did anything else with the bill, that puts some distance between the politician and the bill, so I don't think that wording is accurate in this case. "He promoted and later signed" would work for me, although I understand that some editors feel that "promoted" can in some contexts have a slightly negative connotation. (Damn, I have to be so careful with copyediting political articles! What a pain.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. More than promoting it, he also was one of the ones responsible for creating it, so I've changed it to "He helped develop, and signed into law, the ..." Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I copyedited down to Mitt Romney#University, France mission, marriage, and children: 1965–1975. I need to think about how involved I want to get here before I continue; there are things that don't sound right ("well-groomed appearance", and describing his various states of mind), but I would have to ask a lot of questions to figure out what should and shouldn't be changed. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your copyedits. The only one that is a problem is the shortening of "... some of which he later said may have gone too far and apologized for". This was compromise wording after a lonnnng debate that ran across four or five Talk archives, so it needs to be left as is (and another editor has already backed it out). As for continuing on, that's of course completely up to you. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for checking my edits. Legal writing, for instance, is full of redundancy; I'm completely okay with redundancy if that's what was needed to get everyone on board. I'll think about continuing in the morning; I need to think about whether my skill set is up to it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, thought about it. Many things in the article represent consensus, and by that measure, they're fine like they are. When the article hits FAC, then it's up to the editing community how much you guys want to bend in order to accommodate FAC ... but there are things I don't want to ask for except in the context of FAC. Also ... I'm really pressed for time, and it would be nice not to have to do this twice before it gets through FAC. (If someone opposes at FAC based just on prose, I'll explain why I waited.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I will have to review this in segments, as time allows; at present I have only looked at the first few sections. Very briefly, thus far my main concerns are about overlinking, some awkwardness in the prose, and overdetailing, particularly in the "Private equity" subsection. I have detailed these concerns in the list of issues below:

Lead

• "Romney entered the management consulting industry, which led in 1977 to a position at Bain & Company." Needs rephrasing. Suggestion: "Romney entered the management consultancy industry, and in 1977 secured a position at Bain & Company".

Did the phrasing change. Web searches show that "management consultancy" is the British term, while "management consulting" is the American term.

• " Later serving as chief executive officer..." → " Later serving as Bain's chief executive officer..."

Changed to "Later serving as its chief executive officer ..." I try to never say just "Bain", because it's ambiguous between the two firms.

• "relaunch" is not hyphenated in any of my dictionaries

Fixed here and in article body.

• Wikilinks on "France" and "chief executive officer" are in my view unnecessary overlinking.

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Early life and education

• The "see also" link, placed between the main section heading and the first subsection heading, creates an untidy gap. It gives the impression that there is no text to follow the heading. Since there are individual links to all the Romney family members as they are mentioned, I wonder if the "see also" is necessary at all.

I put it under the "Heritage and youth" subsection, which is what it pertains to. It's necessary because there are a lot of other members in the greater Romney clan that aren't mentioned here.

• "Romney was preceded in birth by three siblings: Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott. Mitt followed after a gap of nearly six years." Rather stiff and heavy-footed. Suggest: "Romney followed his three siblings—Margo Lynn, Jane LaFount, and G. Scott—after a gap of nearly six years".

Done.

• Use of "Mitt" and "Romney". It's OK to call him Mitt when describing his childhood years, but once he becomes "Romney" he should stay that way (unless it is necessary to distinguish him among other Romneys) He becomes "Romney" in the fourth paragraph of the "Heritage and youth" subsection, but in the next subsection we have "Mitt was nervous that she had been wooed by others while he was away", and "Mitt said that U.S. involvement in the war had been misguided". "Mitt" also appears in two of the image captions in this section. I suggest you purge the rest of the article for stray "Mitts".

I changed the "Mitt was nervous" one, but all of the others are in the context of other family members of the same name. So for example "Mitt's father George ..." seems better to me than "Romney's father George" (not parallel) or "Romney's father George Romney" (too many 'Romney's) or "Mitt Romney's father George Romney" (ditto). I think this is allowed per WP:SURNAME "Family members with the same surname".

• Brit readers require a link on "sophomore"

Since this context had a year associated with it already, I just removed this.

• Why hide Lansing with a link?

Changed.

• Reconsider these links: "conservative", "civil rights", "ice hockey", "southern France", "basement apartment". I also question the appropriateness of the link on the phrase "that prohibits alcohol", that goes to the Words of Wisdom article. There are a number of these extended prose links throughout the article, an aspect which you should also reconsider; the excess of blue print becomes extremely tiresome.

I unlinked "ice hockey" and "southern France". But "conservative" means something very different in modern America from other places and times, so that needs to be linked. "Civil rights" is also a reference to a specific movement in American during the 1950s and 1960s. As for extended prose links, I use those to indicate the specificity of the link. For example, "converted to the Mormon faith" as the link text says that the link will describe conversion to Mormonism specifically; if I just linked "converted", that could be a general article on religious conversion, that the reader might not feel is pertinent enough to follow. Ditto for something like "May 1968 general strike and student uprisings"; if I just link "May 1968", some readers may just think it's a general link to things that happened during that month. As for the "sea of blue" effect, to me all articles look like that, no matter how much or how little they are linked. I think the solution is for the MediaWiki software to have an easily findable setting to turn off links if they bother the reader. Doing a "Print preview" also accomplishes this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Homemaker" should be linked at first, not second mention

Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Business career

• "Management consulting" or "management consultancy"? The latter seems a more professional description

See above.

• Awkward phrasing: "The practice at that firm, learned by Romney, was to immerse the firm in a client's business[57][67] and not just issue recommendations, but work with the client until changes were implemented." Surely could be expressed better. And the sentence has five citations associated with it, which seems excessive.

Reworded and cites reduced to two (the others were to support the "Bain way" term, but an admin removed that term as non-neutral).

• "Bill Bain offered him the chance to head a new venture that would buy into companies, have them benefit from Bain techniques, and then reap higher rewards than consulting fees." Something wrong with the sentence construction here. Who, or what, is to "reap higher rewards than consulting fees"?

Reworded to clarify.

• "Romney spent little money on costs such as office appearance, and saw weak spots in so many potential deals that by 1986, few had been done." First, these are two unconnected facts inappropriately joined by an "and". Secondly, as the firm evidently started trading in 1985, it's perhaps not as surprising as you imply that it had concluded few deals by 1986.

Removed the first part, altered and relocated the second part.

• "He ran Bain Capital for fourteen years..." Pronoun inappropriate, as Romney has not been named for several sentences.

Changed.

• "...during which time the firm's average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent.[61] Much of this profit was earned from a relatively small number of deals; Bain Capital's overall success–to–failure ratio was about even". The Internal rate of return linked article will be gibberish to many of your readers, and they may not understand "realized investments" either. So I think this sentence will be either not understood or misunderstood. Maybe it could be rephrased in more general language.

Found a second source that stated the same thing in less technical language, so did that in article too, and relocated to better spot.

• This is a long article, and at this point I am thinking there is far, far too much detail about the workings of Bain Capital. I fear you will not keep your readers, or they will skip over this section. It is possible to be comprehensive without accumulating exhaustive detail, and I would suggest that this section could be cut by about half.

I hear you, but this is the most important and controversial period of Romney's life. It's the raison d'être for his political career, including his current presidential campaign, and it illustrates a lot of the fault lines in how people view modern American capitalism. I will concede that it's been made even longer by some additions due to news stories regarding his separation from Bain Capital that could fairly be labelled recentism ... but after long Talk discussions and various edits, what's in the section now seems to be something all the editors involved can live with. So as a practical matter, I don't see this section getting much shorter. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you allow me an edit for brevity in this section? We can work out details if needed.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit :-) Go for it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I trimmed the section by approximately 50%, removing what I felt were details that need not be there to get the same point across.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. You've eliminated the entire paragraph ("Bain Capital's leveraged buyouts sometimes led to layoffs [... through ...] Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most fees in such cases.") that speaks to the negative side of what Bain Capital did. And you've kept in the minutiae of his leave of absence arrangements. Not exactly what I was expecting. But we'll see what others think ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I removed portions of what I felt went into too much detail about the company on the biography and seemed critical of Romney by being critical of the company. I felt such criticism was best left on the Bain page, but felt the fees were directly tied to section narrative-this company having specific records in income generation. Not just a negative really. (I didn't write the stuff, I just edited for brevity and a slight general edit to adapt) I am more than willing to return something that you feel strongly about but thought the section still reflected what it did before but without too much detail on Bain alone.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

First, realize that not every reader is going to look at the Bain Capital article - for this month, the Romney article has 784,000 views while the Bain Capital article has 73,000 views - that's a 10:1 ratio. But more importantly, in your reduction you've kept all the firm's success stories but removed all of their failures. That doesn't seem balanced at all! To the extent that Romney is responsible for the good, he's responsible for the bad as well. Why is success eligible for both the Bain Capital and Romney articles, but failure eligible for only the Bain Capital article? I've read a lot of detailed, mainstream biographical profiles of this period of Romney's life, and all of them cover the failures in a fair amount of depth. Who are we to say that those should be ignored? What Romney and Bain Capital did is not just an abstract exercise in financial manipulations - it had a real effect on real people - this article has to describe that too.

Aside from that, I disagree with some of your other removals too. Most important is what made Bain Capital different from every other VC/LBO outfit, which is that it applied Bain & Co. consulting techniques to the companies they did deals with. That was the synergy between the two Bain's; it was their 'secret sauce', so to speak. His opting out of the deal that involved R-rated films is not important to Bain Capital itself, but does illustrate how he handles conflicts between the business world and his faith, so is relevant biographically. In contrast, as I indicated above, I think some of the minutiae of his leave of absence arrangements should really be shipped into a Note.

I also want to revisit the notion that this section was too long. As it stands now with your reduction, at 754 words, this section is now shorter than the 1965-75 section (1125 words) and the 2008 campaign section (935 words), and about the same as the 1994 race (704 words), and the 2002 Olympics (785 words). Yet this section covers 15 years, longer than any of those other periods, and it covers the second most important portion of his life so far (next to his governorship) in terms of actual effect upon the world . It should be long, relative to the other sections.

We haven't seen the rest of Brianboulton's comments, but I suspect he's going to think that some of the other sections are too long as well. I'm sympathetic to the argument that at 11,000 words, the whole article was too long for someone whose career basically comes down to running a firm and being a one-term governor. (That length is actually an advantage to us editors, in that it reduces the howls of outrage of 'Why doesn't this article include X!?') But if a size reduction is in order, I think it should be looked at holistically, across the whole article, and not just on this one section. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been 48 hours, and Amadscientist hasn't further responded, despite being active on other articles during this time. I'm restoring the section to how it was before the 50 percent reduction, for the reasons I have given. I agree that the length and clarity of this section is a valid topic, as it is for the whole article, and per Brianboulton subsequent comment just below, we should return to it once his review is complete. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone involved with this article, I'd like to agree with Brianboulton that the Business career section is much too long and difficult to read. The subsection on Bain Capital is especially so, even though it's supposed to be a summary of the sub-article. In addition to pruning material from the Business career section (and moving some of it to pertinent sub-articles), some of this material could be moved within the article to the section on the 2012 campaign, because the material only became notable as a result of the campaign.64.134.98.120 (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between this section of this article and the Bain Capital article is not main-to-subarticle, and this section is not supposed to summarize that article. That is, some material about Romney at Bain Capital is really Romney-oriented and belongs only in this article; some material about Bain Capital is not especially Romney-oriented and belongs only in that article; and a fair amount of material is important to both and belongs in both. As for material being moved to the 2012 campaign section, I totally disagree. First of all, what happened at Bain Capital has been a topic in all his campaigns, not just this one, and I'm sure you wouldn't want to replicate it four times. Secondly, this applies to other aspects of his biography as well - you can't move the whole discussion of Romneycare out of the governorship section and into the 2012 section just because Santorum kept bashing him about it during the primaries. Thirdly, pretty much everything in this article became magnified by the fact that he's a politician and a presidential nominee. If he was still just the managing partner of a private equity firm, even if he was worth $3B by now, he's have a really short article if any. That doesn't mean we shove all the biographical narrative into one big campaign section. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then I guess the obvious question is why are there so many sub-articles for Mitt Romney, but none for his business career? Suppose you have a BLP about person X having sections on five distinct phases of his life, each equally important; four of the sections are short summary sections, but one is very long because there's no sub-article. Isn't that a glaring undue weight problem?64.134.98.120 (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Biographical subarticles = lots of duplicate work for editor + extremely low readership = avoid until absolutely necessary. The two longest sections in this article should be business career and governorship, because those are when he had the most effect on his life and/or on the world, and they are. And main article weights should never vary based on whether there are subarticles or not. If a section about a particular period is worth six paragraphs, it's worth six regardless of whether someone comes along and writes a fifteen paragraph subarticle on that period. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. If there is a sub-article, then that sub-article should be summarized in the main article, per WP:Summary style. And there ought to be a sub-article about his business career. The info in this section is overly detailed. The precise amounts or percentages of income that he paid in taxes, the precise international locations where his blind trust has deposited funds, and much more is excruciatingly boring to read. And you won't find anything like it in other BLPs, including for other rich presidential candidates like Ted Kennedy or James Cox or John Kerry or the like.24.181.178.235 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (also IP 64.134)

Try this thought experiment: Imagine the perfect article, with everything in balance and consistently weighted down to a moderate level of detail. In this perfect article, a particular section is six paragraphs. Now, somebody else comes along and writes a long subarticle corresponding to that section that drills down to a much great level of detail. That does not mean that the perfect article is suddenly imperfect, and that the six-paragraph section has to be boiled down to two or three paragraphs. The perfect article should remain unchanged, except for the addition of a "main" hatnote at the start of that section.

That being said, the Romney article is hardly perfect. And I agree that the "Personal wealth" section is in danger of becoming a magnet for a bunch of random facts about his finances. Right now the article is numerically dominated by editors who view the article as a collection of facts that can be backed with sources, rather than a coherent whole that is consistent within itself and with other articles regarding structure and level of detail. Will have to keep an eye on it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

When this article was pending as a good article in March 2011, I supported your position then Wasted Time R, that no Business career sub-article was necessary. You and I prevailed in that respect, and overcame the reviewer's concerns that the section was too long. I said:

“ IMO, the key point here is that he did not run for political office until 47 years old, and he had a successful life and business career before that. So, it seems appropriate to devote as much space to it as this article currently does. In other words, I don't think the article is unfocused in that respect quite yet. But, if the sections on the pre-political career get longer, I would support starting a sub-article and summarizing it here. Maybe call the sub-article "Early life and business career of Mitt Romney". ”

The Business career section was then 1300 words. Now it is 1800 words. Because the section is now much longer than 1300 words, I strongly support a sub-article and strongly support only having a summary in the main Mitt Romney article. The main Mitt Romney article will never make featured article while the section is this long and tedious. Also, much of the article's instability is due to haggling about this overly-detailed section. It is also becoming a POV problem, because it plays into Romney's opponents to over-emphasize minutae about his finances. Brianboulton is right that the section is too long. Amadscientist is right that the section is too long. I agree with them.64.251.57.46 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)(Also IP 24.181)

I've gone back to the version that came out of GA approval and arranged the text into the same subsections we are using now for Business career. Here are the comparisons:

• Out of GA: Management consulting 315 words, Private equity 943 words, Personal wealth 111 words, total 1369.
• Currently: Management consulting 280 words, Private equity 1246 words, Personal wealth 220-333 words depending upon edit warred version chosen, total 1746-1859.

The original Brianboulton comment, and the Amadscientist reduction edit, were about the Private equity section, whereas you seem to be mostly upset about the Personal wealth section. I think I can get the Private equity section back to around where it was before. Personal wealth is another matter, I think the genie is at least partly out of the bottle on that one. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the length of the Business career section as a whole, including unnecessary detail therein. Would you be opposed to my creating a sub-article? Such a sub-article could also include stuff omitted from this main article, like searching in NYC for the missing 14-year-old daughter of a partner, and putting through medical school the daughter of another partner who died suddenly. I'm not sure where to put that he delivered firewood to a single mother whose heat was cut off, or that he rescued a family from drowning in 2003.64.134.98.120 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My hope has been that no further subarticles would be created until and unless he gets elected, at which point they become inevitable. Biographical subarticles usually get 1/100th the readership of the main article, and aren't worth the effort that editors put into them. In any case, a joint "Early life and business career of Mitt Romney" as you mention above doesn't make sense to me, because his business career runs until 2002 and age 55, hardly 'early' (and later still if you count boards of directors). I'm sure that an "Early life of Mitt Romney" isn't needed right now - of the five American politicians who have such articles, four are presidents (McCain is the exception, basically due to his time as a POW, which was much written about well before he ever ran for president), and I don't think anything in Mitt's early life warrants a separate article at this point. If there's anything that's too long now, it can just be cut. As for a "Business career of Mitt Romney", I had been hoping that the Bain Capital and Bain & Company articles could serve to take up any extra material, although as I point out above, there isn't an exact relationship between them and we can't overweight those articles with Romney-era material. And while there are plenty of "Governorship of ..." and "Military career of ..." subarticles, there don't seem to be "Business career of ..." subarticles - the closest I could find is Professional life of George W. Bush. So my preference would be to continue along the current path and see what the election brings.

As for the good deeds, I was close to adding the daughter search at one point, then I found a story somewhere that tried to make the case that it had been exaggerated, and I haven't gone back yet to sort it out. The Lake Winnipesaukee episode happened while Romney was governor and could be included in that section or the governor subarticle. The firewood story was in connection with a church member's relative and would go in the Local church leadership section. So I think only the daughter search and medical school ones would go in the business career sections. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there is now an article titled Business career of Mitt Romney.64.134.98.120 (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Will return later. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, I will begin addressing them in the article and giving responses here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton further comments:

• First, on the Bain section, my comment that it could be halved in length wasn't meant to be more than a guide. I do think in its original form the section was too long, but more importantly it was hard to read. A more modest cut, combined with some prose polishing, might be an answer. Perhaps this issue could be held over until the review is complete? I have looked at the next few sections; here are some further comments:

Personal wealth

• Romney's personal wealth is said to be "twice the net worth of the last eight U. S. presidents". That's Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon. Yet you say this would place him "among the richest [presidents] in American history if elected". I am curious to know which president or presidents before Nixon were even more fabulously wealthy than Romney.

I added a link to the article on this, but the details get sticky and I don't want to get into them in the text here.

• "An additional blind trust existed in the name of the Romneys' children and grandchildren..." The past tense indicates that it no longer exists. Is this the case?

Tenses corrected.

• I'm not too impressed with the graphic. Although the names of Bush Sr and Obama appear, there are no mentions of Reagan, Clinton or Bush Jr, and no means of relating the various dots to individual presidents. If the dotted line equates to zero on the income scale, why are so many dots below this line? I'm clearly misunderstanding the chart, except the obvious point that Romney, with by far the largest income, is one of the lowest-rate tax payers among recent presidents and would-be presidents. That point should I believe be noted in the text, rather than the bland reference to "13.9%".

The graphic is a very recent addition by another editor and I agree it is substandard. I've replaced it with a text mention of the comparative rates. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Local LDS Church leadership

• "...the local lay clergy, which generally consists of males over the age of 12..." The word "generally" implies "not exclusively"; are there exceptions, e.g. female clergy?

Clarified to 'worthy' males.

• "He forged bonds..." I'm not being facetious, but given Romney's financial background, that phrase is worded, well, unfortunately, and may give rise to a few giggles and possible press scares ("Exclusive! Wikipedia claims Romney was bond forger!") Maybe "He forged links"?

So changed.

• "while it was rebuilt" - Pronoun not properly aligned; I'd say "while the church [or chapel] was rebuilt"

Changed to 'while the structure was rebuilt' (to avoid complications regarding what exactly an LDS meetinghouse is).

• It is generally poor prose practice to introduce the subject in new paragraphs by pronouns, as in: "From 1986 to 1994, he presided over the Boston Stake", and "He took a hands-on role..."

I totally agree. A few months ago an editor appeared who was near-obsessed with minimizing the number of 'Romney' usages and replacing them with pronouns. I argued with him for a while then gave up out of exhaustion. Anyway, I fixed these and two more further down in the article.

• I would not qualify "requests" with "modest", as this has the whiff of editorial judgement

So changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1994 U.S. senatorial campaign

• "...this was Kennedy's first election since the William Kennedy Smith trial in Florida, in which Kennedy had suffered some negative public relations..." Too many Kennedys - suggest make the last one "the senator"

Good idea, so changed.

• "Due to" is a rather clunky formulation. In this case, "during the 1994 campaign" would be neater.

Changed to just "he stepped down from his church leadership role in 1994", since he never resumed it.

• "the young, telegenic, and well-funded Romney". He was 47; that is relatively old for a first shot at elective office, e.g. older than Clinton on his election as president. So I would drop "young". For the record, Kennedy's Senate opponent in 1988 was 34 years old.

I changed it to "younger", since he certainly appeared much younger than Kennedy (several sources say that Mitt generally looks ten years younger than he is).

• Rather than simply saying that George Romney "re-emerged" during the campaign, it might be worth saying briefly what if anything he did.

I removed the mention - it's already covered in the article on George and on the election, it doesn't really need to be here too.

• "When his father died in 1995, Mitt donated his inheritance to BYU's George W. Romney Institute of Public Management and joined the board and was vice-chair of the Points of Light Foundation (which had incorporated his father's National Volunteer Center)." I'll pass the Mitt, but otherwise the sentence is overlong, with two "ands" and intrusive parentheses. Suggest split.

Split done. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More later, Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

BB continuing: Two more sections

2002 Winter Olympics

• "After two years of severe difficulties with the disease, she found while living in Park City, Utah (where the couple had built a vacation home) a mixture of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that gave her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. This is too convoluted; too much information for one sentence, and awkwardly arranged. It surely isn't relevant where she was when she found her palliatives. I'd shorten it to "After two years of severe difficulties with the disease, she found a mixture of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that gave her a lifestyle mostly without limitations".

I've used a dash to better separate the aside and make it easier to parse. As for where they lived, it actually is relevant, because it helped motivate him to take the Olympics job and because the number of different residences they have had (which sometimes brings political flak) is partly a result of her treatments.

• " to take over the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics": At this stage the Games themselves, three years in the future, can't be described as "troubled". It was the organisation of these Games that was failing.

So clarified.

• I am none too keen on the Boy Scoutish flavour that pervades this sentence; I would replace the "and" after " she urged him to take it" with a semicolon, and replace "he did", with "he accepted".

So changed.

• "Before Romney came on..." Weirdly informal phrasing. Perhaps "took charge"?

Changed to "took the position".

• "the Games" appears three times in one line

One of them changed to use a pronoun.

• The comma after "top officials" destroys the grammatical structure of the sentence. It needs to follow the word "bribery", with "involving" changed to "against" to avoid the double "...ing". And Jollick need not be so extravagantly described. Thus: The Games had also been damaged by allegations of bribery, against top officials including former committee president and CEO Frank Joklik".

So changed, except now I don't think it needs a comma at all.

• " between approximately $400 million and $600 million..." The word "approximately" is unnecessary; the range idicates the approximation.

Unfortunately, the bounds are both approximations too, so I think this has to stay the way it is.

• "Garff believed the initial budget shortfall was not as bad as Romney portrayed, given there were still three years to reorganize." If this is a reference to the $379 million, this was mentioned earlier as a factual sum, not as a "portrayal" by Romney.

Changed "shortfall" to "situation", meaning that even if the numbers were the same, Garff thought a recovery would be easier than Romney was portraying.

• "Already" twice in one sentence

True, but I think they work together and don't read poorly.

• "in order to" → "to"

Have to respectfully disagree, I think just "to" doesn't read right here. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

2002 gubernatorial campaign

• You need to identify Massachusetts in the opening sentence, e.g. "In 2002, the administration of Massachusetts' Republican Acting Governor Jane Swift was plagued..."

So changed.

• "The campaign was the first to use microtargeting techniques..." etc. The first in Massachusetts, or the first anywhere?

Anywhere ... but changed to "one of the first", since I see some earlier claims out there.

• I have no idea what is meant by "fine-grained" in the context you use it. This entire sentence is heavy with politico-jargon.

Clarified to "The campaign was one of the first to use microtargeting techniques, in which like-minded groups of voters were identified and reached with narrowly tailored messaging."

• Passing comment: I am a little baffled by the impression given here, that the gubanatorial election was purely a matter of whether Romney's adverts were good or bad. His attempts to portray himself as a regular guy were bad ads, so he falls behind O'Brien. He responds with a series of better ads which suggest O'Brien's spouse was tainted by Enron, forges ahead and wins the election. That is the story of the campaign as told here, giving the impression that the electorate was pretty easily manipulated. Am I being naive in imagining that there might have been other issues that helped determine the election's outcome? Or is it really all down to spin?

Alas, many American elections are pretty substance-free and negative-ad-heavy, and this was one of them, but I have added a sentence on a couple of real issue differences. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

More to follow, but I'm tired and I want to go to bed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your valuable comments, especially as they come from an outside-the-U.S. perspective (yes I'm sure jargon has crept in ...). However, I'm leaving on vacation for a few days, but I will definitely respond to them and any other comments when I get back. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet more from BB

Tenure, 2003–2007

• The first paragraph reads very jerkily, mainly because the opening sentences are unconnected; each deals with a separate fact. Can they not be made to connect in some way? For example, was his meritocratic cabinet selection a consequence of the Democratic majorities in the state legislature? The sentence about his declining the governor's salary seems inseted at random, unless it is related to his deficit reduction policies. The paragraph needs some attention, to improve the prose flow.

I've split the start of the deficit reduction into a new paragraph. What's left is a bunch of initial happenings as his term started; I can't really see a way of connecting them.

• "Romney supported raising various fees..." I think you mean he raised them; also the syntax is wrong at present. I suggest you redraft the sentence: "Romney raised various fees, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses, to produce additional revenue of $300 million."

The fees had to be approved by the legislature, so I can't say he raised them directly. Other change done.

• I don't see the necessity for parentheses in "(Opponents said..."

Removed.

• "... to increase tuition by 63 percent..." → "... to increase tuition fees by 63 percent..."

So changed.

• Some of the citation in this section looks excessive (three citations for relatively straightforward statements)

Several of these have now been reduced to two or one cites. A couple of 'three's remain, that are needed because several different sources' worth of facts are combined in a sentence, or because some controversial material needs extra support.

• The sentence beginning "This came after Staples..." is long and winding, needs pruning and/or splitting.

Has been split.

• Ditto the sentence beginning: " In May 2004, the governor instructed town clerks..."

Has also been split.

• "In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions". Close repetition ("amendment") and tenses clash ("confused"/"oppose")

Corrected.

• The word "instead" which follows the above sentence is inappropriate (instead of what?)

It's instead of the compromise amendment, mentioned in the previous sentence.

• Petitions can't ban anything; insert the words "for legislation" before "that would have"

Clarified that this was a ballot initiative (which if approved does change the law)

• Briefly explain that the Family Marriage Amendment was a proposed constitutional amendemnt that would have banned same-sex marriages and civil unions throughout the US.

I'd rather stay away from trying to do that, since some of the amendment's implications are unclear, especially regarding civil unions. Let the reader click ...

• "wresting control", I thinks, breaches the requirement for encyclopedic neutrality, by possibly suggesting victory after a heroic struggle

I just looked at the definitions of 'wrest' in a couple of dictionaries I have at home, and none of them imply anything heroic; at most they imply a power struggle, which after all is what politics is all about. I'm going to hold on to this one; I think it qualifies as 'engaging prose'.

• "he spent part or all of more than..." is a very clumsy formulation

Couldn't think of a good alternative, so just changed it to "he spent all, or parts of, more than 200 days ...".

• "lopsided win" sounds un-neutral, and is anyway not informative. Maybe mention the figures (55 to 35 percent, evidently)

Changed to "20-point win". Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how much more of this I will be able to do; it is very time-consuming. The article keeps growing, with over 700 words added since I last posted here, which makes me feel I'm no nearer the end. I've raised enough points, I think, to keep you busy for a while after your vacation, so I won't post any more comments during the next 5 days. I'll try and return at the end of the week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, understood. I now have my own catching up from a week away to do ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've caught up on your comments now, and almost on all the other changes that went on in the article while I was away. If you want to continue the review, that would be great, but if you don't, that's fine too. This is a volunteer activity and when involvement in any particular article starts to become drudgery, that's always a good clue to step away. And admittedly this article has taken several turns for the worse; going forward to FAC at this point seems unlikely. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

IP Comments
Just like the wealth sentence makes you curious how wealthy other candidates have been, so too with release of tax returns. This article says, "Romney has faced demands from Democrats to release additional years of his tax returns, an action a number of Republicans also think would be wise, but has been adamant that he will not.[327]" Can we rephrase a little, while including wikilink?

"Despite requests by Democrats and some Republicans, Romney has steadfastly declined to release as many tax returns as some previous candidates have done.24.181.178.157 (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the persistence of the tax return issue is a function of not releasing as many as some past candidates - if he were some average candidate, nobody would much complain over only two years being released. It's due to Democrats thinking that there's embarrassing stuff in some of the prior returns - an even lower effective tax rate than for 2010 or 2011 - and due to Republicans fearing this is going to be drip drip drip damage all the way to November. Also, the current wording on this has been through a lot of Talk page discussion, so I don't want to reopen it. And I'm not sure where an underlink would go. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I agree with you about that. Per ABC News, "Romney's father, George Romney, disclosed 12 years of his tax returns in his failed 1968 White House bid, a precedent that Democrats have cited gleefully to accuse the Mitt Romney of hypocrisy."[5] I have contributed a bit to this Wikipedia article, so I won't comment any more at this peer review, as a "peer", but I do think you're short-changing readers by not wlinking to the actual precedent. Cheers.24.181.178.31 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a convenient comparison to make, but they wouldn't bother unless they thought there was something worth getting. Let's say Chris Christie had run and gotten the nomination. One of his actual tax returns showed $450K in joint income and $120K in federal taxes paid. Completely uninteresting ... how many more of those would opponents want to see? Anyway, I've added the underlink, I think it's close enough to the overtext that it won't violate WP:EASTEREGG. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the section has moved from Tax return (United States)#Public release by presidential candidates to United States presidential election#Financial disclosures.64.251.57.34 (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

---

OS X Mountain Lion

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA status, and possibly FA status.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jesse V.

Thanks for your efforts! Here are some of my thoughts:

• The citation following "OS X Mountain Lion" in the lead and in the infobox seems out of place. Consider stating the name later in the lead or in the article there, and put the citation there. You can leave your in-line hidden comments though.
• The lead could do with expansion. Many GA-class and especially FA-class articles have three fully-fledged paragraphs. The lead here ends with a sentence all by itself, which can make reading choppy.
• I don't think "1/2" should be used in the "albeit gaining back only 1/2" line. Consider using the word "half".
• IMO, the last two sections of the History sections could be expanded. Fully paragraphs usually involve around five sentences.
• The "System Requirements" and "New and changed features" sections should be converted to use prose instead of list-style.

• Jesse V.^(talk) 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done and submitted to GAN. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thanks! • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Berlin

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's been 6 years since the last peer review. It has had Good Article status before and am looking to get it back up to Good Article status or possibly even Featured Article status.

1. Is the prose written in an engaging, brilliant and professional mannor? Is British English used throughout the article?
2. How comprehensive is the article? Is there anything missing from the article?
3. Is the article neutral and stable?
4. Is the lead up to Featured Article standard?
5. Is there an appropriate structure to the article?
6. Are the citations consistent, reliable and use the appropriate template?
7. Are the photos appropriate and have the appropriate copyright status? Are the captions concise?
8. Is the article have the appropriate length? Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? Is there unnecessary details? Is the summary style used?
9. Is there any other information that would be helpful in getting this up to Featured Article status?

Thanks, Kingjeff (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• too long, make concise
• whole article has >13000 words. try your best to make it 5000.
• too much history, not enough on what is happening in current day Berlin.
• anything on the sidebox should not be duplicated on the main article.
• "Berlin has Germany's largest number of daily newspapers" has no citation. all facts need to have sources.

Waveclaira (talk)

• I read the lead and Arts/Culture section. This needs some work to become a GA-class article. From what I read, the lead was pretty good but the Arts/Culture section relied a lot on opinion, obscure claims and peacock terms, like "one of the most diverse and vibrant of its kind", "has a huge number of", "is well known for", "established a high-profile reputation as", etc. Better to let the facts do the talking. See Minneapolis#Arts which does a good job at that, or Providence, Rhode Island#Culture which makes claims but then immediately backs those claims up.
  • In the lead "First documented in the 13th century, Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia (1701–1918), the German Empire (1871–1918), the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) and the Third Reich (1933–1945)." - it is unclear what the date ranges are for: when Berlin was a capital (which is the subject of the sentence) or when those political entities existed.
  • There is a section titled "The arts and culture". Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections recommends against the "The".
  • In "Arts and Culture" intro paragraphs, combine it into one paragraph and move the part about MTV and music convention to the Music sub-section. Don't just call it "Zeitgeist Metropolis", but say it has been called ZM because...
  • In Media, "With over 430,000 admissions..." - it is unclear if that is in a single year or what year.
  • The first paragraph of Nightlife and festivals seems to be largely cited to one ref, a metrotimes.com editorial. There should probably be better references to back up some of those claims and relevancy (like Panorama Bar).
  • What is SO36 and SOUND? Clubs or festivals?
  • "Berlin is also well known for the cultural festival" - needs to be cited. If it actually is "well known" then it should be easy to cite.
  • In Galleries and museums "district dedicated to art and antiquities" - all quotes need to be cited. And the second paragraph of this section has no cites; you have to show where this info is coming from.
  • "a standing exhibition on two millennia of German-Jewish history"
  • In Performing arts, "The city's main venue for musical theatre performances is the Theater des Westens (built 1895)." - what is that supposed to mean? it's the biggest venue?
• Otherwise, the "Architecture" section may need some text (See Tulsa, Oklahoma#Cityscape, the length seems fine, the History section should include some info on what has happened since re-unification, I wouldn't mind seeing more info on Infrastructure (like where drinking water comes from, where garbage goes, etc.).
  

---

Spirited Away

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending to get the article up to GA/FA status. So far, this article is looking good, but I would like to have positive feedback on how should I improve the article. The film has won numerous awards and was acclaimed internationally. The objective is to get the article as the main page for TFA for the film's 15th anniversary, which is July 7, 2016.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My first impression: Too many genres listed in the lead sentence. It makes the sentence run on and confusing. Suggest shortening it to stick to the primary genres, which seem to be anime and fantasy: "...is a 2001 Japanese anime fantasy film...". Second impression: Plot summary is too long at 12 paragraphs and 757 words. WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400–700 words for plot summaries of feature films, with simpler plots aiming for the lower end of that range with the upper range intended more for complex plots. This film doesn't seem to have a very complex plot, so I recommend some critical editing to get it down to about 500–550 words in maybe 4 medium-length paragraphs, which would seem an appropriate length for summarizing this story. Those are just my initial, at-a-glance thoughts. The rest of the article looks pretty good on first impression. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination has been withdrawn due to Richard Wagner peer review still open at this time. I will nominate it for PR again when the Wagner discussion is closed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Expulsion of the Acadians

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve the article to (possibly) FA status. I like to have a 2nd opinion on how to improve the article. The article failed an GAN in January. Since then, there was a lot of changes [6]. I would like for suggestions on how to improve the article even more.

Thanks, ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 14:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please do not say that the references do not use the {{Cite}} templates, and there is no section for the notes. ~~Ebe123~~ on the go! 16:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Brief comments from Nikkimaria

• Citations need significant cleaning up - the formatting used should be as consistent as possible. You can use templates or not as you prefer for this.
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, ranges should use endashes...if you're going for FA status, WP:MOS compliance is a must
• File:Marquis_de_Boishébert_-_Charles_Deschamps_de_Boishébert_et_de_Raffetot_(1753)_McCord_Museum_McGill.jpg needs US PD tag. Same with File:Flag_of_Nova_Scotia.svg
• Check for repeated wikilinks
• TOC is a bit on the long side
• {{cn}} tag needs to be addressed, and some other areas need citations - aim for a bare minimum of one citation per paragraph, in most cases more
• Suggest writing the "Commemorations" section as prose

This doesn't appear to be too far from GA standards, but is a way off from FA yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, and I will edit the article accordingly. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Magicpiano

• General agreement with Nikkimaria's suggestions, but I think the article is a longer way from GA, for reasons of content and organization.
• The article still reads as if it is a bit of a jumble, and needs to be thoroughly copyedited. It lacks a single, coherent voice, and material is sometimes duplicated or restated. In addition to not reading well, this also leads to overlinking.
• The article opens with a section titled "Historical context" whose first sentence is "The Acadian removal occurred during the French and Indian War." I expect a section with that title to tell me about the background and causes of the events to be described, which this sentence does not do. The section also doesn't tell me who the Acadians are or even where Acadia is; it is not a currently-existing entity, so a hypothetical 12-year-old with a modern atlas won't be able to locate it. The organization of this section is almost backwards -- start with necessary elements of early history, then develop the plot.
• The background needs to talk about what sort of polities the Acadians had -- where were the population centers, and how was the resistance (first to British rule, then to the logistics of the expulsion) organized. There is no mention, for example, that governors-general of Quebec actively supported and encouraged Acadian and Mi'kmaq resistance and flight from Nova Scotia (through the offices of people like Rale, Le Loutre, and Boishebert).
• The first time Charles Lawrence is mentioned, it is as "Lawrence" (unlinked). (This is probably a consequence of multiple editor contributions and consequent lack of coherent voice.)
• "Acadia" ceased to exist as a polity in 1713 (de facto in 1710, when British governance of Nova Scotia began); references to areas that were unambiguously under British control after that date should properly use Nova Scotia.
• The logistics of the expulsion from the British perspective are missing. Presumably each of the campaigns was under someone's command: who were these commanders, and who did they get their orders from (was it always Lawrence)? What were the political/military/logistical considerations that went into the decisions to issue those orders? (Some of this is answered in the campaign articles, but should be summarized here.)
• For each campaign, I'd expect to see (to the extent that sources permit) what is known about how many people were taken, how many were killed resisting, how many got away (to where, and what ultimate fate). Where were people "cleared" from the area taken (proximately, so that we know if they were staged or simply loaded onto ships destined for their intended "final" destination). I think the "what happened afterward" is properly in a later section.
• I find the separation of resistance activities from those of the expulsion campaigns problematic. There is often cause and effect in these sorts of events, which the current structure does not really support well; as it stands, the section on resistance reads like a laundry list of events with no apparent connection to anything else (especially given that some of the places mentioned are not those were the events of the expulsion took place).
• Do we know why there were raids into Maine? (i.e. what were the resistance objectives)?
• The section "Aftermath of the Seven Years War" should be renamed (perhaps something like "Consequences" or "Fate of the expelled"), and the needless mention of the fate of French sailors should be removed (or its presence justified in context).
• Words that are not proper nouns (e.g. "Historian" and "Campaign") are sometimes unnecessarily capitalized.

--Magic♪piano 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a tool or script other than AWB? Thanks for the comments. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "The Expulsion of the Acadians (also known as the Great Upheaval, the Great Expulsion, The Deportation, the Acadian Expulsion, Le Grand Dérangement) was ...": The first sentence should be more compact than this, or people may stop reading before they even get to the verb. We don't need to know that the "Expulsion of the Acadians" was also known as the "Acadian Expulsion", and any deportation is a Deportation, so I removed those two ... it might be better to move either Great Upheaval or Great Expulsion (whichever is the less common name) to the first section ("sometimes called the Great Upheaval", for instance). - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The Expulsion (1755–1763) occurred during the French and Indian War. The Expulsion started by the British deporting Acadians to the Thirteen Colonies and then, after 1758, the British sent them to France.": The Expulsion (1755–1763) began during the French and Indian War, when the British began deporting Acadians first to the Thirteen Colonies and then, after 1758, to France. See WP:Checklist#repetition.
• "The British Conquest of Acadia happened in 1710. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, and allowed the Acadians to keep their lands.": More concise (and more detailed) would be: "Two and a half years after the British Conquest of Acadia in 1710, the Treaty of Utrecht allowed the Acadians to keep their lands." - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Over the next forty-five years, the Acadians refused to sign an unconditional oath of allegiance to Britain. During this period, Acadians participated in ...": ... allegiance to Britain, participated in ...
• "the French fortress of Louisbourg and Fort Beausejour": fortresses
• "the military campaign that the New Englanders used": You don't really "use" a military campaign, you conduct it or participate in it (or in a part of it)
• "The British sought to eliminate future military threat": ... any future military threat
• "and to permanently cut the supply lines they provided to Louisbourg by deporting Acadians from the area.": You just said more or less the same thing. See WP:Checklist#conciseness. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  

---

List of Dinnerladies episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I created it recently to branch off the episode summaries from the show's main article, and I'm trying to get it up to the quality of other featured lists.

Thanks,  ajmint  (talk • edits) 14:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Mana Ashida

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on how to improve this article further. I intend to nominate it for GA in future. Any comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lionratz (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Kaneto Shindo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the current status of the article and what is lacking overall.

Thanks, JoshuSasori (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Lucky102

• I think this is a very good article, the only thing I would do is add a picture of Kaneto Shindo himself and put it in the infobox.

Thanks for your comment. I agree that it would be better with an image. An image was recently removed from the article due to a copyright issue. I will try to look for something which can be used. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucky102 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Lugnuts

• Excellent work on the expansion/cleanup. The External links section seems to violate WP:NOTLINK (IMO). I believe only the Japanese Film Database and IMDB should be here. The others could be intergrated into the main body of the article as inline references. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Lugnuts. I have removed some of the links. There is more work to do on Shindo's themes and style. The problem is that the current article is based on reading his books, so it would be nice to have a more objective input. But the critical reviews of his work in English are a bit lacking in depth. JoshuSasori (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  

---

List of Fairy Tail manga volumes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am intending to get the article up to Featured List status. I have worked on the article significantly, but would like some feedback from others on what should we improve on before I take this to FLC.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks pretty well. The first paragraph is unsourced (I don't mean the plot introduction, that's unnecessary). It is hard to source the exact date the manga started publication, but maybe some third party sources have at least the year of start.Tintor2 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the source for the manga's first publication date. Would this work? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be good.Tintor2 (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Final Fantasy XIII-2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to get this up to GA status since early 2012. Any thoughts, comments or ideas on how to improve the article for GA status would be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Ed the Happy Clown

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is pretty thorough, and I would like to bring it up at least to GA status.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Terang Boelan

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FAC soon and want an outside opinion on how to develop it/errors. It's a lost film, so the sources don't really touch on themes in the work.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comments

• I think you could probably split that lead into two paragraphs easily enough; right after "Balink's previous work Pareh (1936)." seems the logical point as that marks the end of in-production discussion and the start of after-release discussion.

• Done.

• I think it's worth noting that The Jungle Princess was a foreign film.

• Done.

• "The Indonesian film historian Misbach Yusa Biran notes that this gave the film stylistic and thematic similarities" -> either change "the film" to "both films (or something similar), or explicitly mention, after "similarities", The Jungle Princess (either by name or something like "to the earlier film").

• Done.

• "Scenes were shot in black and white" -> I could be wrong but I think "black-and-white" might be correct here instead (that's how I parse it but I'm hardly infallible). It's a compound term, as the footage was shot in «black and white» rather than in «black» and also «white». Look at me being all continental here GRAPPLE X 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dur, yeah.

• "The film was advertised as proving that the Indies were as beautiful as Hawaii" -> is there any relevance to Hawaii of all places? If it was the contemporary image of "beautiful island paradise" or whatever, this might warrant a brief mention (plus a few extra words could never hurt).

• Clarified

• "200,000 straits dollars" -> I get uneasy when I see obsolete currency in a vacuum. Could a source adjust this to something modern (I guess the rupiah would work for the article, or the ringgit for relevance to that particular market).

• Not in any of the sources :-(. Know any converters?

• "Terang Boelan was released in 1937, with both the Malay title and the Dutch title Het Eilan der Droomen;" -> I think you could just phrase this as "Terang Boelan was released in 1937; it was also marketed under the Dutch title Het Eilan der Droomen", or the like.

• Done

• "Mochtar and Roekiah became a popular screen beginning with the company's production Fatima" -> I assume this should be "screen couple" or the like, or did they project films on Mochtar's back? :P

• Dur, yeah

• Any word on how the film(s) came to be lost? I assumed the mention of nitrate film was foreshadowing (that stuff is terrifying).

• Clarified. I don't doubt it is.

• All in all I'm liking this one. I'm aware that the bot closed this review a few hours ago but sod it, a PR deserves some comments before being archived. GRAPPLE X 15:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP Comments

Hey Crisco 1492. This is a really well written article. A few thoughts and some suggestions regarding tense:

• I'm wondering if "several parts of" is necessary here, "hot in several parts of the Dutch East Indies and Singapore and targeted at native audiences, the film featured kroncong music and several actors from Balink's previous work Pareh (1936)."

• Nixed

• Comma does not look like it's needed in "Rohaya (Roekiah) is told to separate from her lover, Kasim (Rd. Mochtar) so that she can marry the disreputable Musa (E. T. Effendi)." If it is, then a comma after "Kasim (Rd. Mochtar)" is required too.

• Doubled

• "Kasim plays the song "Terang Boelan" for his love, and they agree to elope." - using "love" to refer to a romantic interest seems a bit informal.

• Changed to Rohaya

• "Rohaya and Mochtar make their escape from Sawoba Island to Malacca"

• Done

• "They discover that Kasim's old friend, Dullah (Kartolo), has also lived in Malacca for some time." - "also" here is redundant and reads just as nicely without the word.

• Done

• "...who had followed him", simple past is better?

• Fair enough

• "less of an ethnological approach" → "a less ethnological approach"?

• Sound succinct?

• Is present tense appropriate in these instances; I would assume since these are past writings past tense is the preferable choice—"Said also recognises such similarities...", "Heider considers Terang Boelan...", "Biran considers the film a turning point...", "Said concurs...", "The Filipino film historian and director Nick Deocampo notes...", "...but suggests that copies ...", "...American translator John H. McGlynn express hope..." and "Heider (1991, p. 14) writes that all Indonesian films"

• At FAC it sometimes happens, but I guess the past tense could be preferable as Biran is deceased (and we need standardisation)

• "Terang Boelan is now considered lost" - this cites a 1991 publication, so I'm thinking if the wording ("is now") is appropriate.

• It's in a 2006 publication as well, but nixed "now"

Overall, the article is really good and interesting. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Poedjangga Baroe

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it to FAC by the end of the year. It is a fairly important part of Indonesian literary history and I've found some good sources, but generally my prose needs polishing. Also, I'd like an outside opinion as to whether this is comprehensible to a person without much background knowledge on Indonesia and its literature and history.

Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Francis Marrash

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently become a good article, and I would like to know your suggestions for it to become a featured article. The lead section and the rest of the article have been expanded since it became a good article.

Thank you very much for your help, Bryan P. C. C. (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Meth mouth

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is currently a GA, and I'd like to try to get it featured. In this peer review, I'd like A. advice on whether it meets the medical criteria for featured articles (MEDRS, MEDMOS, etc.) and B. whether the prose, MOS, presentation, flow, etc. meet the FA criteria. Feel free to only weigh in on A or B depending on your familiarity with medical article/prose and punctiation etc. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2, why is Novocaine singled out? I believe that Novocaine is a proprietary product containing procaine. In the UK, procaine is not used often; generally lidocaine is preferred. Exactly which reference is relevant? What does the reference say? Although the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the full article and therefore doesn't require references, I would recommend inclusion of references to help readers confirm verifiability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no reason to single Novocaine out there, I've changed it to local anesthetic, the page source I cited says "If the patient has used methamphetamine within the last 24 h, the vasoconstrictor in the local anesthetic could result in further sympathetic drive to the cardiovascular system putting the patient at increased risk for cardiac dysrhythmias, hypertension, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accidents". A previous page in the same study says "Local anesthetics with epinephrine or levonordefrin must not be used while the patient is high on methamphetamine as methamphetamine potentiates the response of sympathetically innervated organs to sympathomimeticamines". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "the cost of providing increased dental treatment for the incarcerated has taxed prison budgets in some regions." "Tax" has a specific meaning with respect to expenses. Perhaps change this to a more generic phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, instead of "has taxed prison budgets" I've changed it to "has strained the resources of prisons". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 2: "Caries in the drug's users can be large." What is "large" caries? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Characteristics", paragraph 2: "These caries are usually on the buccal (cheek) side of the teeth." "Caries" is not a countable plural word. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I rephrased, hope this works. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed a few similar problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks for catching my mistakes. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Causes", paragraph 1: "In a 2007 review of the effects of the drug on dental health, Jason Goodchild of New Jersey Dental School and Mark Donaldson of Oregon Health & Science University state: "The root of all dental evil for meth abusers is xerostomia"." Why are these guys and their universities singled out with a quote? Just delete the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

In "Causes", last paragraph, the first and third sentences both seem to refer to localized acidity in the mouth. Surely these are connected? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Treatment", paragraph 1: "The application of fluoride is recommended by the American Dental Association." I do't see why the American Dental Association is named in the text. The reference should be enough to provide the source. Also, fluoride is mentioned in the preceding sentence. Just delete this sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The remainder of the paragraph names Hamamoto and Rhodus, together with their university, in the text. Why are these guys named in the text? The referencing should be adequate to provide the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Treatment", paragraph 3: "This is often because of poverty or a poor medical system." What is a "poor medical system"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

From "Treatment", paragraph 3: "There is also an increased risk of serious side effects if antipsychotic or opioid medications are used in the patient's treatment." Why are antipsychotic medications relevant to meth mouth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding how much amphetamine "use" is necessary for "meth mouth", the NIDA said in 2010: "Long-term methamphetamine abuse has many negative health consequences, including extreme weight loss, severe dental problems ("meth mouth") ..."[7] Is this what is meant by "user"? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
  • On the GA review, J Milburn said "I worry that "abuser" carries a particularly judgemental overtone- a more neutral term would probably be "user". Everyone can agree that people are using meth, but whether they're "abusing" meth is a potentially questionable claim." So I removed "abuser". I'll add "long-term" as a qualifier, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe a good read of WP:MEDMOS may help. Personally, I think there needs to be some incidence figures. Who has "meth mouth, worldwide incidence, percentage in prisons perhaps? Concrete figures, since NIDA seems mostly concerned with use by adolescents, who don't apparently have a problem with "meth mouth". How many months, years does it take to occur? Also, is there a formal medical term for the condition? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll look again, but how would you suggest I proceed if reliable sources don't have anything on incidence or years to occur? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, either that there are statistics somewhere that justify media attention to "Meth mouth" and the grant by NIH of $1.86 million to UCLA School of Dentistry for 'meth mouth' research (actually a pretty puny amount for a serious problem), or this dental condition is something that gets press mention because of some startling pictures a dentist took (copyrighted) that made great billboards, real problems in prison medical budgeting, and the public's concern about amphetamine use in general and it's possible health effects, including on dental health.
    • Does it have a medical (dental) diagnosis in some dental diagnostic manual? Is there a formal medical term for the condition? Perhaps more searches in journals relevant to dentists? European sources, since its use is said to be rampant there, so that meth mouth doesn't seem just an American/Australian concern? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Basically, I think the answer to your first question is the latter. As to the second sentence, I haven't been able to find sources discussing meth mouth as a problem in Europe. As far as dental diagnostic manuals and more specific sources than pubmed, I'm not sure, I just pinged someone from the dental wikiproject for help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
        • good idea. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Head of WikiProject Dentistry here -- I say that not to lend any greater weight to my comments but only to indicate that I'm responding to Mark's request to visit and comment. There seems to be no formal term for "meth mouth" other than "advanced tooth decay attributed to heavy methamphetamine use" -- this might be because those who suffer meth mouth exhibit no signs or symptoms that are restricted to the effects of methamphetamine. Rather, it appears that the group of signs/symptoms associated with methamphetamine use occur at a faster rate and to a greater extent due to the drug use/abuse, such as but not limited to: dry mouth, tooth decay, tooth fracture and gum disease. (See this link) And because dentistry (at least in the US) bills by treatment codes and not by diagnosis codes, there is not necessarily a collaborative effort to give groups of signs/symptoms a particularly well-agreed upon name. A glance through PubMed shows that the term "meth mouth" brings up the topic, but no other term would do the same, except for perhaps "methamphetamine and dentistry." A similar phenomenon occurs in respect to bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw, which has at least 5 different names and is abbreviated BON, BON of the jaw and BRONJ, and probably others as well. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a section header "Controversy" unless we're highlighting that lots of researchers get on sides to debate whether or not there is undertainty on the condition. Perhaps "Uncertainty" as a section title instead? Also, who are these advocates, and are they a significant minority viewpoint of medical researchers? Or are they fringe? Or are they fringe lobby groups and just a social phenomenon (and unreliable for biomedical information?) We could use some clarification/attribution in the article, I think. You can probably treat at least one my questions as rhetorical. Biosthmors (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments: As usual, this is a really good article on a really interesting, unusual, and important topic. I know the volume of comments is large, but they are mostly minor fixes, and some of them don't even necessarily have to be addressed. Nice work.

Lead:

• "symptomatic of extended methamphetamine (meth) use" Methamphetamine may or may not be commonly recognized as a drug by the average reader. What about "symptomatic of extended use of the drug methamphetamine (meth)" or something similar?
• "because of the interaction of local anesthetic with methamphetamine" What are the results of this interaction? We conclude from the context that they are dangerous, but how dangerous?
• "To treat patients with the condition, dentists prescribe measures to fight tooth decay (dental caries) and dry mouth. Fluoride and drugs that increase saliva are recommended to treat dental decay and dry mouth." Combine into one sentence as: "To treat patients with the condition, dentists prescribe fluoride and drugs that increase saliva in order to fight tooth decay (dental caries) and dry mouth."
• "The patient is educated to practice better nutrition and dental hygiene" Can we change this to active voice somehow?
• "few long-term users make the behavioral changes needed" According to whom?

Characteristics:

• "Caries often occurs in the cervical regions of teeth, where the tooth surface narrows at the junction of the crown and the root. Caries is usually found on the buccal (cheek) side of the teeth, and on tooth surfaces that are adjacent to incisors and canine teeth" Seemed weird to start two straight sentences with "caries"; maybe combine these sentences or at least use the pronoun "it" to start the second one.
• "The decay seen in the condition can..." I think you can drop "seen in the condition".
• "Parallels have been drawn" By whom?
• "Methamphetamine users sometimes experience soreness in the joint of the jaw and dental attrition (tooth wear), owing to bruxism (grinding of the teeth) caused by the drug." The way this is written, it is unclear if both the soreness and the dental attrition are caused by bruxism, or only dental attrition. A well-placed "both" might solve this. Also, it isn't clear to me exactly how the drug "causes" bruxism.
• "This bruxism can occur continuously, rather than being limited to the night." Is it widely understood that most bruxism occurs at night?
• "Chronic use of the drug might also cause trismus, the inability to open the jaw." I thought "trismus" might by synonymous with "lock jaw", but after reading the article, I see that in the case of amphetamine use, bruxism is often erroneously referred to as trismus (or so says our wiki-article). Might want to clear this up.

Causes:

• "Long-term methamphetamine use can cause parafunctional habits, routine actions of a body part that are different than their common use, which can result in tooth wear and exacerbate periodontal diseases. One such habit that may affect the development of meth mouth is bruxism, particularly as the drug's effects wane and stereotypy occurs, often referred to as "tweaking"" Ah, here we have the answer to how the drug causes bruxism. Maybe move these sentences to the earlier section.
• "There has also been speculation that oral consumption" Speculation by whom?
• "likely does not reach a level that causes caries" Who opines that this is likely?

Treatment:

• "They recommend 5 000 ppm sodium fluoride" Unclear antecedent; who are "they"?
• "Hamamoto and Rhodus" Who?
• "Hamamoto and Rhodus argue that pilocarpine and cevimeline, sialogogues that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved to treat hyposalivation caused by Sjogren's syndrome, have the potential to effectively treat methamphetamine-caused xerostomia." Are there any significant arguments on the other side?
• "the use of sugar-free gum has been suggested" By whom?
• "Tooth extraction is required in severe cases." You kind of already said this in the characteristics section. ("In some cases, the teeth are permanently damaged and must be removed.") Does it need to be both places?
• "few are willing to participate in such a course of action. This is often because of poverty or a poor medical system." I'd connect these two thoughts in the same sentence.
• Consider moving the last paragraph in this section to the first instead. I think it sets up the rest of the section well.

Controversy:

• "whether the drug has a unique affect on dental health" Change "affect" to "effect".

Society and culture:

• "members of the U.S. Congress sought increased funding for dental care in prisons, in response to the prevalence of the condition" The political junkie in me wants to know who these members of Congress were. Was it a bipartisan effort to increase funding? Were the legislators mostly from a specific geographic region or other readily identifiable constituency (i.e. conservatives vs. liberals, rural areas vs. urban areas, etc.)? What was the name of the legislation? Did it pass? If so, has it had any discernable effects?
• Overall, I find this section satisfying in it's attempt to address the international nature of the issue and somewhat unfulfilling because it feels a little like a collection of international facts given without much context or follow-up. For example, "In 2007, an official at the Australian Dental Association stated that the increased use of drugs, including methamphetamine, posed a "serious problem" to the dental health of young Australians." What prompted them to issue this statement? Was there an increase in meth use in that country? Why does the statement specifically reference "young Australians"? I realize that such context and follow-up may not be available, so treat this as much as a perception as an actionable request, but anything you can do to provide context would really make this section better.

I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow and will have limited access to the Internet for about a week, so I may be slow about striking these once they are resolved. If there's something you really want me to have a look at, hit me with a {{tb}} on my talk page. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been substantially improved since the last peer review and it failed at FAC. So, i would like a FAC-level peer review so i can eventually nominate the article sometime this year or next year.

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Pregnancy from rape

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is pretty much content complete. I would like someone to provide a peer review in hopes of bring it up to the standards of a GA. I think there are some problems with the article, but I did not want to delete others work because of my own thoughts only.

Thanks, Casprings (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments - link problems as follows:

Ref 37 dead since 2010. Tagged.

Ref 20 dead since 08/2012. Tagged.

Ref 41 changes domain and redirects. Tagged.

Ref 72 gives 403 "forbidden" error.

Three refs are behind paywalls.

Eleven refs were tagged and fixed by reflinks tool.

I'll try and look at other issues later, but the article clearly needs some detail work. You may want to see if the Guild of Copy Editors would be interested. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Syed Taj

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I started to add a section on political background, but it felt too biased, so I moved it to the Talk section for someone else to vet and insert in a more unbiased manner.

Also general review, since this is an important article for the November elections and I've never done a major political article before.

Thanks, Chadnibal (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Trauma (medicine)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I intend on getting this article up to GA status and I have addressed many of the concerns outlined in the GA review, but before I move forward with trying to promote the article I want to look for other ways of improvement. Thanks, Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Review by Churn and Change:

• The lead should be a summary of the article and should not introduce new information not explained elsewhere. The definition of 'trauma', its Greek root, and so on belong in the body text. See WP:lead. That section does not need citations; it is preferable not to have any, though in high-edit-traffic articles that may be a problem.
• Wikipedia expects secondary sources which note, review or summarize primary research. This helps both with ensuring the noted material is mainstream and established in the field (primary research may or may not be, and it can always be cherry picked to push a point of view), and also allows editors to understand and comment on it (WP is not edited by experts). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Here are examples of primary sources in the article: "Contrast-induced nephropathy in elderly trauma patients," "Computed tomographic scanning without oral contrast solution for blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries in abdominal trauma," (this needs a doi by the way), "Over Reliance on Computed Tomography Imaging in Patients With Severe Abdominal Injury: Is the Delay Worth the Risk?" Please try to find review articles, summaries or textbooks as sources. Any article with original research—a new study, meta study, math or way of calculating—is a primary source. If the source is technical and not comprehensible to the lay person, that is a double strike. If the source has not been cited much in the literature, it should not be used.
• "Classification": Some have percentage numbers and others don't. The numbers which do exist add up to more than 100%. Considering that polytrauma is a category of its own, this needs explanation. Also trauma, obviously, has been classified in many other ways as well: war-related trauma in some reports, famine-related trauma in some UN reports, and so on. What exactly is being attempted in this section? The common classifications?
• "Causes": This section seems a mix of further classification of trauma, some primary causes (falls, penetration by projectiles etc), some secondary causes (violence, abuse, traffic collision) and some tertiary causes (alchohol, benzos). For scope this vast, the section is inadequate. It is also unclear which sections apply only to the US.
• "Pathophysiology" Since WP is not a medical encyclopedia, simpler language needed for the section heading. "Body physical response to trauma" seems adequate. Highly technical: gluconeogenesis and lipolysis are true jargon. Making new glucose and using up fat is simpler and accurate language.
• There seems to be unnecessarily complicated wording. A "thoracostomy tube" is the same as a "chest tube"; "cardicotocography" is "electronic fetal monitoring"; "exsanguination" is bleeding (ex=out, sanguine=bloody). At other places, common words are incorrectly used: "illicit drugs" is a broad category, and should not link to an article on "recreational drugs" which has coffee within its scope; "social and economic costs" should not link to the technical word "social costs" as used in economic theory; sex to denote the "male/female" distinction should not link to the "act of sexual reproduction";
• Overall, most of the article is incomprehensible to the lay person with its "mentation," "hemodynamic instability," "thermal trauma," "deteriorating perfusion of tissues" and so on. At other places it is trivial: "A missed injury is one which is not found during the initial assessment, such as when a patient is brought into a hospital's emergency department, but manifests itself at a later point in time." (what else could it possibly be?) and "The care of acutely injured people is a public health system is an issue which involves bystanders, community members, health care professionals, and health care systems." At stil other places, the statements are leaps of faith: "An important part of managing trauma in children is weight estimation." The link hits the reader out of the blue and is not explained further anywhere.

• • 
    

---

Down syndrome

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's one of the most popular disability articles and I'd like to get it to GA status as part of this crazy idea. While I'm quite happy taking stuff to GA, I'm fairly inexperienced with medical articles so it would be great if someone could bring some fresh eyes to this article. :)

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JS:

• Many children with Down syndrome who have received family support, enrichment therapies and tutoring manage to graduate from high school and are able to do paid work,[8] and some participate in post-secondary education as well.[9] Early childhood intervention, screening for common problems, medical treatment where indicated, a conducive family environment, and vocational training can improve the overall development of children with Down syndrome. Education and proper care will improve quality of life significantly, despite genetic limitations.[10] - it sounds like a positive spin, maybe needs to be made slightly less "optimistic".

This has been moved around a fair bit - partly because I realised it was in the lede and not the main article - the lede version has been significantly reduced and a less reduced (but quite reworded) version appears in 'management'. Fayedizard (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• These health factors can contribute to a shorter life expectancy for people with Down syndrome, in recent decades, the life expectancy among persons with Down syndrome has increased significantly up from 12 years in 1912, to 60 years.[21] - there is a writing mistake here with the comma and sentencing, and also it sounds a bit like "positive spin".

Reworded.Fayedizard (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Most individuals with Down syndrome have intellectual disability in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range,[23] with individuals having Mosaic Down syndrome typically 10–30 points higher.[24] The use of IQ tests for individuals with Down syndrome has been criticised on the grounds that the educator's low expectations and the fact that IQ tests do not take into account accompanying physical disabilities, such as hearing and vision impairment that would slow the test-taking performance.[25] - this again looks like some attempt to neutralize the IQ test and put a positive spin, perhaps this could be rewritten to mention both the fact that IQ tests may be flawed, and the possibly flawed results, without making it look like it is "point of view".

Reworded :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Too technical - the article's medical content is presented in rather a technical way, with a lot of specialized terms. Particularly the part right after "Signs and Symptoms" could be explained a lot less technically.

I've not touched this point - but I'm going to call on the MEDRES people to see if they have have a look at this paragraph in particular :) thanks for shining a light on this one....Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Recently, researchers have created transgenic mice with most of human chromosome 21 (in addition to the normal mouse chromosomes).[58] - it seems tacked in there, what is the relevance of this?

I dropped the text. :) Fayedizard (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Churn and change:

• On WP, we rely on secondary sources, not primary sources. Primary sources are articles containing original research, which may be reports of new studies, meta studies, or new math or calculations. Secondary sources are either reports published in magazines or newspapers with a general readership, or reviews published of earlier papers published in technical magazines. We rely on secondary sources for two primary reasons: 1. They are written for lay people, and hence it is easy to verify citations. 2. They automatically provide a filter sieving what is notable from what is not. The second point is important because primary sources often reflect research on the cutting edge, not necessarily considered established fact. It is easy to cherry pick such sources to push whatever POV one wants. Using secondary sources provides us one level of protection against this (the secondary-source publisher does the notability check, verification of primary facts, and verification of neutrality, at least in theory). See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I see several primary sources in the article. One way to get past the issue is to check which other articles cite the primary one, and see if any would qualify as a secondary source. Churn and change (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Churn - thank you for your comments - were there any Primary sources in particular that caught your eye? Fayedizard (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Autosomal trisomy in a chimpanzee: resemblance to Down's syndrome." Just one study from 1969, cited by three other articles in all these years. Primary source, being an original study on a chimpanzee. Not understandable to lay people with the abstract itself having words like "cytogenetic," "epicanthus," "hypotonia" and "acrocentric."
• "Seizure frequency and characteristics in children with Down syndrome" Again a purely primary source reporting a new study in highly technical terms.
• "Global up-regulation of chromosome 21 gene expression in the developing down syndrome brain"
• "Down syndrome critical region around D21S55 on proximal 21q22.3" Even the title is unlikely to be comprehensible to the layperson. This is an original study. If the results have been replicated there should be secondary sources (reviews etc) mentioning it. If not, we shouldn't include it.

This is just a sample of what to look for. Also, the lead is a summary, and need not contain citations. For better reading flow, it should not contain citations. If when going through the lede, you find a citation can't be removed, it means you have something in the lead not explained in the body of the text. Churn and change (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful - I've made a bunch of changes based on your comments (I'm planning on pruning the lede of critations just as soon as we're sure we've got everything we want in there... I'm a little unsure at the moment - let me know if you have any more comments :) Fayedizard (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

William Robinson Brown

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA or possibly FA status, but need fresh eyes to see how it flows, if there are errors or problems that could derail the GA/FA process.

The citation templates are using the new WP:SFN format, I had help from another editor on those, but my eyesight is not good and thus I have a tendency toward typos and other formatting hiccups ( { and [ look the same to me in the edit box).

Also useful to see if the horse info is readable to non-horse people.

Thanks, Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I reviewed this for DYK and would say that it's pretty close to GA status. The lead should probably be about two paragraphs longer given the length of the article. As a non-horse person, I needed to look up what the asterisks in front of the horse's names meant. Perhaps a note explaining that would be helpful. You might consider a separate section or subsection for the books he authored. Also make sure that pp. is being used for multiple pages and p. for single pages. I tried looking for free images of Brown, but couldn't find any. Some reviewers may frown upon multiple fair-use images. All in all, this is looking good. Interesting article - it must have been devastating for him to lose his horses. Cheers, Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 06:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the walkthrough. Yes, I ripped out my hair trying to find a free image; plenty of horses, not of him. I will find a source on the asterisk thing and put it in a small, discreet note. We get that question a lot. I can look for more info on the books, the Horse of the Desert is raved about in the Arabian horse literature, but I don't know if it has any outside reviews. I had no idea he even wrote the forestry treatise until I started this article and looked him up in WorldCat. Do you have ideas how I could expand the section on the books? I can probably get a copy of the Arabian book, no clue if the forestry work is anywhere to be found, and even if it is, I think it would be OR for me to do the review of it anyway, right?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• My words failed me there. I just meant to say that the bulleted pair of books could be under a section header (level 2 or 3) reading "Bibliography" or "Works". Details on Horse of the Desert would be most welcome, though, if there are any to be found. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 07:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to pop in what you mean and let me take a look-see at it. My brain is too full of mush today to visualize what you are trying to tell me... Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Review by Churn and change:

• The lead is a summary of what is in the body text and so should have nothing not in the body text (see WP:LEAD). So you might want to move the "one of the most knowledgeable . . ." part and its reference citation to the main body. The Maynesboro stud ownership part seems to be already repeated and cited in the main body.
• "Brown Company": The 100% reference implies they had joint control before. If so, that should be stated.
• "Brown Company": The quote on leading the Brown company to international prominence can be paraphrased; will improve flow of reading.
• "Foundation Stock": Too many details (uncited, though that isn't my objection) on the Blunt family; focus should stay on the subject. The take on Lady Wentworth seems non-neutral; you should attribute this subjective perception. So, Brown thought Lady Wentworth was . . . or "According to Andrew S. Steen, Lady Wentworth was . . ."
• "Foundation Stock": What's up with the "*" before the horse's name?
• Images: The lead image likely won't survive the fair-use test; hard to argue his image is integral to understanding the text. The 1919 image is actually public domain (all images published before 1923 in the US are) and should be moved to WikiCommons. That doesn't need a fair-use rationale and can be moved as the lead image. Technically a photo has to be published before 1923, not just taken before that time, but I think you can get away with that.
• General: Very little about his personal life. Just one mention of his wife, but not even the name is there. There is an obituary of him at http://berlinnhhistoricalsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The_Brown_Bulletin_V4_No2_Sept_1955.pdf with more information on him, including his family. Since the company was no longer owned by him, that can be considered a reliable source (per Wikipedia a tertiary source, but in this case pretty much a secondary source). The photos there are also helpful; unless they renewed the copyright, those photos (like all such photos before 1964) are in the public domain. If you are interested in pulling some of those in, pls let me know: I can tell you where to check for copyright extensions.
• Takeway: Ready for GA review.

Thanks for the input! My answers, with some additional comment:

1. Yeah, a bit more work on the lead is probably needed, though there is a loophole for single-appearing facts in the lead to be cited, it is cleaner to do it the other way. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
2. I cannot find source material on the precise nature of the ownership change; WW Brown was one of the original founders, along with non-family members, then eventually the family (I cannot locate names of other major family stockholders, though) gains full control. I'd be really thrilled to find a source that can help me with this. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
3. The Blunt family is complicated and needs some note, and yes, it appears to be Brown's view; I'll try to clarify that. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
4. The asterisk (*) means the horse was imported. Common parlance in Arabian (and I think Thoroughbred) breeding circles. I think a note is best so that it doesn't detract from flow of text Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
5. The lead image will survive Fair Use for GA, but if we can somehow obtain the version from the Obit, it's better quality ;-) But: can you verify that the 1919 image WAS published before 1923? I'd love to move it there if it is. I DO have to verify it was published for commons, though; I tried a "taken before 1923 but we can't verify publication" argument with the folks over at Commons on a different article and got slapped down so fast it made my head spin! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
6. Cool that you found the Obit! But where is the source for the "Okayness" of pre-1964 images, thought it was 1923 ? (And NOW I know where everyone else found the images! Hooray! Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• The copyright law for pre-1964 images is, from Public domain in the United States: "Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term." That part is accurate; I have checked elsewhere. To check if copyright was renewed, you can search for the title of the journal/magazine here - http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First If that shows up no results, you can claim PD on WikiCommons. For the image taken a year before his death, you can claim this was the first publication known. Churn and change (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  

---

2010–11 Temple Owls men's basketball team

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it just needs a bit of a touch up before it is ready for FA.

Thanks, ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk comments - Hi, I will start by making some comments about the images, and then add more as I read the article. The licenses are all free and valid, I have moved the logo to Commons. Two images are vertical, so they might benefit from adding the upright parameter, which makes them protrude less down. Also, the Fran Dunphy image should probably be right aligned, since photos of people should face the text, not away from it, per image MOS. In that way, it won't push the template and title near it to the right either. Perhaps the Lavoy Allen image should be moved up to his award section, so it does not interfere with the references, creating white space. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Mind doing the upright part? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

JS comments - the article's paragraphing and writing style are not great. The second paragraph starts off with "TO finished the season" - what season? There is far too much detail at the top and extremely badly paragraphed. Also, the most important info about the team goes in the top part, the details can go in the article body. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what season it is. Any more examples of bad prose? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to puzzle it out, I suppose. JoshuSasori (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Two other things I noticed, there's a red link in ref 27, and there are some names in the intro, shouldn't they be wikilinked? FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  

---

A Community of Witches

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has already achieved GA status, but failed its first attempt to reach FA status back in February. I'd really appreciate it if someone could have a look through the prose, and see if there are any superfluous words that could be removed to improve the page, so that it can then go on to FA status.

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Herb Mitchell (actor)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wanted to nominate this article as GA, but I'm not very sure. This is about a person who is no longer with us, not a fiction-related.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments

• It should be in American English so "theater" rather than "theatre" (though this spelling might be a grey area for AmEng there is less risk of "correction")
• "in live theatrical performances" - "in the theater"? As you've already specified he was an actor there's no worry that we will think he is a surgeon or scenery shifter

  Actually that is a stupid suggestion as it introduces a category error - just drop the "live". Yomangani^talk 21:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox has more information about his personal life than the article proper. (It also specifies "Los Angeles" in the Residence field which is only partially true. You can leave this field blank, it is not mandatory)
• "Early life and career" - perhaps just "Early life" as it is less ambiguous.
• '...which associated him with the motto "We measure success one investor at a time."' - did the commercial associate him with the motto (as part of the pitch) or did he become associated with the motto due to the repeated showing of the commercial?
• '"three forms of cancer"' this quote will need a reference inline
• The paragraph beginning "In 1992, while living in Los Angeles..." needs some attention. It is a bit jumbled. He buys a house in Blue Hill, waits over ten years to move there while either battling cancer or still battling it. We are then informed that his family is already living there (which part of his family is that? When did they move there?) He then semi-retires (when is "then"?) but still appears in some live performances "there" (where is "there"? in Blue Hill?)
• "Over the years, he was mentored by "his longtime musical collaborator Sheldon Bisberg" to perform songs well and accurately." - this is a bit of an anti-climax. Performing "well and accurately" is probably less than he was aiming for. "Call me a fool and a hopeless dreamer, but one day I believe people will hear me and say 'Listen, he's playing well and accurately'"
• "Mitchell was the father of four children with his first wife, Scarlett Kinney, and one daughter with his second wife, Janet Ahearn." - we already know he is the father of four children, but details of his marriages could have been introduced earlier.
• "On January 4, 2011, he died in the Blue Hill home of his daughter Kathy and her husband" - was he living with them?
• "He was privately buried in spring 2011." - he died in at the start of January, did he lay in state for 3 months?
• "He was paid a primary tribute in Blue Hill on September 17, 2011." - what is a primary tribute?

The article is a bit cursory - you can still see the seams where it was gleaned from obituaries - but I suppose there is little literature discussing him. I'm sure you can get this to GA with a little work but I don't think it would be worth the effort to try to push it any further than that. Yomangani^talk 11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Lykke Li discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like someone to review it before/if I nominate it for FL. Thanks, Pancake (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Franz Kafka

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a recent GA and Gerda Arendt and I would like to get it to FA. Please review for that level. Thank you.

Thanks, PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I am looking forward to reading this article. "Kafka" was a name frequently bandied around in my bohemian student days, though truth to tell, none of us knew what we were talking about. Now is my belated chance to find out. Because of a logjam of commitments this review will be somewhat intermittent. For the moment I am confining myself to the lead section.

• Opening statement: encyclopedic neutrality requires removal of the descriptions such as "influential" which, like "famous", "notorious", "brilliant", etc, have a distictly peacocky flavour. Likewise, the statement that Kafka is "regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century" needs to be specific to a source, rather than made as a general assertion.

• To my understanding, the lead doesn't need any source as far as it is a summary of sourced material of the article. What do you suggest to summarize that Kafka influenced the production of writers and other artists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Gerda than a well-written lead, as a summary of the article, does not need refs. Also agree with Brian that we could make this a little less peacocky. I'd like Brian's ideas on how to do that and also point Kafka's is one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. PumpkinSky talk 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is considerable overlinking, of everyday and common terms such as "novels", "short stories", "20th century", "Jewish", "unfinished works", posthumously".

• These links were there when we improved the article, - I didn't remove them and would be interested in other comments to the matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Brian's right on this. I'm cleaning up in a moment. Note overlink does not apply to tables nor photo captions. PumpkinSky talk 16:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Now all removed but the one to 20th century in literature, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "Educated" as a lawyer? One normally is "trained" for a profession

• changed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I found the second paragraph something of a muddle, with rather too much detail. For instance, it is not necesary to record the specific titles of the letter collections in the lead.

• cut letter names.PumpkinSky talk 17:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The syntax of the final sentence is wrong: "He was also conflicted over his Jewishness at times, feeling it had little to do with him, yet also heavily influencing his writing." Replace "yet also" with "although it".

• Done PumpkinSky talk 17:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having stated that only a small part of Kafka's work was published in his lifetime, it seems unnecessarily repetitive to state, a couple of sentences later, that the majority of his works were published posthumously. Instead of "The majority of his writing, including unfinished works such as all of his novels, was published posthumously..." I would say "Unfinished works,including all his novels, were published posthumously..."

  Done, I guess by Gerda. PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

From a quick glance the rest of the article looks like solid work, and I look forward to commenting on it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you, thrilled to have you helping with this important article. I think we've got all the above, except for how to say he's an influential writer and one of the greatest of the century in a non-peacocky way. Also, should we add a bit to the lead?PumpkinSky talk 17:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• • On reflection, as you conclude the lead with examples of major writers influenced by Kafka, with further examples in the body of the article, I think it's OK to include "influential writer" in the opening sentence. The statement that "Kafka is regarded as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century" needs only to have the words "by leading critics" inserted after "is regarded". The statement is well supported and cited in the body of the article, a fact that I hadn't previously noticed. More review comments tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I hesitate a bit to insert the critics, because I think even most people who have nothing special to do with literature would know that. The link went to "20th century in literature" all the time, but I expanded what shows, it's not just "20 century". I also inserted (before this PR) links to years where his works are mentioned in the timeline as key works of a year, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whether readers are knowledgeable about literature or not, they need to know that statements about the greatness of a writer come from valid critical sources, rather than from, say, press agents or popular newspapers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with BB here, "by leading critics" inserted. PumpkinSky talk 21:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

More from BB: These comments cover the "Life" sections of the article, though not those dealing with Personality, Political views and Judaism/Zionism (which really form a separate grouping)

Family

• File:Kafka5jahre.jpg and File:Kafka-sisters.jpg lack source and author information and are thus inappropriately licenced.

deleted both.PumpkinSky talk 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder whether the present level of detail is necessary in the "Family" section? Examples of detail which I think is superfluos:-

• "next to the Church of St Nicholas"

• commented until the church will have a article, then it might be of interest to look at the surroundings Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "Hermann was the fourth child of Jacob Kafka..." and details of Jacob's profession

• "fourth child" dropped, "ritual slaughterer" kept as significant for the Jewish background Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Number of people employed by Hermann

• I think it gives an idea of his business

• Exact ages of Kafka's deceased younger brothers, rather than "died in infancy"

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Lifespans of Kafka's sisters

• kept - there was a long passage about their fate in the Holocaust, the dates give an idea Gerda Arendt (talk)

Perhaps keep some of this detail but cut the rest?

• What is "High German"? There seem to be several related wikilinks but I don't know which is most appropriate. Is High German different from "German"?

• High German (Hochdeutsch) (Wikt:Hochdeutsch) is probably chosen opposed to the Mauscheldeutsch described before, it's used in other context to differentiate "pure German" from dialect. How to say it? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Some of the prose is a bit choppy (short, terse sentences) while at other times sentences seem to meander, e.g. "He also spoke and wrote Czech,[11][12], which he studied for eight years and received good grades in at the Gymnasium,[13] but he never considered himself to be fluent in it, although others complemented his Czech." In the last sentence of the section you need a semicolon, not a comma, after "little interest in exercise". These sorts of problems are likely to recur in other sections of the article. A thorough copyedit is advisable; if possible I will do this when the review is complete.

Did a small ce here. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Education

• New paragraphs, and especially new sections, should introduce the subject by name rather than by the pronoun "he". This is a recurring problem and should be fixed through the article.

Done, I think ;-) PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "He only went to the synagogue four times a year with his father, which he loathed." Full of ambiguities: did he go four times a year with his father and other times on his own? Did he loathe the synagogue, or going there with his father? Or did he loathe his father? Personally I think the word "loathed" is too strong a term unless you want to attribute it; in any event you need to sort the sentence out.

did a ce and + ref. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Give date or year he began at Karl-Ferdinands-Universität

Done. PumpkinSky talk 22:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "first studied chemistry" → "began studying chemistry"

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Citation required for second part of third paragraph

added translation and ref PumpkinSky talk 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "He considered..." → "Kafka considered..." You could follow this with "He took an interest..."

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• File:Kafka-as-pupil.jpg has neither source nor author information, and is inappropriately licenced.

deleted. PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Employment

• "He" issue in first sentence

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "compiling and composing the annual report..." - the annual report of what?

ce'd. PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Together with his close friends Max Brod and Felix Weltsch, these three were called..." needs rephrasing. Possibly "He and his close friends Max Brod and Felix Weltsch wee called..."

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "spouse of his sister Elli" confuses slightly since "his" undefined. Why not: "Elli's husband", since we know who Elli is?

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "collaborate in the operation of an asbestos factory" seems overelaborate wording. Suggest: "help him run an asbestos factory" - or otherwise remove this seemingly tangential information.

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "Max Brod" can be generally referred to as "Brod" after first mention

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "who usually supported him in everything else." - very loose phrasing. Perhaps "who usually supported his interests".

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "he spent the next six months" - "Kafka spent the next six months"

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "medical problems due to tuberculosis". Suggest replace "due to" with "associated with"

• taken Gerda Arendt (talk)

• "his employers arranged for a deferment"; we could do with a reminder of who his employers were at this time.

added PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Later years

• File:Kafka.jpg is derived from the photograph shown here, which indicates that the copyright is held by Schocker Books. The information on the image file description is misleading; this image will not be PD in the United States.

deleted PumpkinSky talk 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• The extract from Kafka's diary describing Felice is a little too long for a summary encyclopedia biography. It could easily be trimmed without losing its effect.

• I thought that it serves three purposes at the same time: let him speak himself once in this article, and describe the women to whom he was engaged twice, and his way of looking at her/people Gerda Arendt (talk)

If you can make it flow better in fewer words, cool, but I'd like not to lose this info.PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• This section, covering the years 1912 to 1924, ought to consist of more than a record of Kafka's amorous adventures which, apart from the paragraph dealing with his last illness and death, is really all it consists of. What else was he doing in these years? What was he writing, who was he meeting, where was he living? Did the war and post-war upheavals leave him completely unaffected?We need to have a much broader picture of his life during these critical years. The last paragraph is sketchy; when did he return to Prague, and how come that he died of "starvation"?

I'm confused. We talk about his work at the insurance institute, which went through WWI, his illness, and for starvation "The condition of Kafka's throat made eating too painful for him", basically, he couldn't eat. Please elaborate. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I intend to leave the review for a bit, to give you a chance to consider these comments. In particular, a lot more research is needed with regard to establishing the PD status of the images, where I have identified numerous problems thus far. Image gurus are in short supply at present on WP, but you would do well to get some expert advice, if you can, on the eligibility of the images I have highlighted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for detailed help, some taken already, some to be considered. I will tentatively move some details on language from family to later, please look at that. - Thanks for your patience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, many thanks for this thorough review. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

More on the "Later Life" section Re my comments above:-

• The first paragraph is entirely concerned with his relationship with Felice Baur
• The second paragaph deals with a putative affair with Greta Bloch, a possible illegitimate son, visits to brothels - and nothing else
• The third paragraph mentions affairs with Milena Jesenka and Dora Diamont - and nothing else.
• In the fourth paragraph he takes ill and dies. You give the probable cause of death as starvation before mentioning the throat condition that prevented him from eating, which briefly confused me, but that's not important. What is important is that apart from recording his illness and death, the section is wholly concerned with his love affairs. It's as if he did nothing else for 12 years but chase women. I imagine that Kafka's writings will be properly discussed later in the article, but the biographical section needs to summarise all the main aspects of the subject's life. For example, what was Kafka writing during this period? What if anything was published? What did he try to get published? Did he ever travel or go anywhere? Etc, etc... we need a full summary of his activities in this important period, not just a record of his love life.

• Perhaps we really should rename most of the paragraph to "Women" and move it somewhere else. Yes, his works are mentioned later, twice, once in "Stories" and "Novels", many works again in "Publication", I think mentioning them a third time would be too repetitive. The division of the article in a life section and a work section was given when we started to improve it. - Women: growing up with three sisters (no brother) and female servants probably shaped his life. - I agree that there should be more about his travels and where he lived, but he travelled more in his earlier years when he was not ill. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• I think perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not suggesting that Kafka's literary works be discussed in detail in the "Life" section, but since his fame is as a writer, there needs to be some mention in this summary of his life of what he wrote, when he wrote them, and what got published, etc. Just a few names and dates, along the lines of "During this time Kafka was busy writng such and such...", or "That year, Kafka began..." Reading through the Life section at the moment, it is hardly apparent that he was a writer at all; you mention his literary interests as a student and later his membership of Der enge Prager Kreis, but that's about it. This is the point that needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope to continue the review at the weekend, but I have a busy off-wiki time coming up and will be away for part of next week so progress may be a bit sloooow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I move the love life stuff to its own section, "Love life", though I'm open to name changes. PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Private life" rather than "Love life", but as mentioned above, the Life section needs a little more attention, to highlight the fact that it is the life of a writer. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Changed. We'll work on the later life stuff this weekend. PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I started inserting a couple of works 1912 where a connction is visible. Please check if that is a road to go. Questions: should the works be linked there? I would say yes, because readers might jump there. Should we change the heading again, because now it's no longer only private life? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I renamed "later years" to "death" and moved it to the end of the life section. PumpkinSky talk 02:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: unfortunately I will be off-wiki for a few days but hope to be back towards the end of the week. I will resume my comments then. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

no problem here, best wishes for you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Back again: OK, it looks as though a lot of work has gone on in the past week, with some useful reorganisation in the Life sections. Rather than going over that again, I'm moving on to the "Works" sections and will report back shorttly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Hope your vacation was good and we really appreciate the thorough review. `PumpkinSky talk 10:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

Stories

• General point: should short stories, as complete works, be presented in italic format rather than in quotes?
  • No. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#When_not_to_use_italics PumpkinSky talk 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "...(literally: narrative), mostly called short story." I would include the whole phrase in the parentheses, and put "short story" in quotes.
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "His oldest surviving story was titled..." As it survives, should be "is titled"
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Kafka's earliest published works were eight stories, published in 1908 as..." Avoid the "published...published" repetition. Thus: "Kafka's earliest published works were eight stories, which appeared in 1908 as..."
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "He published a fragment in 1908, and two sections in the spring of 1909". Who is "he", and where were these parts published?
  • Kafka, Munich, done. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• In the paragraph on "Das Urteil" you refer to its dedication "in subsequent editions" without giving any indication of when/where the original edition was published.
  • Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The Metamorphosis", also "The Transformation": "also" should either read "also called" or just "or", otherwise the alternative title sounds like an additional work.
  • Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "and first published in 1915": you need to reconsider this wording. You don't need "first", and unless Kafka was self-publishing, it should read "which was published in 1915..." (and then say where).
  • Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 19:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The work is regarded as one of the seminal works of fiction of the 20th century." This assertion needs specific attribution to a source.
  • Found three journal articles to support this. Send quotes to Wehwalt and he said something along the lines of "since they also say Kafka influenced other writers, these refs support the statement"--that is not an exact quote but it's the gist of it. PumpkinSky talk 21:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Say where ""In der Strafkolonie" was published, and again delete "first"
  • Done. PumpkinSky talk 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "the decline in the appreciation of his strange craft". I'd say "a" decline, and I'd indicate what the "strange craft" was.
  • tweaked, done, and added wl to the performers called hunger artists.PumpkinSky talk 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Novels

• "the same motifs" → "the common motif" (only one mofif mentioned)
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "The novel was not completed, but the final chapter was finished." Use the active voice: "Kafka did not complete the novel, although he finished the final chapter".
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Awkward prose: "Elias Canetti titled his book on Kafka's letters to Felice Kafka's Other Trial, in recognition of their relation to the novel The Trial, described as "a novel ... in which Kafka's engagement to Felice is re-imagined as the mysterious and menacing arrest of the hero". I would alter the sequence along these lines: "According to Elias Canetti, within the novel "Kafka's engagement to Felice is re-imagined as the mysterious and menacing arrest of the hero"; Canetti titled his book on Kafka's letters to Felice Kafka's Other Trial, in recognition of the letters' relation to the novel."
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• I would not include the title of Kakutani's NYT review, as it makes the sentence very difficult to read.
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• More awkward phrasing: "Kafka planned his novel Das Schloss (The Castle), already in 1914, according to an entry in his diary of June 11, 1914,[91] but began writing on January 27, 1922." Suggest: "Kafka's diary entry for June 11, 1914, indicates that he was already planning his novel Das Schloss (The Castle), although he did not begin writing it until January 27, 1922."
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• " Kafka had suggested that in the end the castle notify K. on his death bed..." I'm not sure what this means. Where did Kafka suggest this, and to what does "in the end" refer?
  • Reworded.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "...the novel is focused on alienation, bureaucracy, the seemingly endless frustrations of man's attempts to stand against the system, and the futile and hopeless pursuit of an unobtainable goal." Whose summary is this?
  • Looks like it came from the wiki article The Castle (novel). Should we reword or cut it? PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Publications

• Inappropriate section title. It should be "Publishing history" or some such
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "in their literary yearbook for the art poetry Arkadia..." Is the word "journal" (or "magazine") missing after "poetry"?
  • It's called a "yearbook" in German (Jahrbuch), so I added yearbook.PumpkinSky talk 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "among others" is confusing, as you began the sentence: "Other stories..." I would alter the ending to "and other publications".
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "...as part of Ein Landarzt" → "...as part of the story collection Ein Landarzt".
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Again the confusing "also" in the parentheses. "Also" cannot be used to signify an alternative title.
  • Changed to "or".PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "who had it printed" - who had what printed?
  • So edited. PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• The words "in the printed book" are unnecessary. You could say "Kafka dedicated the book to Brod: "Für M.B."...etc
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Kafka's influential story..." I'm sure it was influential, but encyclopedic neutrality requires this judgement to be attributed to someone else.
  • cut "influential ". PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• Give the English equivalent of Ein Landarzt at first mention.
  • Unless I'm mistaken, that's already done. If not, please mention to where you specifically refer. PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
• "which appeared in 1924 after his death in Verlag Die Schmiede. Comma necessary after "death".
  • Done.PumpkinSky talk 21:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Will continue in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

More

Max Brod

• This sentence: "Brod prepared for publication the novels The Trial (chapters were unnumbered and some were incomplete),[118] The Castle (which stopped mid-sentence and had ambiguity on content),[118] and Amerika, which Kafka had titled Der Verschollene (The Man who Disappeared)" needs rewriting. It's far too complicated at present, with three parenthetical insertions, and it also raises further questions. For example, how did Brod deal with the incomplete chapters in The Trial, and how did he resolve the unspecified "ambiguities" in The Castle. Did he add prose?

• I felt the same ;) That sentence was there, I don't know on which source. Should I just simplify it? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Reworded. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• "It appears Brod took a few liberties with the manuscripts, such as moving chapters, changing the German and cleaning up the punctuation". Not a neutral ecyclopedic sentence; where does "took a few liberties" come from? Also, "changing the German" is far too vague an expression.

• same thing, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Reworded. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Modern editions

• The organisation of the section is muddled; for example, the paragraph on the "Kafka Project" at SDSU does not seem closely related to "modern editions"

• Moved to "commemoration" section. Open to other suggestions. PumpkinSky talk

• The information that notebooks and letters were confiscated by the Gestapo has already been given (previous section)

• Cut. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• The prose in the last paragraph is seriously garbled - I struggle to make sense of it. And it appears to have nothing to do with modern editions.

• Deleted.PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

List of works

• This would be better as a subarticle rather than as a section here. As well as reducing the size of this article, an advantage would be that issues relating to the list can be resolved away from the main article.

• I agree on separating it. Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Such issues include:

• Inappropriate column headings "de" and "en". Headings need to be be readily understandable, and in English

• I have a small screen ;) - what do you suggest? Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Whether direct links to Wikisource pages are allowed. Links to external pages are not generally permitted in WP pages.

• I would not include them in text. Here we talk links to the original text of the writer in question and their translation. I understand the link as a service to the reader. Coming from the Bach cantatas, there are links to the score, the German version even has links to the entries on the bach-cantatas website, Gerda Arendt (talk)

• Irregular format: see "Literal English title" column - some entries are centre-aligned
• Dates of first publication are, with one exception, year of first publication. Likewise, more or less, "Date of writing".
• There are no citations to sources anywhere in the table.

• The table is a summary of information in the individual articles about the works, in order to make it sortable, Gerda Arendt (talk)

I will look again tomorrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moved to the preexisting Franz Kafka bibliography. PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have glanced ahead, to get some feel of the rest of the article. I have serious reservations about the long "Translation problems" section. The text seems specialised and inappropriate for a general encyclopedia article on Kafka. The diagram has no source information in the image description and looks very much like original research. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Kafka poses different translation problems than other authors, therefore it should be covered. A diagram is part of a liguistic article (linked) which uses it as an example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Gerda. Kafka presents unique linguistics challenges that should be cover. The first sentence of Die Verwandlung is a primo example thereof. The chart is labled as "own work" which I think was done by a linguistics type upon request of user Maunus. I've asked Maunus to comment here. PumpkinSky talk 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am glad that the List of works has been separated. The outstanding issues on the list can be left to one side for the moment while we concentrate on getting the main article right. In that regard I have to strongly disagree with your approach to the translation issue. The article has, first and foremost, to be readable—it is part of a general encyclopedia, intended for the general reader, not part of a specialist or scholarly publication. I'm afraid that the prose in the Translation section will be impenetrable to the general reader, who will be likewise baffled (as I was) by the diagram. A separate issue is that unless the diagram's content can be traced to a reliable scholarly source, it is original research. I urge you to think again about the "general reader" approach and to modify your text accordingly. It is not that the translation issue isn't important, but...let me put it this way. When I write an article on an opera or other musical work—The Rite, Mahler's Eighth, an opera—I don't go into details of chordal analysis or syntactical structure. These are important issues for musicologists and students of musical theory, but not for general readers. Back to Kafka: I suggest a simple statement that translators face formidable problems in rendering the original German into any other language, because of the particular structure of the German language. Perhaps one example to illustrate. Ditch the section and ditch the illustration. Or at least, think about it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem (my POV): it's not "the German language", it's Kafka's unique style of using the German language which poses the difficulty, and I would have a very hard time to say in simple words what the diagram shows at a glance: the structure of a complex sentence (how can making a sentence from the source visible be OR?) and the different structure of the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BB-please don't let this issue hold up getting to the rest of the article.PumpkinSky talk 22:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum comments: Like Brian, mention of Kafka brings back memories of student days. I've only looked at the lead so far, but it seems a bit choppy and disjointed to me. I've made a few small changes and moved a little bit around, but here's an example of what I'm talking about: "Kafka preferred communication by letter". Preferred it to what? Semaphore? Morse Code? Speaking? And why not the more straightforward "to communicate by letter", unless the implication is that he preferred everyone to communicate by letter, not just himself. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that one. If you have more suggestions, please let us know. PumpkinSky talk 00:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have loads more: "He left unfinished the novels Der Process (The Trial), Das Schloss (The Castle) and Amerika (Amerika or Der Verschollene)." That doesn't seem at all idiomatic to me: much more natural to say "He left the novels ... unfinished". It seems to be in the wrong place anyway, should probably be integrated with the final paragraph, which already mentions the publication of his unfinished works. And given the conjunction of this sentence with the preceding "While working for an insurance company ..." the implication seems to be that he left them unfinished while he was working for an insurance company, but may have completed them later. Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thanks! PumpkinSky talk 01:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's another: "While working for an insurance company he wrote many stories". What that implies is that he wrote no stories after he left that insurance company. Added to which he worked for more than one insurance company, so "an insurance company" is rather misleading. Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

changed to "He wrote some of his stories while working for an insurance company", is there a better wording than that? PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable about what seems to me to be a non sequitor. What significance does it have that he wrote some stories while working for an insurance company? Surely the best thing to do is to say something along the lines of that after finishing his legal training he worked for an insurance company, and started to write (short?) stories? Or are the two things related in some Kafkaesque way? Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So tweaked, thanks for helping. PumpkinSky talk 10:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Late into this: that is a line that was there, I felt uncomfortable but not enough to do something about it, thank you for pointing that out. I guess the intention is to say that for most of the day he was not a writer but an employee, he started writing in his spare time and complained for life how much time he had to devote to his "Brotberuf" and how little to what he felt was his calling. Wording? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a really important point, and we ought not just to drop the fact that he went to work for an insurance company. What about something like "After completing his legal training Kafka took up employment with an insurance company. He began to write short stories in his spare time, and for the rest of his life complained about how much time he had to devote to his Brotberuf ("day job", literally "bread and butter") and how little to what he felt was his calling"? I'd also consider dropping that partial list of short stories, as it doesn't seem to add much where it is. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So changed. PumpkinSky talk 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Little of Kafka's work was published during his lifetime—the story collections Betrachtung (Contemplation) and Ein Landarzt (A Country Doctor), and individual stories in literary magazines." It's unclear to me what this is trying to say. "Little of Kafka's work was published during his lifetime, only the story collections ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to "The few works Kafka published during his lifetime are: ...." PumpkinSky talk 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Translation problems to English

• I share Brian's concern about this section, and that it needs to be more accessible for the general reader. One thing I'd suggest immediately is moving that dependency diagram to The Metamorphosis's article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus_Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

I can live with moving the chart, but noting the chart was made by a guy with a PHD in German and linguistics. Moved the chart. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

We've all got degrees in something or other. Am I supposed to be impressed? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a degree in Business Studies. That should really impress you, MF! Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Better than football studies I guess. Marginally. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 14:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've cut much of the technical stuff from this, tried to copyedit too. Pls review. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Review continued: I am continuing with the sections I haven't looked at yet, before going back to review earlier parts. Here are my comments on two further sections:

Critical interpretations

• "Critics and academics, including Vladimir Nabokov,[128] regard Kafka as among the greatest writers of the 20th century. W. H. Auden called him the "Dante of the twentieth century". Nabokov was a novelist; Auden was a poet. Although their opinions are of value, neither can justifiably be called a "critic" or an "academic". So I would modify the statement along the lines of: "The poet W.H. Auden called Kafka "the Dante of the twentieth century"; other writers such as Vladimir Nabokov have regared him as among the century's greatst writers".

Done PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "his breakthrough work" sounds like a modern Americanism used for film actors, singers etc, but it reads oddly here. Also, the two word "of his" at the end of the sentence must be removed.

Done PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "multivalent"? The meaning is "having a valency of two or more", where valency is "the combining power of an atom measured by the number of hydogen atoms it can displace or combine with in the formation of compounds". I think you may have chosen the wrong word.

The 4th definition where I looked it up is "Having various meanings or values" but as it's confusing, I cut the word out. Got a word to put in its place? I couldn't think of one.PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• In a section entitled "Critical interpretations" you need to be specific about who is saying what; foms such as "Some see..." and "others point to..." are not adequate.

Reworded.PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "skewering of bureaucracy" - whose phrase?

Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Inconsistencies in tenses, e.g. "Kafka's prose allows..." and "Kafka's work touches on..." versus "Kafka's books drew influences from..." and "his work was centered around..."

Fixed. PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "According to Encyclopaedia Britannica Online..." What is the status of this source material? It has no author's name, no citations and, worryingly, carries a general invitation to "Help us expand this topic" by adding a contribution. I would not use this stuff.

Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Much of Kafka's work touches on the theme of human conflict with bureaucracy; nevertheless, this has been disputed in an article on The Guardian, where William Burrows claims that such work is centred on the concepts of struggle, pain, solitude, the need for relationship, amongst others; he hence asserts that to view The Castle as a novel on bureaucracy is merely to "trivialise Kafka's artistic project" and "reductive". Monster sentence with non-idiomatic phrases ("he hence asserts" is nonsense). The whole thing needs a substantial rewrite.

Done.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whose insertion is "with good reason"?

No idea. Cut.PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 135: I followed this link, which appears to go to an unrelated page.

Page 7, critical intrepretations section. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Kafka saw the absurdity of human existence and that people could make it meaningful or not". Statements like this need to be attributed, not just cited. In this case, I am not sure that the source supports the statement as given. The appropriate lines are, presumably, "Kafka ... approaches the inherent terror of existence with a wink and a nod, and embraces the absurdity of everything. Later in the twentieth century, the comedy troupe Monty Python would in a sense follow in Kafka’s steps, presenting life as ultimately absurd and as meaningful or meaningless as one chose to make it." Thus it is the Monty Python comedy troupe, not Kafka that presented life as "meaningful or meaningless as one chose to make it." Also, where was this essay first published? At the moment it is only linked to "The Literture Network".

ce'd + new refPumpkinSky talk 01:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Biographers have noted..." Specifically?

Cut PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Law"

• Having read the section, or having tried, I'm unconvinced that this aspect of Kafka's writing deserves a full subsection on its own.

?PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why the quasi-ironic quotes in the title?

I wondered that too. Was there when Gerda and I started. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "A number of attempts have been made to examine Kafka's legal background and the role of law in his fiction,[139][140] though relatively few compared to the vast collection of literature devoted to the study of his life and works, and marginal to legal scholarship." This sentence does not parse properly. I fail to see any real use of the wording after the references (which is where the problems are).

Cut PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• What is meant by "mainstream studies"?

Cut mainstream PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whose phrase is "the horizon of meaning"?

Was there when we started. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph needs more citations (none after the first phrase)

added PumpkinSky talk 01:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "However, James Hawes argues..." is another of the prose marathons that needs editing and splitting. In particular, interpolations such as "in fact" should be avoided. Several other sentences are similarly afflicted.

Tried to fix. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The significance of law in Kafka's fiction is also neglected within legal scholarship, as Richard Posner pointed out, most lawyers do not consider writings about law in the form of fiction of any relevance to the understanding or the practice of law". Please explain why "legal scholarship" should bother about Kafka, or any other fictional writings about the law.

Cut PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have no clue what the last paragraph is about. It is nearly all a quote; if it means anything important, you need to paraphrase it in simpler language.

big copyedit. PumpkinSky talk 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My final batch of comments:

Kafkaesque

• The sources in this section are websites: "Infoplease", "Free Dictionary", "Websters Online dictionary", "Wired 2011" and "Aquella 2006". These are not scholarly sources. Given the huge amount of Kafka scholarship, it is surely possible to present a discussion of this term, and illustrations of its use, on the basis of something more reliable than these.

Adding at least three journal articles from JSTOR in the next few minutes.PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Drop the hatnote. It is of no interest to someone reading this article that "Kafkaesque redirects here"; they are already here. The link to the episode of a TV series undiscussed in the article will simply puzzle people, and that should go, too.

Cut. PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Get rid of gratuitous opinion such as "If Franz Kafka were Mexican, he would be a Costumbrista writer", incomprehensible to the general reader and of no value - but I rather think this whole section will have to be rewritten.

Cut. PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Commemoration

• The section looks a little thin and uninformative.
• The museum is "dedicated to his work" - can you amplify? When was it established? Is it a state institution? Is it just exhibits of manuscripts etc, or is it a centre for research and scholarship?

Added a few sentences on that except I can't determine it it's state or private. PumpkinSky talk 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd bother to mention the asteroid, which smacks of trivia.

I respectfully disagree, few people have their own asteroid.PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The Franz Kafka Prize was established in 2001, to recognize the artwork's "humanistic character..." etc. The words "the artwork" give a sort of clue, but we need to be told clearly to what artistic fields (painting, sculpture, whatever) the prize relates, who is eligible, how frequently it is awarded and, importantly, what the prize consists of (money? medal? trophy? all of these?)

Done.PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, but I would be very surprised to learn that SDSU is the only university among the thousands in the world that operates a centre for Kafka studies, or that it is considered among the leader in this scholarship, so it is strange to find a whole pararaph devoted to the work of this institution and no mention of anyone else.

It's there because they're at the core of the search for K's papers PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Literary and cultural influence

• First paragraph needs specific attribution

Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• In the list of writers influenced by Kafka you have three successive citations to the same source. You should give authority to the statement that these writers were thus influenced by giving the source (Sandbank for the first three, a Financial Times literary critic for the others.

Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first paragraphs reads like a continuation of the attribution to Sandbank, but I see it is sourced differently. This should be clarified.

Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The second paragraph makes trenchant statements but, as with elsewhere in the article, these wordings need to be placed specifically in the mouth of a source.

Done PumpkinSky talk 20:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• The table seems to come out of nowhere, without any preamble. What is it? It looks like a medley consisting of film and dramatised versions of Kafka's life and/or works, mixed with derivative and original works influenced by Kafka, bits of music and video games.

I don't know who compiled this, but I think the content needs looking at. At the very least ant such table should be properly indroduces and presented as a partial or selected list. Personally I would ditch the whole thing, select the more significant items and cite them in the text as examples of K's literary and cultural influence. Presenting the items in this form is asking for trouble.

Added a lead in sentence, I think it's worth keeping as it shows the wide and varied impact he's had on modern culture.PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That completes my general review of the article's sections, and I feel I need a bit of a break from Kafka before I read through to see what effect my comments I have. Before I go, though, a few final observations:

• The infobox would benefit from exorcism. I'll do some work on this later.

Already did that. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Of the thousands of WP articles I've looked at, I've never seen one with so many listed sources. I count 45 books, 19 journal articles, 11 newspaper articles and 50 websites. Are all of these cited in the text? As mentioned in my review comments, some of the online sources look distinctly dodgy. I wonder why such a huge proliferation of sources is truly necessary, and whether some rationalisation is possible. To cap it all you have listed 25 more texts as "Further reading"!

Will work on some of the iffy refs. YES, every ref listed in the biblio section, books, web, journals, newspapers, IS USED. PumpkinSky talk 14:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are minor issues such as image placement which I'm not bothered with at the moment, but which will need attention in the final polishing stage. My impression on reading through is that the prose will need a lot more attention before the article is anything like ready for a FAC. When I read through again, in say a week's time. I'll be able to judge the extent to which the prose has improved, so I'll make no further comment on that now. Finally, a word of congratulation to Gerda & Pumpkin for the efforta made to bring this article up from a very poor state towards something worthy of so important a writer. I have mentioned this in the current CORE contest, and requested that the article, if not a prizewinner, should get an honorable mention.

Now for a short break. Phew! Brianboulton (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed and thorough review. PumpkinSky talk 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani comments

• I love the infobox occupation field: "Insurance officer, factory manager, novelist, short story writer". Perhaps reword the opening sentence: "Franz Kafka[a] (3 July 1883 – 3 June 1924) was an influential German-language insurance officer and factory manager." Yomangani^talk 02:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the infobox yet. I suspect that much of it is for the chop - or will be, if I can have my wicked way with it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I cut the ", insurance officer, factory manager" part. The rest is standard writer infobox stuff. PumpkinSky talk 12:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Influenced" section is pointless - it contains only a subgroup of the authors mentioned in the text which in turn is only a subgroup of the authors he has influenced. As a summary it is next to useless. Yomangani^talk 18:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree it's pointless. PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You make a convincing argument. Say I want to know if George Orwell was influenced by Kafka - if I read only the infobox then I can apparently say for certain that he wasn't. If I'm a machine collecting the data for dissemination it's even worse because I will be passing on that haphazard condensed condensate without any supporting data from the article. That this field is ubiquitous doesn't make it useful. What information is it supposed to convey? Is Kafka Camus' main influence? Is he Saramago's only influence? Should he be listed as an influence on Foucault because Foucault was influenced by Sartre? Did Kafka influence film-makers or artists? Welles, Kubrick, M. C. Escher or the developers of Bad Mojo? I was going to suggest that this field is on a par with having a "Things that are this colour" field for {{infobox colour}} but I reckoned without Wikipedia's talent for self-parody. Maybe a "Things that contain this substance" for {{infobox element}} would be a better parallel (I daren't look) Yomangani^talk 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Brian that "Law" probably doesn't rate its own section. There are several problems with it as it stands anyway:

Made it not a subsection.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • The bulk of the first paragraph is presumably a paraphrase of Glen's opinion of other critiques - I doubt the other critics would agree that they have failed to account for an important aspect of Kafka's writing.

Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Using "Kafkaesque" to describe Kafka's work - how "Joycean"

Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "are based on accurate and informed, though exaggerated" - exaggerating them makes them inaccurate.

Fixed.PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "Similarly, the requirement for the traveler to register with the authorities in The Castle to stay a night in the village seems repressive and odd to the Anglosphere" Does it seem odd to the Anglosphere?

Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "...present-day Germans..." Not the Bohemians of Kafka's time? Wouldn't they be more relevant than the present-day people of a different country?

Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "present-day Germans, as with most continental Europeans, are required to register their address" Who and when and where? Germans are required to register their address when staying in a US hotel? The imprecise assertions made in this sentence don't add much.

Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "Kafka was an insurance lawyer" - was he? The earlier sections have him qualified in law but working as an investigator and administrator.

Reworded.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• • "Reza Banakar argues..." - this sentence is nonsensical. I corrected a couple of other sentences in this section to what I presumed they were intending to say but I'm at a loss with this one.

Cut.PumpkinSky talk 02:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani^talk 18:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the table introduced by "Selected works showing Kafka's influence on a wide range of areas of culture:" gives too much weight visually to this area of influence. Yomangani^talk 10:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper comments

I thought about picking this up but Brian beat me to it and much of what I have in my notes (I began a review) has been addressed. A couple of suggestions though:

• I think much of what's been addressed can be mitigated with a thorough literature search of the best scholarly material available about Kafka. Too much reliance is given to Brod which is problematic for several reasons: Although the 1960 edition is being used here, the biography was published in 1937 and thus very dated; some biographers (and this is especially true of biographers for writers) have a PoV - Brod knew Kafka, had his work published and retained some sort of control of the Kafka estate. My suggestion is to keep some of Brod but cut back as much as possible

Worked and working.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• The most respected current biographer is Reiner Stach. Lean on him a lot more.

Doing tonight. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• More emphasis should be given to literary critics, particularly for the lit. crit sections. Cambridge Companions are really good for this because they are compilations of the most recent literature by the "best" scholars. They're fairly cheap to buy online (I've bought a few for as little as $7) so I'd suggest using that as the best resource.

Taking you up on your offer on your talk. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's a sentence (sorry haven't pulled it out but can if you wish) in regards to critical analysis that's sourced to the NYT > generally on-line sources, unless very good, are not great for critical analysis

Can't figure out which line you're talking about. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

About motif which should be sourced to a modern lit. scholar. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's an e-book that has some weird mirroring, backward copyvio thing going on that I can't figure out, but I'd remove it and maybe ask MRG if a backwards copyvio tag is necessary for the talkpage.

Noticed this too, will take out that ref.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Brian is correct in regards to the proliferation of sources: sources sometimes tend to be derivative and it's not always necessary to use everything, e.g. the info about the battle over the estate is presented equally as well by the New York Times and PBS, so maybe one of those can be trimmed out.

I think you meant NPR vice PBS. Cut. PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It was meant to be an example of others; but yes NPR. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Better and more varied biographical and critical sources will give more information that's necessary to fill in some of the gaps; filling in the gaps to some extent will solve the choppy prose problems.

Working.PumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Finally, in regards to the translations - I think it's not so much that he wrote in German, or the way he wrote, but that it was a function of how the modernists wrote in general (which maybe needs more exploration). That's out there in sources and if either of you is interested I'd be happy to help with a literature search.

SurePumpkinSky talk 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Language

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review becaus I've recently expanded it drastically, and would like some outside imput before deciding whether to nominate for GA. Given that the topic is so huge I am sure I've left out something important, but at this point I am blind to it myself. Also it would be good with a second pair of eyes to scout out any erroneous or dubious statements I may have introduced unwittingly.

Thanks, ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Review by Peter Isotalo

First off, I think this is a great undertaking. You barely ever come across such a general article topic that is this well-written. In my view, this is prime FA material that seems appropriately complete in terms of contents. The concerns I have is mostly a matter of improving prose and straightening out a few unclear statements. So here we go:

• I don't like the Babel image sitting on top of the article. It's a well-known language myth, but language myths don't really have much to do with linguistics. I think it should be moved down to "Language endangerement" where the Babel myth is actually mentioned. Otherwise, I'd look at it as unnecessary undue weight of a Biblical perspective through graphics.
• Consider explaining "suprasegmental" at least once. An important term, but bound to seem obscure to non-linguists. it was already explained in both of the cases where it appeared.
• I think it would be good to explain "formant" in just a few words. It's a fairly technical phonetic term.
• Much of what comes after the first sentence of "Grammatical categories" is quite difficult to follow without thorough knowledge of linguistic terminology. Could it be lightened up somehow?
• Concerning the Yupik example, it seems as if the number of translations doesn't quite match the apparent number of Yupik morphemes. Is ksaite by any chance "say-negation"? (it was just a dash instead of a period making it seem as if there was a morpheme to few, -uq is third.person.singular.indicative)
• "For example in the Australian language Dyirbal a married man must use a special set of lexical items when speaking in the presence of his mother in-law." – "Lexical items" is a bit jargon-ish. Would "vocabulary" or maybe just "words" suffice?
• "(corresponding to German fater - fiʃ, and Nordic faðer – fisk)" – Why "ʃ"? What exactly is the spelling based on? Because clearly this is not modern German, or it would be Vater and Fisch. And the "Nordic" words seems more like Old Norse judging by the "ð". Clarification would be good.
• "gradual petrification of idioms" – Is it possible to find a slightly less obscure word for "petrification"?
• In "Language contact", the use of "adstratum", "substratrum" and "superstratum" comes without much explanation. Could more common terms be used, or could they perhaps be explained somehow?
• Why are "Chinese languages" in the Ethnologue table counted the same way as languages that are generally considered mutually intelligible? As far as I know, Wu, Hakka and Yue are about as similar to Chinese as German is to English. Are there no figures for just Mandarin Chinese (the dialects, that is, not the standard language)?
• The last two sections seem somewhat weaker prose-wise than the rest of the article. I think they could use a working-over. Lightening up repetitions and getting the sentence to flow a bit better would be a nice improvement.
• The article touches upon relevant examples of how language matters to humans. Is it possible, though, to somehow stress the importance that language has for human culture(s)? For example, something really quick about how nationalism and language has gone hand in hand in the modern period, and how ethnicity is often extremely tightly bound to language.
• There are a few paragraphs without notes at the end. I'm personally not that bothered by this since much of the information is very general in nature and not particularly contentious. But it might be good to cover your bases anyhew. After all, there are plenty of sticklers for referencing out there... Also, some of the longer paragraphs with just one note could be looked over. Unless it amounts to pure reference repetition, an additional note might sooth the nerves of at least some of the most ardent note-hunters out there.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Btw, feel free to cross out or put a check mark next to any concern you feel you have remedied.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Jim Thome

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there have been some general fixes in the past few days. I want to know what else people think needs done before I eventually nominate it for GA.

Thanks, Go Phightins! (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you got no PRs for the article. This is likely because the article is not even at GA level yet (check WP:Peer review, which points out PR is typically for articles going to FA). Zepppep (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Love the Way You Lie

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've delayed the planned peer review request for this article by about nine months now, taking time to revise it multiple times. I think it's ready for a third eye before FAC after quite some trimming, copyediting and reorganizing. All commentators welcome, and I'll be forever in your debt. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 19:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

• Here's what I found while reading the lead, if you want me to review the whole article just ping me =) and best of luck, Jona^{talk to me} 01:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why did you start if off with "... his 2010 studio album Recovery." instead of "... his seventh studio album Recovery."? I also suggest you to unlink studio album in this sentence.
  • I guess I thought it was repetitive to say "seventh studio album" and then "second single", but it's not as repetitive as "2010 studio album" and then "released in August 9, 2010". Done, and unlinked!
    • What about It was released as the second single from the album on August 9, 2010, through Interscope-Geffen-A&M. Jona^{talk to me} 13:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Followed your suggestion, but slightly tweaked so that readers don't think there were two singles released on that date: "It was released on August 9, 2010, as the second single from the album through Interscope-Geffen-A&M."
• Skylar Grey is an American singer, which needs to be added per WP:PCR.
  • Added "American".
• I also suggest you to unlink recording sessions
  • This is something I feel reluctant to do, because not many readers will know what a recording session is. It may be obvious to us what it means, but not to everyone. But I am second guessing this and may eventually unlink "Recording sessions".
• This sentence "The song was received favorably by critics for the lyrics." I understand what you are trying to convey but it reads lousy, it can also help if you provide which part of the lyrics they generally favored, or if they just liked the lyrics of the song wouldn't it best to say "The song was received favorably by critics, who favored its lyrical content."? or similar.
  • Re-written to "The song was received favorably by most critics, who complimented its realistic themes."
• You also have some archiving to do before it's too late
  • Have archived the green ones and will archive 'em all soon. Just a few more to go!

  Thank you wholeheartedly for this review! Definitely worth the wait. Please feel free to go further down the article, but no pressure if you don't want to or are busy. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Writing and production

• "a drum rhythm with software" - can you provide which software he used? otherwise it doesn't really make sense.
  • Removed "with software" and wrote "...produced an electronic drum rhythm". The source does not specify the program used, so this is as concise as I can get.
• So you link recording sessions per your understanding of others not too knowing of music terminology, though you left sampled unlink. Do you feel as though readers will understand the word 'sampled' in the text?
  • Linked!
• Again WP:PCR is needed for Grey
  • Right, done.

Recording sessions

• Remove the space found between Strange's review and the period that follows.
  • Fixed typo.
• "but Eminem liked it" - liked what? the addition of a acoustic guitar?
  • "...but Eminem liked the instrumentation" is what I wrote.

Composition and theme

• "is mainly about" doesn't sit well with me, maybe rewrite it like so "Love the Way You Lie", talks about an abusive relationship in which the couple's love is too strong for them to separate. or "Love the Way You Lie", centers (or explores, analyzes, scrutinize) an abusive relationship in which the couple's love is too strong for them to separate.
  • I like "explore". Done!

Chart performance and sales

• Numbers here does not follow WP:ORDINAL which states "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words..."
  • In exceptions: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Chart positions and weeks apply here.
• "On the Danish Singles Chart, the song first appeared at number 14 and rose to the top 6 weeks later" - care to inform us which week that was?
  • Done and tidied to follow chronology.
• "It charted in Canada for 35 weeks" could be merged with another sentence
  • Merged with the sentence that comes after.
• Why only wikilink South Korea? and even so, why link it?
  • No idea how that got there...

Music video (background)

• "Rosenberg gave Kahn one day." to do what?
  • Expanded and reworded.

Live performances

• Isn't it redundant to say people here "in front of an audience of almost 80,000 people"? (found another example in the last para)
  • Nice catch! Wrote "for almost 80,000 people" and "for an audience of 120,000" respectively for some variation.

Cover versions

• Per WP:BIO remove Russian-American to just Russian, Alex Feather Akimov was born in Russia not the United States.
  • Done.

References

• Remove redlink found on FN#88
  • Removed red link.
• I did not thoroughly checked the referencing styles, but it looks perfectly fine to me. Shouldn't be a problem at FAC.

I enjoyed reading the whole article and found it to be well written and has a possibility of passing FAC. I hope for the best on this article and good luck . Best, Jona^{talk to me} 13:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank for the thorough review. Your points are greatly appreciated and I will repay you someday. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Bear with me for a bit, this will probably take a while. Also note that I have next to no knowledge of hip hop or rap.

• Worth a link to Alex da Kid in the lede?
  • I would say so, likely because he has an article and is relevant to the topic enough.
• Link midtempo to tempo (music)?
  • Done.
• "explores two lovers" - I started hearing Marvin Gaye when I read this line. Perhaps a word other than "explore", or something to qualify "lovers" like "explores the tale of..."
  • Switched to "describes"
• Worth redlinks to the different music companies in #Writing?
  • Probably not, unlinked.
• "reinventing herself" - Unclear, perhaps unnecessary. At the very least use quotes if this is a direct quote.
  • Removed as it is a muddy phrase.
• "He emailed Grey his recording," - Who emailed Grey whose recordings?
  • Replaced pronoun with "Alex da Kid".
• "a process that came naturally," - Perhaps "a process that she found came naturally,", as it is ultimately her opinion.
  • Done.
• "which included a hook." - You said it included a hook earlier. What's the point of repeating this? Did the hook play a role in why Eminem chose the song?
  • Removed.
• "ideal for the part." - Why?
  • The source doesn't say why, and it's hard to paraphrase the quotation concisely, so I just used it verbatim in quotation marks. This is probably not much better, but I'll see.
• "Alex da Kid was absent." - You said he was British earlier. Why would he be at the recording sessions, especially if (maybe) he had to fly halfway around the world to do it?
  • Removed.
• "in Dublin" - Ireland? Michigan?
  • Ireland, per album notes (Temple Bar is in Ireland). Clarified.

That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the comments. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 12:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• "4:23 (4 minutes, 23 seconds)" - Erm... it's rare to see this in text. That looks quite awkward too, having it repeated twice. Any way around it?
• On May 27, 2010, Eminem revealed "Love the Way You Lie" with the rest of the Recovery tracks, which were released... - Released as tracks, or released on an album? This should be made clearer.
  • Re-worded.
• "'Love the Way You Lie' was favored by most critics." - Perhaps "received favorable reviews"
  • Done.
• "its top-210 list" - 2010, perhaps?
  • Done.
• "On April 26, 2011, Gabriel Alvarez of Complex magazine put it at the bottom of their 100 Best Eminem Songs list, writing that it is a love song in which Rihanna sings beautifully." - Huh? Bottom, so like number 85 or something?
  • Right at the bottom, clarified.
• "Eminem's first number-1 hit on the Rap Songs chart since "The Real Slim Shady"" - In what year?
  • Done; 2000.
• "It lasted 26 weeks, 8 of which were spent at number 1." - Perhaps add "on the charts"
  • Moved it to where it was supposed to be. Hopefully there won't be any more confusion.
• The numerous "it"s are quite repetitive in the charts section, any way to cut back on them? Perhaps "the song" or "Love the Way You Lie" or something...
  • Replaced a few instances with "The song", "the single" and "the track". —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 09:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's it for today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Spot croaker

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to make it a GA article and i wanted to get some feedback before I put it up for GA

Thanks, Dmanrulz180 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

• Anything in the WP:LEAD should already be mentioned in the article
• The phrase "excellent table fare" may not be understandable to all English readers. Its palatability should also be sourced.
• Move the bit about the NC into a "Society and culture" section, perhaps. Ideally a WP:SECONDARY source is best for analysis and detail of the event.
• The article's title should be bolded (WP:BOLDTITLE)
• The common name should also be bolded in the first sentence
• I don't know why Spot should be capitalized. I see brook trout is not, and there is this for guidance Wikipedia:CAPITAL#Animals.2C_plants.2C_and_other_organisms
• "frequently caught by recreational anglers" is a vague/generic statement that may be best removed or sourced
• detritus is mentioned in the lead, but not the body of the article for example

I hope these comments are useful. When you address them let me know at my talk page if you'd like for me to take another look or to ask me a question there. I won't have this peer review on my watchlist. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Doro (musician)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I expanded it and I need advice on the necessity of copy editing and on the general tone. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Independence Day (Pakistan)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm aiming for a FA out of it. It has just passed a detailed GA and I believe it is close to FA status. I want the review which states that what else can be done in order to make it ready for FA. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dwaipayanc

• Comment The subsection "Independence" discusses the problem with the date (14 versus 15 August). So, the name of the sub-section does not really go with what is described in the section. Shouldn't you call the section something like "date controversy" ? Also, this is a quite intriguing controversy. Even if we may not know why the date was changed from 15 to 14 August, do you have any data on when was it done? It may not be a specific year when suddenly the independence day was changed, in that case at least a possible year-range? Who made the change? It was not Jinnah for sure? So, who changed the date that even the revered e maker of the nation Jinnah mentioned in his speech? This should have some more coverage, as this is sort of unique! --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for making the first comment! I've changed the tile and  Working on grabbing other info which can possibly be added. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 10:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I guess previously the particular header was '14 vs 15 August' which I changed to 'Independence' and you are right, the title seemed off and even 'Date of independence' can be improved. I wouldn't recommend "date controversy" because a) it is not a 'controversy' (strictly speaking), just sometimes after 1948 the date was changed to 14 probably because India celebrate its ID on 15 and the transfer of power took place at midnight between 14 and 15 and b) it is not widely known even in Pakistan and those who do 'are ok with it'. Samar ^Talk 18:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In the "Background" and "Partition" sections, the narrative jumps from 1858 to 1930. That's a big jump. Also, the background section does not really elucidate why a religion-based division was sought by some people. It says Iqbal was the first proposer apparently, but what made him (or others) to propose or pursue that idea of religion-based partition? The role of Indian independence movement, in general, and Indian National Congress, in particular, (actually the conflict between the League and the Congress) in the creation of Pakistan is not perceptible in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
• The work done during the GAN review is really impressive. This article seems within the scope of the Military History Project to me, and we've been getting feedback from historians lately asking us to do more with articles on causes and effects of conflict. Does anyone object if I tag this for Milhist and attempt some copyediting? - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure if the article on the 'day' of Independence comes under MIL, surely the articles on the events leading up to it do. But that's my opinion and please do the copyediting, even if it doesn't come under the scope! Samar ^Talk
  • The theory is that if there's no other single article that successfully covers the events in the "History" section, then we don't mind tagging ... but I see now that Pakistan Movement may cover it, or will, eventually. I wouldn't be very useful as a copy editor, because the article is in Pakistani English (naturally enough), which I'm terrible at. If you ever want to bring articles on a head of state, causes or effects of conflict, or military history to Peer Review for history, A-class or FAC, please do, and ping me if I miss them ... I'll do my best regardless of the variety of English. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    

---

District Railway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like comments before taking it to FAC. It's in a simular style to my recently prompted Metropolitan Railway article.

Please note that I will be travelling for the first three weeks of October. I will have access to the internet and be able to respond to your comments, but I will not have access to the books used as sources. However, please ask questions and comment.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

---

George M. Stratton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like review comments on how to get this to GA status. The article was rated B by an uninvolved editor, and the next step in improving it seems to be GA status.

Thanks, Churn and change (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

---