Wikipedia:Peer review/April 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.

---

Smith Act trials of Communist Party leaders

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for FA status. The article already has been through two GA reviews, and two Peer Reviews. I think one final review by a real hard-nosed editor should get it to that final plateau. The reviewer should be familiar with FA criteria and willing to nit-pick the article. Thanks, Noleander (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

:Seems ok, but I'm not a really picky reviewer. I found & changed a few things, especially links, & no doubt others will too. The Daily Worker or the Daily... 5 cols in the refs seems too many. But in the absence of a run-through by someone really picky it is probably ready. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review and the improvements you made. I fixed the "Daily Worker" name; and the footnote columns are set to colwidth=20em, which is pretty standard. The article covers a rather complex topic, so I may ask one or two other editors to also review it before it goes to FAC. Thanks again. --Noleander (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to do this. It depends if you can wait for a few days; if you can I promise you a picky-picky review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hang on, though. The last peer review (a very thorough one by the looks of it) only closed on 30 March (four days ago). Peer Review regulations state (in bold) that 14 days must elapse between reviews of the same article. So I'm sorry, this has to close. I'll still be happy to read the article and leave comments on the talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies ... I was not aware of the 14 day rule. I'll close it. If you could do a review on the Talk page, that would be appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Sri Lanka

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it should be nominated for a feature article. Please review the article and make any suggestions for improvement if need be.

Thanks, Distributor108 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Early Netherlandish painting

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article is still at an early stage of development, but I would like guidance as to where to take it from here in terms of focus/coverage, structure etc. Also as its inevitable going be a large article, I would like to iron any current problems reviewers might identify, rather than be faced with a humgous taks at a pre FAC PR. I appreciate that reviewing the page is a big task, but any bits of feedback would be appreciated. Tks, Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are a few points that I hope you will find helpful. From what you say, you recognise that the article needs a considerable amount of work; hopefully my suggestions will be helpful in that respect. I don't have expert knowledge in this area, but to my eye the text appears comprehensive and of an appropriately scholarly tone. It is the presentation and the final polishing which are the main issues.

• The lead, at around 650 words, might be a little too long; it looks quite a slab of prose. Some of the detail could perhaps be trimmed.

  Done, but needs to be re-drafted post cut and paste.Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Do we need two lead images? Also, magnifying the Arnolfini to 300px makes it seem overbearing; I would reduce this to 250px, and remove or reposition the other.

  I want two lead images, and have used the two that are by some distance the two most signifant paintings. Have reduced the size of both. Captions to follow. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• As the lead image, the Arnolfini should have a bit more caption, to explain its particular significance to this period in art history and thus its justification as the lead image.

  Agree, doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• On images generally: sad to say, I think there are far too many of them (I think I counted 30). They are mostly great to look at, but they tend to swamp the text, to the extent that much of the wording is squeezed between images. The number and in some cases size of images tends to distract the reader. It is not clear why so many images are necessary; I would think that in an article of this length, about half this number of images would be adequate, so if I were you I would instigat a selection process.

  I have reduced, but the article is shorter now than it will eventually be. Is at an intermediately stage, I'm taking stock. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Map: this purports to show the Burgundian lands as in 1477, but even when I viewed it enlarged, and used a magnifying glass, I could not interpret the key, so I don't know what the significance is of the various colours. Maybe some of the detail in the caption could be exchanged for a brief explanation of the map?

  Changed maps, but this is a tough one. I have a v good map in one of the NG sources, and am seriously considering asking them if they will allow me to use it. 14:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the prose in any detail, but a few quick glanes at the text reveal that a copyedit is necessary. A few random examples of glitches:

• "As artistic centers Bruges and Ghent flourished the fifteenth century" (the word "in" is missing)

Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The early Netherlandish masters' influence also reached artists such as Stefan Lochner and the Master of the Life of the Virgin, who, working in mid-15th-century Cologne, drew inspiration from imported commissions by van der Weyden and Bouts, painters who had already passed beyond the High Gothic". Far too much detail in a single sentence and thus hard to grasp
• "one of the most important and well-known of the Netherlandish painters": no hyphen in this usage
• "As in Florence, where banking and trade led to numerous private commissions, wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings for private devotion (often including themselves in the form of donor portraits) as well as secular portraits." Where are you saying that "wealthy merchants commissioned religious paintings..." etc, as well as in Florence?

Another over-ambitious single sentence: "It dries slowly and thus can be manipulated while still wet, giving the artist more time to add subtle detail[31] and allow hatching, wet-on-wet painting and the ability to achieve smooth transition of colours and tones by removing layers of paint to expose those below." There are quite a few of these

• "The Burgundian dukes were regarded by royalty as far as Italy and Spain" What does it mean, that they were "regarded by royalty"?

• There is a mix of British and American spelling. Thus we have "colours" and "centers". Consistency necessary

Haha, don't look at me there ;) Working on fixing. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• A great deal of the text is presently uncited, but this is presumably something that is in hand and will be dealt with as a matter of course.

• Yes, the "Terminology and scope" and Italian sections specifically. Both are from when I started on the page, have only now built up enough sources to deal with. Well aware and doing. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• A number of your "notes" are themseves uncited statements that need to be referenced.

  Eek, fixing. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are two Ainsworths in the sources, but as far as I can see, no citations to either.

  Banished, though both will be used. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Minor point: page ranges in references need ndashes not hyphens. You also need to be consistent in formatting of ranges; at present, for example, there is "21–23" and "104–7". Also "277–283" and "411–12"

If you wish to raise anything arising from this review, or want me to look again, please contact me via my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, these are exactly the kind of pointers I was looking for. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Note; progressing along the recommended lines. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Brian - thank you for taking the time to look through this. Your suggestions are extremely helpful and much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Harvard Bridge

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because many changes have been made since the last peer review. I want to see what's still an issue.

Thanks, Denimadept (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better than the last time I reviewed it. I think this is pretty close to GA, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I think the lead is still pretty thin / sparse as a summary fo the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the Engineering study and discrepancy in measurement with smoots do not seem to be in the lead.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the "Mass Ave" bridge and MIT bridge names are only in the lead that I can see.
• Abbreviations like Mass Ave need to be given on first use, so Massachusetts Avenue (Mass Ave)
• Be consistent in details - is it "Mass Ave" (in quotes) or just Mass Ave? Both are used in the article.
• Or why is Bridge capitlaized in the article name, but not in Mass Ave bridge and MIT bridge?
• The use of bold face in the lead is OK per WP:LEAD, but the other uses of boldface do not seem as if they follow WP:ITALIC
• Ref 4 is to Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source and would not be OK in a GAN or FAC review
• Some of the refs do not have all the required information. So for example, Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Watch for POV language like "unfortunately" in Unfortunately, Boston did not like this act, mainly because it did not provide for an overhead crossing of the Grand Junction Branch of the Boston and Albany Railroad.
• MOS says that for block quotes some sort of attribution should generally be made, so this needs to be put into context as from the 1892 book The effect that the bridge will have upon both cities is obvious. The low land and marshes on the Cambridge side, formerly almost valueless, have been filled in and ...
• Inflation figures need a year (This is equivalent to US$13,210,000 with inflation as of YEAR.[12])
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Charles River is linked at least three times in just one section, and common terms like USA are not linked
• It seems to me that there could be a bit more context - looking at a map, the bridge runs nearly north-south and Cambridge / MIT is on the northern end, for example.
• Or reading about smoots, the frat houses were at one end of the bridge and MIT at the other end, so they wanted the bridge sidewalk marked so they could see how far they had walked.
• Lots of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that make the narrative flow choppy - these could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Is the discrepancy in smoots and bridge length due to the start / end points for each being in different places?
• There is a book called Smoot's Ear - might be a useful source.
• Seems odd that there is no history past 1990 - nothing has been done to / happened on the bridge in the last 2+ decades?
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps a lot. Comments follow.

"Mass Ave" is in quotes because it's a vulgar way of referring to the bridge. In that sense, "MIT bridge" should probably be in quotes too. Bolding is used in many articles' leads to show alternate common names for something, but perhaps there should be another way to show the alternate names. They have to be included so people can find the article using a search. Note that Massachusetts Avenue is named later in the paragraph as the road carried by the bridge. I think of the bolded name as a forward reference to this.

The "longest bridge over the Charles River" needs a better reference, agreed. As it is, it looks too much like OR. It needs to be there to help with notability.

The citation is before each of the block quotes. This is a change I made recently to make the formatting better. Previously, the attribution showed up after the quotes on its own line, which was not acceptable either.

You think a second map would help?

I don't know where the frat house is/was. That's not in any refs I've seen. Why they wanted the measurement is not clear, but it seems to me that the desire or need for a measurement is not really the point of the prank. They wanted the measurement as a way to give the pledges something tedious to do which seemed relevant to the technical context of the university. Why they started the measurement at the northern side of Storrow Drive rather than at the far end of the bridge is also unclear. Maybe they were lazy. I used to have some speculation about that in the article, but as speculation, and uncited at that, it was declared OR so I removed it. We'd have to find published explanations of this in order to use it, and I seriously doubt such exists. Certainly I've not found any.

"Smoot's Ear" - ordered. Good thing we're not in a big hurry here, as it was listed as arriving next week.

I haven't seen anything about activity on the bridge in the last 20 years, yes. It's still there, I've not read of any major construction on it. No explosions, no collapse, nothing notable. If someone else has, they're welcome to add it. I suppose I could ask MassDOT if they know of anything, but that'd be OR! Can't have that. Maybe some research in the Boston Globe's archives would help.

this and this strikes me as non-notable. Funny, maybe, but not worth listing.

this is mildly notable, implying that it took Boston 114 years to connect to the bike lanes on the Harvard Bridge. I could see adding this. Done. :-) - Denimadept (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Now I've checked the "longest bridge" issue. The list article doesn't list crossing lengths, so it's not even slightly relevant. I've commented that out. A web search found reflections of the lead in many other places, but nothing which says this in a way we can use. I can prove the bridge is the longest over the river by a quick glance at a map, but that's not something we can use either, as it's OR. Gah. - Denimadept (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've sent a query to MassDOT to see if they can help me, perhaps with something on their site I can cite. - Denimadept (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

MassDOT sent me a PDF containing all the bridges over the Charles with their lengths. How can I cite such a thing? - Denimadept (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sctechlaw comments: Structurally the article looks like it's coming together well, and as per the previous reviewer, a bit more context would up the interest level for the reader.

• One semantic thing I noticed, in the Conception section you say the

  "... Legislature passed two acts, Chapters 175 and 314 to authorize the construction ..."

  The Chapters themselves are not the Acts, so better to refer to them a bit differently. I think you actually mean that the

  ... Legislature passed two enabling laws in the Acts of 1882: Chapters 175 and 314 authorizing the construction of a bridge between Boston and Cambridge."

  The distinction is important because of how laws were organized at the time. The Acts are all the enabling laws passed in a given year, while each Chapter contains the the laws actually passed and each Section governs a subsection of each law. At the time I don't know they referred to them exactly that way, but in law we do now so as to differentiate the body of law from a section of it. Ergo: Acts (body of law) -> Chapter (single subject of law) -> Section (specific subset addressed).
• Also, each time you use the words "Act" and "Chapter", you are referring to a specific body of law or a law itself, thus Act and Chapter should be capitalized when used in this way.
• Also as per the previous reviewer, some contemporary data would be helpful, especially in light of the sorry state in which so many U.S. bridges now find themselves. I think there have been many contemporary studies done comparing the ages of bridges across the U.S. and how they fare comparably, so you could use that sort of data to address any contemporary issues. This is the sort of information people often look for after a tragedy such as the ones in PA and MN not long ago, so that sort of thing would be pretty helpful.
• I also have an article up for peer review, so if you have the time please consider reviewing Apple Inc. litigation.
  Good luck! Sctechlaw (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh (came back to add one more thing), and when you cite a law it would be helpful to the reader to use a citation to the original source, especially as you refer to the laws directly. You can find the Acts of Massachusetts using a Google books search like this one, as the Acts were published every year. Sctechlaw (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!! There are templates I can use, and will. - Denimadept (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here's the text from the original source:

In 1874 the construction of a new bridge between Boston and Cambridge was agitated by residents of both cities. In that year the Legislature passed two Acts, Chapters 175 and 314, "authorizing the construction of a new bridge and avenue across the Charles river, between Boston and Cambridge." Nothing, however, was done about the matter, and the subject was not agitated again until 1882, when, by Chapter 155 of the Acts of that year, the cities of Boston and Cambridge were authorized to construct and maintain a bridge over Charles river, which Act was approved April 14, 1882. Its provisions are as follows:

[Chap. 155, Acts of 1882.]

An Act to authorize the cities of Boston and Cambridge to construct and maintain a bridge over Charles river.

Be it enacted, etc., as follows:

SECTION 1. The cities of Boston and Cambridge are authorized to construct a bridge and avenue across Charles river, from a point on Beacon street, in Boston, to a point in Cambridge, west of the westerly line of the Boston and Albany railroad. The location of said bridge and avenue shall be determined by the city councils of said cities acting separately, subject to the approval of the board of harbor and land commissioners, so far as it affects the harbor, and subject, moreover, to the limitation that the line thereof shall not be north-east of a line drawn from the junction of Beacon street and West Chester park, in Boston, to the juction of the harbor line with Front street, extended, in Cambridge, nor south-west of a line drawn from the junction of Beacon street, Brookline avenue and Brighton avenue, in Boston, to the junction of the Boston and Albany railroad with Putnam avenue, extended, in Cambridge. Said bridge shall have a draw with a clear opening of at least thirty-eight feet in width for the passage of vessels.

SECT. 2. Said bridge shall be constructed of such materials as the said cities may agree upon, but on iron or stone piers and abutments, to be of such size, shape, and construction, and be at such distance from one another, as the said board of harbor and land commissioners, upon application made by said cities upon such notice as said board may deem proper, and after a hearing thereon shall determine and certify to each of said cities; and no pier or abutment shall be built except in accordance with such certificate. The avenue, with the exception of the portion between the harbor lines, may be constructed of solid fillin, with the approval of the said board of harbor and land commissioners. Neither city separately shall enter upon the construction of said bridge, but they shall jointly proceed to construct the same in accordance with plans to be submitted to and approved by the councils of said cities concurrently, and by the said board of harbor and land commissioners.

SECT. 3. Each city may within its own limits purchase or otherwise take lands, not exceeding one hundred and twenty-five feet in width, for said bridge and avenu; and all the proceedings relating to such taking shall be the same as in the case of land taken for highways within said cities respectively, with like remedies to all parties interested; and betterments may be assessed for the construction of said bridge and avenue in each city in like manner as for the laying out of highways under the betterment acts in force in each city respectively, with like remedies to all parties interested.

I'd have kept typing, but I think I already did too much. :-> So, were they just being sloppy? As I'm not quoting that part of the text in the article, I can correct it. - Denimadept (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the original document, long out of copyright, is on Google Books at this location. - Denimadept (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I read it before you posted it, lol. You are reasonably confused -- the methods of referring to laws as Acts confuses a lot of people. It's sort of like an orange: on the one hand, "the orange" could be the one on the table, on the other hand "the orange" could refer to the world of oranges, it just depends upon the context. In the context of your article, an Act is a law, a Chapter within the (collected) Acts describes and codifies that law. The Acts (plural) are a body of laws as codified. So, if you refer to the law as passed as I did in the example above, that should clarify it for the reader to the extent required in the article. If you read one of the Acts in the original (which you can do from the Google books link I provided), it should become much clearer to you, and this is the reason for citing directly to the original as well as to the material you did cite, so the reader can also read it if desired. I remember also being confused about it as a first year law student long ago, and only with reading of the actual statutes over time did it become clearer for me. Sctechlaw (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

So you can cite an Act, which is a Chapter, or The Acts, which is all the Chapters of a particular year? How about that first mention under "Engineering"? - Denimadept (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sort of. In the context of your article, a Massachusetts Act is not a Chapter, but The Acts are indeed all the Chapters of a particular year. An Act is a law enacted, while the Chapters within the Massachusetts Acts describe the Acts themselves. Think of an Act as a law, and the Chapters as the guts of the laws -- each Act was usually unnamed at the time, instead having a short description at the head of the Chapter further describing what was being enacted. Not too tidy, like today, but it was enough at the time.

These days we often name Acts in U.S. law, making reference to them easier. Examples would be the Mann Act, or the Clayton Act; if you cite to those laws you use the name of the law (which the Massachusetts Acts in your article do not have), and the date and year, as well as the context, for example:

Clayton Act, ch. 323, § 7, 38 Stat. 730, 731-32 (1914) (current version at 15 U.S.C. § 18 (1988)).

That citation tells the reader to find the Clayton Act in Chapter 323, Section 7 of Volume 38 of the U.S. Statutes, beginning on page 730, with the particular material cited on pages 731-738, enacted in 1914 and currently codified in Title 15 of the U.S. code in Section 18 published in 1988.

Another example, for an unnamed law, would be:

Act of July 9, 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-68, 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. (99 Stat.) 166.

That citation tells the reader to find the cited material (the Act of July 9, 1985, also known as Public Law number 99-68) in the U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, and indicates the volume number 99 and page number 166 of the Statutes at Large (general laws, a.k.a., U.S. Statutes) reported in 1985.

So you can cite the laws to which you are referring as

Act of (insert date of Act), Chapter (insert Chapter number), (insert page number(s)), Acts of (insert year), Massachusetts.

That allows readers to easily find the law and read it for themselves.

Please don't forget to capitalize "Act", "Acts", and "Chapter" throughout the article when referring to them, as they are proper names. Sctechlaw (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

---

William S. Sadler

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is now a good article and I'd like to try for featured status sooner or later. I'd particularly like feedback about prose and flow, and comments about NPOV would be welcomed, as well.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments

Text

Lede

• Possible confusion: "Sadler was influenced by some of Kellogg's views, and married his niece, Lena Celestia Kellogg." -- He married his own niece, or Kellog's rice crispies?
  • Didn't see that before, changed.

Early life and education

• "Although Samuel was a music teacher, he did not enroll his son in public schools." -- A music teacher could be private. I don't think this has enough of a connection for "although"
  • Good point, I tightened it up a bit.
• "... eventually recruited by a federal law enforcement agency (he did not accept their offer)." -- I'd expect a recruit to at least get training. Perhaps "he was scouted"?
  • Yes, I think you're right--my mistake.
• "Sadler operated the mission, and published a newspaper known as Life Boat Magazine..." -- Any indication why the newspaper was called a magazine?
  • lol, fixed.
• "The couple moved to San Francisco, California, in 1901, to attend medical school at Cooper Medical College." -- They both attended medical school? If you are going to bring her up, perhaps a footnote on her schooling?
  • Yeah, actually, I think she was the one who wanted to go to school the most--will try to expand on that.
• "... became an elder in the Adventist church. While in San Francisco, Sadler was active in the church, serving as the "superintendent of young people's work" for the church's California conference and the president of the San Francisco Medical Missionary and Benevolent Society." -- I'm assuming if he became an elder, he was active. Perhaps a way to make these two sentences read more smoothly?
  • Yes, that would be intuitive, wouldn't it. Removed some of the fluff.
• "In 1910, the couple traveled to Europe and studied psychiatry under Sigmund Freud in Vienna, Austria;" -- they both studied under Freud?
  • Yes, I think so, will double check.
• "However, Sadler believed that experiences individuals have as infants play a key role in their adult minds." -- "However" doesn't work particularly well here. Is it related to Freud's concepts, or is something else meant? Or perhaps "Unlike Freud, Sadler..."
  • Hmm, I think I use "However" too much. Tried to rephrase, not sure how well it reads now.

Career

• "... catering to 'women's and children's diseases'". -- Why the quotation marks?
  • I was paranoid about close paraphrasing :) changed.
• Perhaps a redlink for Columbus Hospital as Columbus Hospital
  • Done, I've noticed that our coverage of hospitals is pretty shoddy sometimes.
• "... the theories of Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Adolf Meyer." -- Why are you using last names only?
  • No reason really, I'm just used to saying "Freud and Jung", changed--oops, I just started copyediting this page by mistake...
• " In 1936, Sadler published Theory and Practice of Psychiatry, a 1,200 page work in which he attempted to provide a comprehensive outline of psychiatry." -- Seems out of place where you have it now.
  • Hmm, Ok, I put it back with his books.
• "It is the first steel-frame residence in Chicago." -- Jolting, past tense to present to past.
  • Good point, parenthesized it.
• "He authored magazine articles..." -- Any idea how many?

Urantia revelation

• "Although Sadler examined him for psychiatric problems, he was unable to find a satisfactory diagnosis..." -- Perhaps "Although Sadler examined the man for psychiatric problems, he was unable to make a satisfactory diagnosis..."
  • Sure, changed.
• "Sadler presumed that the documents were the product of automatic handwriting, but changed his mind after applying handwriting analysis." -- Why? Did the samples not match?
  • I would assume as much, Lewis and Gardner don't say why. Gardner mentions the speed at which it was written and the lack of fatigue in the man's arm, but also says that it matched the man's handwriting. I trimmed down the sentence a bit.
• "Although Sadler had left the Adventist church by the time The Urantia Book was published, the teachings of The Urantia Book are broadly consistent with some aspects of Adventist theology, such as soul sleep and annihilationism." -- Any way to avoid the repetition?
  • Took a stab at it, "Adventist" is still repeated though. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Nevertheless, in 1950, the Urantia Foundation was established to promote The Urantia Book." -- Don't see a connection.
  • Removed.

Final years

• "In 1952, Sadler's final book was published. He authored another title, but his publisher declined to accept it and he decided to stop writing." -- Are the titles of either of these works available?
  • The first one is, I haven't been able to find the second. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• "... although he lost an eye a few years before his death." -- How?
  • Neither source that mentions the loss of the eye says how really, just that it was "diseased".
    • That might be worth a mention.
• "The night before his death, he was visited by friends and family; he spoke to them of his confidence in a joyful life after death." -- Was he sickly? Did he expect to die?
  • He was in fairly good health, until he died :)

Reception

• "Gardner describes Sadler's life story as "riveting" and summarizes him as an "intelligent, gifted" person who proved to be astonishingly "gullible" about alleged supernatural revelations." -- Is "astonishingly" in the source?
  • Gardner mentions an "astonishing switch" later down the page so astonishing is in the source, but not part of that quote, I guess I should remove it.

Automated comments

• "While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 19 additive terms, a bit too much."
• No dead links, no DABs.

Comprehensiveness

• Have you considered using primary sources like this, this, and this?
  • Very interesting, that might be a good external link to add.
• Perhaps a list of select works? JSTOR shows quite a few writings by Sadler.
  • Yes, the problem is that there are so many I wouldn't know which ones to use.
    • I'd put books and journal articles with at least so many citations (without looking further into it, I can't give a number). A couple of his writings seem to be heavily cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I guess that's doable. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

References

• Books: Any reason to not include the location?
  • I usually don't, since they're not a requirement.
• Myerson - doi?
  • That's a real old journal article, so I'm not sure if a doi is assigned to it.
• Hickok - Looks odd if this is the only one with the date in a different location.
  • Yeah, that's just a quirk of the template. If there is an author's name available it puts the date in a different place than if there is no author listed.

Images

• Images seem unequivocally PD and well licensed.
• Suggestions for more images: full body shot
  • That does look, good, I'll add it in.
    

---

Cambridge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I noticed that it failed a GA nomination some time ago. I have revised the article according to the reviewer's comments and am submitting to peer review per their suggestion prior to making another GA nomination.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Pontificalibus (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Because I have limited time and don't wish to keep you waiting any longer, I have concentrated on one aspect of the article, namely sources and citations. There is a considerable amount of work to be done in this area:-

• First, there is a lot of uncited material in the article. This is particularly conspicuous when uncited statements occur at paragraph ends, which happens throughout the article. As a general rule of thumb, all paragraphs should contain at least one citation, and they should always with one.
• There are many reference formats that require attention:-

• Publisher details missing. See, for example, refs 47 to 56, 58 to 61.
• There are bare urls (81, 82 etc)
• You need to check for other incomplete formats. Generally each should contain, as a minimum, title, publisher, accessdate where appropriate

• There is a dead link in ref. 110
• Numerous retrieval dates are missing
• Check for consistency in italicisation of publisher names. If the publisher is a printed medium, e.g. a journal or newspaper, it should be italicised. If it is otherwise, such as a website or "BBC News", it should not.
• I have not carried out a complete check on sources, but I wonder whether some would pass the reliability/high quality criteria. For example, http://www.olivia-newtonjohn.com/olivia-newton-john/bio.php appears to have been written by a semi-literate. I have never considered Allmusic a high quality source. Some of these sources seem to support information which is of fairly marginal importance to the article and I wonder whether they are worth keeping.

A lot of work has gone into the article, and most of it seems well presented and comprehensive. One aspect other than the referencing did catch my attention. I know Cambridge fairly well (it's about 35 miles away), but I found that the panaramic shots distort the views almost beyond recognition. I accept that they are interesting and decorative, but they don't really represent the city's appearance. Maybe consider reducing the number?

One last point: the article's structure looks over-complex, e.g. far too many short subsections in the Culture section. Consider ways in which you could consolidate the prose and create a better flow.

I am sorry I am not able to include a general prose review, but I think there is enough here to work on for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The Doon School

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is a potential Good Article (Schools). Not many good school articles have emerged from India except this and a few others. I will be extremely grateful for any suggestions and constructive criticism from experienced school editors. Thanks very much!

Thanks, Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at it, time available determining exactly when (teaching responsibilities on my part). I already note:

• The lead is a bit confusing to those with different educational systems ("C form"? "D form"? taking a test at age 13 but with the entering grade specified - do you not have any students who are promoted two or more grades/standards?); at the minimum, some explanatory links would help. (I realize that it's in British English, and that this should not be changed.)
• The automated checker found some problems, as did the alt text checker.

• You might want to work on these in the meantime. Allens (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions Allens. Will get on it right away....!

Merlaysamuel (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Quite welcome. I also note that there are quite a number of {{cite web}} instances that should actually be {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}. For instance, the Wall Street Journal's online edition should be {{cite news}} with "|newspaper=Wall Street Journal"; similarly, a book cited from Google Books should be cited as a book, with ISBN (can be gotten from the book's Google page). (Both of these will have "|url=" still.) Allens (talk | contribs) 11:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm going to have to do a complete overhaul or the references, probably in line with what was done at SMAC (some cite templates for books and such in the bibliography section, then individual notes would only be page numbers linking to the larger citation). CW to CN/CB...alright, on my mental checklist :P Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 13:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only problem with notes + page numbers is that, unless one constructs them manually, they don't seem to allow for separate URLs (e.g., different Google Books links) for different pages. I'm still trying to figure out how to solve this - see Joan Pujol Garcia for an instance. Any thoughts? Allens (talk | contribs) 13:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• We ran into that same problem over at Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Notes, but it was an easy choice since all of the sources were either offline books or fairly short online sources in which we felt comfortable linking to the first page and letting the reader navigate to the fifth. Of course, there's always the ability to, in a format like "1. ^[[#Shah|Shah (2000)]], p.1.", link the page number separately (and individually) to Google books. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 14:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oh. I should also mention that I've installed a script (User:Ucucha/duplinks - Stfg over at the Guild of Copy-Editors told me about it) that checks for duplicate links, so I'll be going through the entire article with it soon, thus saving some manual effort. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Any more suggestions for improvement of this page? Is it time yet to nominate it for a GA?

:: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Sorry to take so long wioth my review. This sounds like quite an interesting school. Thnaks for your work on the article. I do not think this is close to ready for WP:GAN yet, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs on schools at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education that seem like they could be useful models.
• Some dead external links that will need to be fixed.  Done
• Toolbox on this page shows one circular redirect link that will also need to be taken car of.
• Just looking at the lead, there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but I do not think the current lead is a good summary of the whole article. Please see WP:LEAD
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I see nothing in the current lead on Mountaineering or DS 75, to name just two examples.
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. So for example, the bits about Rishi Valley School taking the first place ranking or the Economist saying Doon School has the second most influential alumni network are not repeated in the body of the article that I can see.
• Looking at the article more closely, the ref for the second most influential alumni network is to the Economic Times, not the Economist. Clarifieddf
• In any case, the lead needs to be rewritten - one way to do this is to fix the rest of the article, then re-read it, then rewrite the lead to summarize it. Another way is to pretend that a reader can only see the lead - what would you want in there to summarize the article?
• The lead can either be referenced like everything else, or can have only refs for direct quotes and extraordinary claims (with the refs in the body of the article, which it summarizes). This seems to be a hybrid of those approaches.
• Per the WP:MOS 'single quotes' are only used for a quote within a quote - direct quoatations use "double quotes" - so fix things like Doon is often referred to as the 'Eton of India' by international and home press alike.[13][14][7][15][16][17][18] Note this is another item found only in the lead that I can see.  Done
• Make sure all fair use images comply with WP:NFCC  Done
• Per the MOS, images should not sandwich text between them  Done
• The article has a lot of places that interrupt the narrative flow. These include bullet point lists and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. Where possible, the lists could be converted to prose, and the short paragraphs could be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• Explicitly give abbreviations on first use, so With the money, Das formed the Indian Public Schools Society (IPSS) whose objective ...  Done
• Make sure to provide context to the reader, especially those not familair with India and its history. So in Kashmir House, after Maharajah Hari Singh promised a contribution of 1 lakh which was delivered in 1935.[23] it would help to note that the Maharaja ruled Jammu and Kashmir. See WP:PCR  Done
• Or why is the name Doon? Seems to be for the Doon Valley, but this is never made clear  Done
• Some places need refs - On October 27, 1935, the Viceroy, Lord Willingdon, came to preside over the formal school opening. There were 70 boys enrolled in the first term, and another 110 boys had signed up for the second term. or In 2009, the Rose Bowl underwent a major structural change while retaining its amphitheatre style. (both examples are also very short paragraphs) Done
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.  Done
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V  Done
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)  Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My huge thanks to you for your invaluable suggestions for the Doon School page. I will take each of your points one at a time and work thoroughly on it. I'd just like to clarify one of the points - the info about Doon's network being second-most influential in 1990 after Harvard has the Economic Times (ET) reference because, in fact, it was mentioned by the ET in that article (mentioning the Economist). Though I'm still looking for a primary source and will add, when i find it. But, really, thanks very much Ruhrfisch for taking the time to review this article. I will work as advised. Many thanks once again! :: Merlaysamuel :: (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome - if something is quoted in another source, then I would say "Quoted in...". You might try contacting the school itself, my guess is that they would know when the Economist wrote this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just want to give my thanks as well :) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Are we ready? Merlaysamuel :  Chat  14:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Work motivation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure this article is good at Wikipedia standards due to this is my first article. Any help would be wonderful

Thanks, Jastha08 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• For less developed articles, it is suggested that you go to Wikipedia:Help Desk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• This should be speedily closed as the editor has a request for the same article below. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Close duplicated request Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Status of Međugorje

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm unsure if the sources are reliable and if the article is up to snuff with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks, Oct13 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Review closed. Limit of One nomination per editor at PR for the present, due to lengthy backlog. Brianboulton (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Steve Lukather

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to bring it to FA status. It's as comprehensive as I can make it—I've exhausted every secondary source I can find, and made limited use of the subject's official web site.

Thanks, Laser brain (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Sorry for the delay; Here are my comments on the first half of the article; I will deliver the rest as sooon as I can:-

Lead

• First paragraph: I wonder about the need to cite this one fact, in this place. Nothing else is cited in the lead.
• As the lead is supposed to be a brief summary, I don't see the need for naming the six albums
• Second paragraph: the wording at the beginning looks a bit heavy-footed. I suggest a slight trimming:-

"In 1976, when Lukathar was nineteen years old, he was invited by his high school friends David Paich and the Porcaro brothers Steve and Jeff to join them in forming their band, Toto. He remained a member until the band split up in 2008, and has been involved in their periodic reunion tours."

• "...his association with Paich and Porcaro" – which Porcaro? And should it be "who also became established artists" rather than "who were also established artists"?
• "...and has won five times." Final word unnecessary
• "jazz great" Larry Carlton is a little informal, not very encyclopedic
• "melodic and intense": quotations are among the few things in leads that require citation.

Early life

• Is a 2003 photograph of Lukather appropriate in an "Early life" section?
• Try and avoid construction like "...Wyble. Wyble..."
• In this section we have "It was during this period..." and "at the time", which are a liitle vague. Could we have the odd extra date or year?

Toto

• Lack of chronological guidance affects this section, too, e.g. "In the early years...", "...during that period" etc
• I think that, in view of his significance, the death of "Porcaro" (Jeff, presumably) should be given a little more space.
• The term "panned" is slangy and jars, somewhat. (I know "heavily criticised" sounds stiff, but that's encyclopedias for you)
• Citation required in third paragraph "Lukather contributed..." etc

Session work

• "He credits fellow Toto members..." The pronoun doesn't work here as the last "he" mentioned is Jude Gold
• Maybe a little too much listing in the second paragraph - two or three examples is probably adequate.

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I sure appreciate it. Please let me know if there is anything at all I can do to repay the favor. I wrenched on the PR backlog a bit. --Laser brain (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the rest:

Solo albums

• "Luke is a much different and more introspective album than Lukather's previous two solo efforts." Specific opinion statements such as this should be attributed, or they read as the editorial voice.
• "...such as guitarists Edward Van Halen, Slash, and Steve Vai and drummer Gregg Bissonette." An extra "and"?
• What is a mofo? How important is the "quip" to the article?
• "...while between Toto tours": delete "while"
• "such as": I have begun to notice that this expression recurs rather frequently through the article. I've just counted up - 15 times in all, on a couple of occasions twice within a single line. This xtent f repetition should be avoided if possible, so I suggest some rephrasing here and there.
• "Lukather wrote the songs for the album with his son and a handful of other musicians using basic equipment in a hotel room." Doesn't read well unpunctuated. Personally I'd rearrange a little: "Lukather wrote the songs for the album in a hotel room with his son and a handful of other musicians, using basic equipment."
• "current Toto drummer Simon Phillips" Does that mean then-current or as of now?
• "in support of the album" → "to promote the album"?
• "In 2005, Lukather was noted for his rendition..." Maybe "won praise for" or "won critical praise for", or some such, but "noted for" doesn't sound right.

Musical style and equipment

• Not sure about the big curly quote marks; never use them myself. I thought they wer used in sideboxes etc, not where the quotation is integrated into the text.
• "intricate effects rack": Again, excuse my ignorance, but what is this? A rack use for intricate effects (whatever they are)? An effects rack that is described as intricate? Either way, I'm baffled.
• Incidentally, the word "effects" occurs four times in two lines
• "Lukather is an endorser of..." → "Lukather endorses..."
• I haven't carried out a sources check, but I do notice "retrieved" and "Retrieved"

I think that is all my comments. I hope they prove useful to you; if you want to raise any questions, give me a buzz on my talkpage as I don't find it possible to watch individual reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

1994 Barbados v Grenada football match

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can better prepare this article for when I resubmit it for GA. Also, this is my first peer review, so tell me if I did something wrong.

Thanks, -- BCS (t · c · !) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before in other fora, the main issue for me is that the article basically doesn't talk about any aspect of the match other than the own goal issue. After reading the article, we still don't know the names of at least 19 of the players involved, for example. As it stands, the article essentially focusses entirely on one incident within the match - even the "background" section really only exists to explain why the own goal incident occurred. Is nothing else known about the match.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No. See for yourself, there is nothing. -- BCS (t · c · !) 21:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case I don't think it could ever reach GA status, as the depth of coverage of the subject simply isn't there. But that's just my opinion, others may differ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Hold It Against Me

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to FA in the future.

Thanks, Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

General

• Please make sure you consult with the major editors of this article, Xwomanizerx (talk · contribs) in particular, before bringing it to WP:FAC. I note that you have not made substantive contributions to this article, and as such it would not be fair for you to claim Featured Article credit for it.

He's not working here since December. I'm still waiting for him to comeback. If he doesn't in a month or two, I'll request another review before bringing it to FAC. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "Belgium Wallonia"? I've never heard it called that. I think that's non-standard. Maybe just "Wallonia" and hyperlink, or "the Wallonia region of Belgium".

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Are the performances you mention in the lead notable enough to be so prominent?

These are her first performances since 2009. And the FFT one is the opening performance fromt he show, so I guess they have enough notability to be cited there. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Background

• Can you mention who wrote the lyrics? Is it known?

First line of the secion. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Does "early demo of the track by McKee" mean that she was performing it? If not, how is it "by McKee"? This needs clarification.

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• How does a radio premiere cause web sites to crash? Explain.

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 23:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Composition

• The section that references the sheet music needs rewriting. As is pretty common with these song articles, it was written by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. It's not 133 bpm, it's not in compound meter, and the vocal range definitely doesn't go up to G5.
• This section contains much too high a percentage of quotations. Paraphrase/summarize some of that in your own words.

I disagree with both points. Regarding the first one, there are several good and featured articles that use almost the same sentences. See "Irreplaceable", "Déjà Vu"... The list is really big, I can list much more if you want to. About the quotations, I also don't think there is much too much of them. Yes, there are a lyrics from the song there, but the reviews are as paraphrazed as they can be. I cite "Irreplaceable" again as an example, which Composition section has much more quotations and the article still is featured and constantly fiscalized by Wikipedia contributors. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying the sheet music section is badly written, I'm saying that it has incorrect information. It needs to be fixed by someone who knows how to read the sheet music and get the correct information in the article. The number of quotations is a subjective matter—I happen to think there are too many, but maybe other editors would agree with you. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood you. Let me see what I can do, I know an editor here that knows how to correct the info, I guess. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 13:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

• Why would a critic say that Spears isn't evolving with her lyrics, when she doesn't write the lyrics?

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Chart performance

• I would write "behind only Mariah Carey"

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• "After its release in the United Kingdom, 'Hold It Against Me' debuted at number six on the UK Singles Chart, becoming her 21st top ten hit." The "her" is sort of floating out there. Sentence needs rewriting to define the subject.

 Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see that we write "Belgium (Wallonia)" in this section.

Charts and certifications

• Something is broken in one of the cells.

I see nothing. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall pretty good. Seems to be a relatively mature article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

IPad (3rd generation)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to GA status and would like some suggestions on how to improve it. Thanks, Zach Vega (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like you're well on your way! A couple of thoughts: you might consider using active rather than passive voice when possible to make reading and translating easier, and consider too being more specific in your language to avoid confusion for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.

For example, in your second paragraph in the lead, compare the current:

Eighteen different variations were released: either black or white; 16 GB, 32 GB, or 64 GB storage models; and in a Wi-Fi only iPad, AT&T iPad, or Verizon iPad (with the latter two operating on their respective 4G LTE networks).

with

Apple released eighteen different versions, including black or white external casings; memory storage capacity variants of 16, 32, and 64 GB; and connectivity and mobile network carrier variants with Wi-Fi only, 3G, 4G LTE, and combinations.

See the difference using active voice, greater specificity and wikilinking concepts critical to understanding the paragraph? Writing to an audience who may know little of the subject, especially with technical matters, can mean the difference between a reader 'getting it' and not. Of course, one can only be reductivist to a point without approaching the pedantic, but generally, the more clarity the better, and as in the above example, specificity often does not require wordiness. You will find Wikipedians who are passive voice apologists, and I grant that sometimes the use of it can make for clearer writing, but generally it does not and it also makes translations more difficult. I often focus on legal subjects (see Apple Inc. litigation, an article I've been working on for awhile and which also needs peer review), and indeed have to watch out for this myself, but just imagine you are explaining the subject to your great-grandmother: make sure to be as clear as possible while showing respect for the readers' intelligence, and patience. With regard to mentioning the various carriers and their connectivity variants, you could move that information out of the lead and into the article body where more detail usually lives. All in all, the article shows your hard work. Good luck! Sctechlaw (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Deep vein thrombosis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked the most on four sections (Classification, Causes, Pathophysiology, and Prevention), and I would like feedback on these sections.

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also now rewritten the Treatment section, so that can be included in this peer review. I am looking to meet GA standards now, but FA standards evenutally. I plan to rewrite the Diagnosis section too, much in the same way as the Prevention and Treatment sections are written, but if someone has any concerns I'd like to hear them. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment – Well a quick glance through suggests there are some layout issues. In particular, too many one-line paragraphs and too many one paragraph sections. You might want to take a look through WP:LAYOUT and either expand on the small paragraphs or combine them with neighbors where possible. A couple of the citations have name lists that are inconsistent with the others. (See "Elizabeth D Agabegi" and "Edwin J. R. van Beek".) The "Signs and symptoms" section looks like it needs more citations; probably at least one per paragraph. Finally, a few more informative pictures would be, well, illustrative. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, and sorry it has taken me so long to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• First off, it is difficult to review only sections of an article, and I note that readers who come to this will read the whole article as well. So I will review the whole article and then make comments on the psecific sections requested.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine which seem as if they might be useful models.
• There is one redirect here
• Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - common words like pain or walking probably do not need a link - the reader should know what they are
• Does the use of itialics for venous thromboembolism follow WP:ITALIC?
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but DVT is a medical emergency, so all limb swellings, however trivial, should be regarded as a DVT until proven otherwise. seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure that is the case here - is pathophysiology really in the lead (the word is not)
• Some of the sections need references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Watch out for things that break up the narrative flow of the article, like lists (which usually could be better as straight prose) and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections.
• For example I think explanatory text would help make the risk factors lists clearer
• Or could really short sections like Thombolysis and Thromebectomy be combined? Or the really short paragraphs in Epidemiology?
• I would move History much earlier in the article and expand it so that is more than just the very initial development / definition of the condition. An FA criterion is comprehensiveness, and the history is not comprehensive.
• The large blocks of direct quotes in Medical inpatients might be an issue under WP:NFCC
• Avoid vague time terms like current - better to use things like "As of 2012" as current can become outdated.
• Images look good but agree there could be more
• References seem to be to reliable sources and are formatted properly as far as a few spot checks showed.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I've adequately addressed the concerns (except I think even more prose on the risk factors is needed). Thank you for raising them. I've noticed most history sections in medical FAs seem to be at the bottom, as with subarachnoid hemorrhage, schizophrenia, and coeliac disease. Biosthmors (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Denmark

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I - and other editors - realise that this article still needs some improvements and an 'outside' look at the article would be valuable. Note that this article recently merged with Kingdom of Denmark, so any suggestions on cutting back/rewording the lead would be valuable. I hope that some key areas for improvement can be identified and hopefully work can start on getting this article back to GA status!

Thanks, Peter (Talk page) 23:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was this peer review page closed and archived? No review was made... AstroCog (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot archives any PR with no comments in the past 14 days. I have reopened it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a review in a bit then, since the bot is being impatient! CMD (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a big article. Over 139kB total of which 73kB is prose. That's a lot. This article should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, giving a thorough but brief overview of Denmark. Length may bring more information, but keep in mind it will also bring boredom. If we can make readers interested in Denmark, hopefully they'll learn more.

I'll be doing this review section by section, so I apologise in advance if I take longer than you'd wish (and sorry this is only happening after a submission weeks ago). If what I say is unclear, or you have an alternative suggestion you'd like to ask, or if I just say something totally wrong just tell me here. I'm giving an outside perspective, and what I say are suggestions.

Lead

The lead seems quite disorganised. I feel it doesn't give a clear overview, yet at the same time goes into too much detail in certain areas.

• The lead theoretically shouldn't have information that isn't covered in the body (although the "(Danish: Kongeriget Danmark, pronounced [ˈkɔŋəʁiːəð ˈdanmɑɡ̊] ( listen) [note 1])" type stuff I've not once seen questioned, and I think should be fine). Because of this, there isn't really a need for references, as it should all be referenced in the body. Currently, the references in the lead are used only in the lead. This indicates to me that the information was placed directly into it and sourced there, which it shouldn't be. Make sure all information in the lead is in the body, and is sourced in the body.
• I suggest Greenland/Faroe information is grouped together. Currently there's a bit in the first paragraph, and a bit in the last (including the defining of Denmark as a unitary state). Group it together in the first paragraph so that the rest of the lead can deal with Denmark proper, which seems to be the focus of the article.
• The three notes in the lead are probably not needed. The state's pronunciation in regional languages isn't that important, as they don't apply to the whole state anyway. I've seen it argued that in fact no translations should be needed on the English wikipedia, but I think having the title in the state's official language is fine. Thus I'd remove that first note, and leave that to the interwiki links. The other two notes (and the prose they're attached to) go into a bit too much detail from the lead. I'd turn them into prose in either Administrative divisions or Politics.
• "Denmark proper is the hegemonial part, where the residual judicial, executive and legislative power rests" --> "Denmark proper is the hegemonial area, where judicial, executive, and legislative power resides"
• I'd cut down the information on what the exact definition of the Faroese and Greenlandic people are. Just keep it "The Faroe Islands are defined to be a community of people within the kingdom, and the Greenlandic people are defined as a separate people with the right to self-determination" or something similar. Again such detail is much more readily included in the body.
• Reword "Denmark's shores extend to both the Baltic and North Seas" somehow. It may be useful to combine it with a note that it is located where the two seas meet alongside the dominium maris baltici information.
• I'd remove the translations for the names of each island. It falls into the realm of trivia, and is more appropriately dealt with on the individual pages of those islands. In addition, as it stands the note "(commonly considered a part of Jutland)" is more confusing than explanatory. Either list the North Jutlandic Island as an island or don't.

• I think what the lead most needs is expansion in scope. I'd suggest adding a very short summary of history, "consolidated in the 8th century, entered a series of unions and wars with other Scandinavian countries, gave home rule and independence to overseas territories in the 20th century" or something (I have complete faith you can make a better summary than that).
• I'd also think slightly more about the people and their culture could be included, and perhaps economic information. We know the people are happy, uncorrupt, live in a welfare state, speak Danish, and are Scandinavian. Impressive for the short space given to that, but are those all the important points? The lead could go up to four paragraphs, as long as they're not too long!

CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for picking this up and thanks for the suggestions. I don't mind going through the article section by section and I agree it's easier. Following your suggestions, I've made edits to the lead; grouping together information and adding other rankings. I've also followed the example of other country articles by removing references for the various rankings, i.e. '16th on the Human Development Index', as these can be found in the respective articles. I know there's still a little bit more work to be done on the lead though, so any other pointers are welcome. -- Peter (Talk page) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead is looking much better. It is probably not worth going over it again until the rest of the article is good. The lead reflects the article, not the other way around. As for the rankings, while it's fine to have them in the lead without sources, they should be in the body with sources. Mention per capita income in the economy section, the Corruption Perception Index in demographics (or perhaps Politics?), mention happiness in demographics (or is this the same as life satisfacation?), etc. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

• What does the unification of Denmark have to do with Etymology? Were the Danes divided before this? Were they all considered Danes at that point in history?
• Reference [10] (after "Most handbooks derive") is placed weirdly. What exactly is it sourcing?
• References [12] and [15] don't seem to be references, but notes. If they're notable and sourceable, include them in the prose.
• Linking to birth certificate in the picture caption seems like the kind of linking WP:OVERLINK deplores
• There's little I want to say about this section as it stands, because much of it seems terribly unreferenced. Source it, and perhaps rearrange (who knows, there may be enough material out there to make a standalone article). It seems haphazard, going from the 12th century Chronicon Lethrense to the 10th century jelling stones (although I gather that's because the Chronicon describes history?)

History

• This is a long section, which probably could be greatly condensed (I like to look at these sections as analogous to - slightly larger - leads of their main articles). At the same time, much of it seems unsourced. The quick and dirty fix is to simply remove all the unsourced information, or move it to History of Denmark if you're feeling particularly productive! You can then edit from there. The long fix is figuring out what information is the most important to give a concise yet thorough history of Denmark, and using that information and sourcing. Have fun either way!

• Prehistory could use some dates, estimates I suppose, for when the Danes arrived to Jutland.
• Was the territory of the Danes just Jutland and the surrounding islands, or were they spread over a bit more of Scandinavia?

• In Viking Age it's mentioned they were the first to reach Iceland, getting there from the Faroes. When did they get to the Faroes? Were the Faroes under some Danish king at that point (or whatever kingdoms are in what are now Denmark)?
• It's mentioned Greenland and Vinland were settled. It's probably worth mentioning how the settlements were eventually isolated and died out. (I was coincidentally reading a book about this just earlier today. Are there good articles on the settlements that can be wikilinked to?)
• "and Frankish sources (e.g. Notker of St Gall) provide the earliest historical evidence of the Danes." By "historical evidence" do you mean written record/recorded history?
• Much of the second and third paragraph seem to be the kind of unnecessary detail that, while fascinating to weird people like me, is a bit too detailed for this summary article.
• "The Danes were united..." What were they before? Warring kingdoms? Tribes? Earlier you discuss a "southern border of the Danes", which wouldn't make sense if they weren't united.
• Is Cnut the Great the same person as Canute the Great? How were Denmark and England divided? Who is Sweyn Estridsen? What is the relevance of Duke Robert of Flanders? Again, this is probably a good example of far too much detail, which would need even more to be explained properly.
• When did the massive flotillas of Scandinavians start meeting? I'm a bit lost here, as I still don't know how the Viking system was arranged at this time. Was the Norweigian kingdom a separate united Kingdom?

So unfortunately I don't know enough about Danish history to figure out what's missing here, and how the bits connect. I can only say I don't fully grasp the events here, although perhaps I'm just somehow dumb, which I apologise for. Any thoughts on this? Will continue review later. CMD (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• There are no citations in the whole Medieval Denmark section. It seems to contain some very interesting points though. Was this the period of dominium maris baltici?

• Who was the Battle of Falköping fought agains?
• Why was Margarets nephew crowned instead of her (I'm assuming she was ruling at the time?)
• How did Sweden get a king if it was part of the union?

• Protestant reformation is another section which lacks citations.
• (1534–1536) is given for the wars extant, yet it says that "The massacre of Skipper Clement's peasant army at Aalborg in December 1534 brought an end to the war". Did the war end in 1534 or 1536?

• Is it really fair to say attention had been given to the south if much of the previous information had been about wars in Estonia or with Sweden?
• Who are "the Hansa"?
• Lots of citation needed in modern history too.
• Who was the Battle of Lutter lost to?
• I was under the impression Bornholm revolted against Sweden rather than was given back.

• 20th and 21st history section again without a great deal of sourcing. Other than that it seems to cover the important points.
• The two WWII pictures in this section don't add too much to the text, I'd suggest just keeping the EU one.

Overall, I'd say the section needs to be greatly reduced. It is supposed to be a summary of history, so perhaps consider it a large lead for the history article (albeit with sources). Different country articles have different lengths, some with no subsections at all. CMD (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes,I agree that it can be cut-down a lot. In fact, some parts of that sections are slightly more detailed than the History of Denmark article, so I'm going to try moving some of the information there. But as you pointed out, there are lots of errors which have been missed. History will still need subsections, but they can be much smaller and not correspond directly with 'History of Denmark'. I'll start on this today. --Peter (Talk page) 15:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That was impressive. The thing I question most now about structure is why a separate 20th and 21st centuries section exists. A title like that implies recentism heavily (and doesn't include the First World War?). I suggest renaming that and "Modern history" with names that show the importance of the split rather than seeming completely arbitrary: eg. "Modern history"-->"Denmark-Norway", "20th and 21st centuries"-->"Constitutional monarchy". CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Geography

• Images: They should help the text. The image of Copenhagen tells me nothing about Geography. On the other hand, it's the first time I've appreciated a CIA map, as it shows the islands clearly (and bridges). The satellite photo seems to have little to do with Climate, but more with environment. I'm not sure what information the beach photo is trying to give me.
• Furthering that, captions should help. "Map of Denmark" is pointless; I see it's a map. Perhaps note the bridges in black, or note it's Denmark proper.

• First two paragraphs are unsourced. Things like coordinates definitely need sources.
• Third paragraph has two sources, and mentions bridges. A bridge has already been mentioned in the first paragraph, have information about bridges in just one area.
• Danish translations: I suggest not including them. They interrupt the flow of prose, are inconsistent, and verge on Trivia. Leave non-English names to articles on the subjects.
• "Ferries or small aircraft connect to the smaller islands" tells me that Denmark has boats and planes, neither of which surprises me in the slightest. If it's non-notable information, remove it.
• What is the criteria for "Main cities"? (Cities may be better covered in Demographics)
• "Other hills in the same area" are notable why?
• "The area of inland water is: (eastern Denmark) 210 km2 (81 sq mi); (western D.) 490 km2 (189 sq mi)." Where is the split between Eastern and Western Denmark?
• "The size of the land area of Denmark cannot be stated exactly since the ocean constantly erodes and adds material to the coastline, and because of human land reclamation projects (to counter erosion)." This is true for any piece of land anywhere. Remove.
• "On the southwest coast of Jutland, the tide is between 1 and 2 m (3.28 and 6.56 ft), and the tideline moves outward and inward on a 10 km (6.2 mi) stretch." This needs to be rewritten. I can guess what it's trying to say, but it's not obvious. Also, why mention the tide in that specific area? Does it have the largest intertidal zone?
• "Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands)" Best to focus on proper Denmark, like the rest of the article. Last paragraph again needs sourcing.
• Needs quite a decent copyedit after sourcing is done.

• "The climate is in the temperate zone." The climate is temperate, Denmark is in the (a?) temperate zone. The climate is not in a zone.
• "The winters are not particularly cold" is just opinion that doesn't give any information. Remove, leave just the temperature figures.
• Why is Christmas celebrated on Christmas Eve, and what does this (and the other holidays) have to do with Climate?

• Big claims in the Environment section's first paragraph require equally impressive sources. Also, avoid such short paragraphs, they appear cluttered and MOS advises against them.
• "These agreements have helped in the reduction in CO2 emissions by Denmark." No they haven't; they've set goals. The Danish government's laws and the actions of the Danish people reduce CO2. Information on those laws (and possibly public actions, if notable) would be useful.
• "Much of the city's success can be attributed to a strong municipal policy combined with a sound national policy;" can it? Says who? Policies that do what exactly?
• I just noticed "The award was given for long-term holistic environmental planning" is a copyvio. That's not good at all. Fixed it myself, but the article must not have anything like this, or any decent reviewer will quickly fail the article.
• "It is comparable to countries such as Germany," which are what? The comparison against other Scandinavian countries was good, as that's a distinct block of countries, but what are countries like Germany? Perhaps give Denmark's ranking within the EU.
• Sources. Needed. Lots of them. CMD (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Well it's clear that the geography section needs a lot of work, more than I first thought. I can see now that it's a bit piecemeal up to now, with lots of people adding various facts they consider relevant without checking over first. I'm going to add a few references first and remove some of the information that obviously shouldn't be there (I've no idea why Christmas Eve/Christmas is mentioned in the climate section, I can only think that an editor saw a mention of Midwinter - which is vaguely related to the winter climate - and added it in. I'm removing that!) -- Peter (Talk page) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Western and Eastern Denmark are common terms used to split Denmark - 'Western Denmark' is Jutland, and 'Eastern Denmark' was formerly defined as Sealand and Scania (now just Bornholm). But this division shouldn't really be used in this article for the "largest body of water" (there can only be one largest body of water in Denmark!), so I'm just going with the largest.
Arguably the agreements have helped to reduce CO2 emissions, because the Danish parliament has passed legislation only really because of the goals. But this could definitely be worded better.
Good thing the copyvio was noted, something similar was found on another article and nearly resulted in half of it being deleted. I'll check for more.
Adding sources now. --Peter ^{Talk page} 22:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

This doesn't seem to me to fit well under Geography, but that doesn't matter.

• I don't think the Counties of Denmark further is needed as a hatnote, and it's included in the prose already.
• Don't start off with "Administratively", it's redundant.
• This article says there were formerly 13 counties, Counties of Denmark says there were formerly 15. Which is it?
• "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 as part of the 2007 Danish Municipal Reform to replace the country's traditional thirteen counties (amter)." --> "The regions were created on 1 January 2007 to replace the traditional thirteen counties."
• Linking archipelago is classic WP:OVERLINK
• Again, there's a dearth of sources.
• Have the English name first on the table
• I'd remove the entire country stats. They're redundant to the infobox, the prose, and the table in the Greenland section below.

• Although the article isn't the shortest, to say the least, I think the status of Greenland and the Faroes should be fleshed out more than it currently is. The historical dates at which they achieved their level of autonomy, for example, would be useful information.
• Place the comparison table to the right or left of the prose, rather than below it. It's a compact table, doesn't need its own lines. CMD (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Politics

• That map doesn't fit here, but would be useful in the Greenland and Faroe islands section above. I suggest moving it into the Greenland and Faroe islands section, and forget what I said about moving the table to the right, as that picture would fill up some space nicely. The other two images are quite good.
• Sources again, I'd be especially interested to have one for the constitution noting the monarch as sacrosanct. A fascinating anachronism.
• Don't italicise words without good reason, like "formally". The prose makes the meaning more than clear already.
• You mention the Danish parliament in the thirds paragraph, then reintroduce it as the Folketinget in the next one. It is then introduced again in the paragraph after that. Introduce it as the Folketinget once and note that it is the Danish parliament at that point, then stick with either Folketinget or Danish parliament consistently throughout the rest of the article.
• "In theory the doctrine prevails." What does this mean?
• "Greenland and Faroe Islands" --> "Greenland and the Faroe Islands", I believe the "the" is usually used in English
• Remove the information about the previous administration, there's no real point to have it.
• The constitutional information shouldn't be at the bottom of this section, and does overlap with the administrative divisions section above. My suggestion would be to bring administrative divisions to a subset of politics, but it's up to the editors of the article.

• The foreign relations and military sections need some sources pronto, especially for claims like the first sentence.
• I'd expect to find a short paragraph about the EU here.
• I would actually combine the two sections, as it makes discussing things like NATO, ISAF, peacekeeping activities etc. much smoother and simpler, reducing duplication.

Good suggestion about merging the Foreign Relations and Military sections - will do. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Also, the counties article is incorrect. There were 13 traditional counties, but also the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksborg were first-level divisions, but they weren't counties as much. I'll briefly include this in the section. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Economy

• An economy doesn't have living standards. Living standards information should be in the demographics section.
• "Support for free trade is high" --> "Public support for free trade is high"
• "Also of importance is the sea territory of more than 105,000 km² (40,000+ sq mi)." Why is this of importance?

I note here economics isn't my strong point. It seems like you've covered all the basic economic indicators, but that's just me. I didn't mention sourcing, but Economy really should be fully sourced, considering all the statistics.

• Is there an estimate for the total oil reserves in Danish waters?
• Rather than just a ranking in countries, a figure for oil exports would be useful.
• "Denmark is connected by transmission lines to other European countries." What does this mean, and how is this notable?

• Transport section is interesting, especially in regards to car ownership. I'd expect more about Biking though, since Denmark makes the news a surprising amount due to its Bicycles. More information, like whether the Biking infrastructure lies just in the cities or extends to the whole country, would be useful. The note on fluctuating energy sources seems unrelated, and should go in the Energy section. Sources would be good, as usual, especially if you have lists. Following an outside list is much better than making your own.

• Public policy is comprehensive, but I don't understand why it's a separate section. It seems to cover much of what was covered in the main economy chunk, and at the same time appears to contain quit ea bit of undue information, better suited for the main Economy article. Also, adding information about what the Nordic Model is in the prose would probably be a good thing for the article.

Demographics

• "Many of the remaining 10.6% were immigrants—or descendants of recent immigrants—from Bosnia and Herzegovina, neighboring countries, South Asia, and Western Asia." Doe "Neighboring countries" mean neighbours of Denmark or of Bosnia and Herzegovina? If it's Denmark, place that first in the list to avoid confusion.
• "Inuit from Greenland and Faroese" --> "Inuit and Faroese" or "Inuit from Greenland and Faroese from the Faroe Islands" or something similar
• "As in most countries" is a general pointless statement, remove it
• "The average density in the west" --> "The average density in Jutland" seems better to me
• Info about Danish communities overseas is probably WP:UNDUE. That's information for Danes, not Denmark
• Religion seems good, but needs sources.
• Education seems to be more of a collection of lists than encyclopaedic prose. I suggest not listing individual schools and universities unless there is a huge emphasis placed on them by outside sources. Also consider whether Education is so important in the whole scope of Denmark's demographics that it deserves so much prose.

Culture

• Remove the See Also to List of Danes. Not all notable danes are notable for cultural reasons, and it's Undue at any rate.
• The entire section is very long, but at the same time subdivided into a large number of tiny subsections. It needs restructuring of some kind, to shorten it and eliminate/reduce subheadings.
• The section dives straight into examples, which is jarring (and also redundant to the current subsections). A general discussion of Danish culture doesn't appear until the fourth paragraph, and even then it's short. I suggest creating a more generalised picture of Danish culture and placing it at the start of the section. The examples can flow from there.

There's a lot here, and since it should probably be reworked I won't comment specifically on what's there, but in general:

• Write generally, giving an overall description of some part of Culture, rather than simply describing specific instances of it.
• Avoid random lists. If you must have a list, base it on an external source, and include an explanation on why that list is the way that is eg. Don't say "Some notable X include", but rather, "X who have done Y include".
• Avoid plain "X is the best Y" or "X does the best Y" statements, like "The Danish Museum of Art & Design in Copenhagen exhibits the best in Danish design." It's quite meaningless and doesn't aid the reader at all.

There's a lot of work that needs doing in this article, especially around sourcing. Good luck, and feel free to ping me if there are any questions. Cheers, CMD (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Dylan and Cole Sprouse

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to (hopefully) get it up to FAC status. I asked for a peer review in December, and I've done everything on that list (I marked "dones" and left comments on what I did in response to the points on my to-do page instead of the peer review page). I'm listing it for another peer review now to get other perspectives from different people and to see what other issues holding back the article may need to be fixed on the road to being good enough for FAC. Any comments on how the article can be improved are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Purplewowies (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate comments

I have stepped in to make a few changes while looking over this article.

Lede

• Style - I think the second paragraph of the lede reads too much like a timeline. A lot of sentences start with "In" followed by a year. You should avoid throwing the years in so much as it is and certainly not at the beginning of a sentence if you can avoid it. When mentioning the films and series in which they have starred you really don't need to provide the year unless it is identical to another work in the same medium.
• Structure - The second paragraph should be split as it is a tad bulky when compared to the other paragraph in the lede and when compared to the rest of the article. You could bring together information about their wealth and education into a third paragraph.
• Wording - The "heartthrob" sentence in the second paragraph needs some work. Presenting the quotes in a way that implies they are factual statements when they are really opinions is not really appropriate. The "preteen and teen" wording should be substituted with a more all-encompassing term.
• Information - The material about photography and art probably doesn't need to be in the lede or should be shortened to be part of sentence. Since it seems there is very little information provided in the body of the article and it doesn't seem to be particularly significant it should probably not get mentioned in the lede at all.

Early Lives section

• Size - Should it be possible I would like to see this section expanded to at least be a somewhat larger paragraph.
• Structure - The way the second sentence is written is unnecessarily segmented. You can probably mention the small difference in the time of their births in a separate sentence and that would allow you to improve on the sentence.
• Information - Saying "their parents are divorced" and leaving it at that, without explaining its relevance, seems to be a bit of a problem. For instance, was it a significant event in their childhood?

Acting section

• Structure - I noticed the first sentence in the fourth paragraph is really long and full of commas. You should break that up into at least two sentences, maybe three. The last two paragraphs are really short and you should consider consolidating the material into one paragraph.
• Wording - The section on awards nominations for Big Daddy should be redone. Saying "while" then following with "although" in the same sentence is a bit messy and the material should avoid repeating "for" so closely in the same sentence. Again with the last two paragraphs I think repeating the wording "as of" at the beginning of each should be avoided. Repetitive wording makes the article less interesting to read.

Brand section

• Size - This is another section I would like to see expanded a bit, especially since it seems there is a rather lengthy New York Times article provided that is surely packed with significant information not currently included in the article.
• Wording - Saying "continued their clothing line" seems a bit unprofessional to me. That could probably be worded a little better.

Personal lives section

• Structure - The first sentence does not flow well with the quote provided. You should probably cut off the quote after "kind of scary" and paraphrase more, providing quotes for certain significant statements.
• Wording - Listing the various sports they enjoy would look better with a little more context. I don't particularly like just listing their interests unless it can be put in a more encyclopedic context. "Writing or drawing a comic strip" is a bit awkward as well. Do they enjoy both writing and drawing the comic strip? If so, you can probably find a single word to cover that. The material should probably be in its own sentence as well.
• Information - I see Adam Sandler getting mentioned a lot and think this probably needs a little more detail and context. What I would want is to see a little more information about any particular significance Sandler has had in shaping their careers or why they are fans of him.

General Issues

• Citations - Personally, I prefer having citations provided at the end of a sentence, rather than placed in the middle.
• Style - My objection about the timeline-style appearance in the lede applies to other parts of the article as well. Try to avoid starting a sentence with "In" followed by a date or year. Repeating the same words a lot at the beginning of a sentence or even just the same letter can also be a bit of a drain. A lot of sentences start with "the" or "they" and that should be cut down a bit. Don't try to avoid it all costs, but have those words pop up a little more sparingly at the beginning of sentences.

There are probably some other issues with this article I haven't covered, so if you want this to get up to featured article status I would suggest reading over it a bit more closely as someone else may take issue with other parts of the article I have not noticed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Responses to The Devil's Advocate comments

Thanks for changing the things that you changed. I actually wouldn't have noticed that kind of stuff otherwise (I'm bad at seeing those types of things).

Lede

• Wording - I've tried to rewrite the "heartthrob" sentence. Probably didn't pick the best wording, but I tried. I'm not sure what I could replace "preteen and teen" with (or maybe I'm not sure what exactly you're saying?).
• Information - On the art and photography material: The art and photography are recent things for them (in terms of making money off of it, etc.). It really isn't the thing that they're notable for, so I understand what you're saying. Dylan seems to really want to do this art thing more as a professional thing, so I don't doubt that there might be a bit more mention of it in the future (but that's the future, not now, so...). Cole's photography thing seems more like a side thing or something. I'll relocate that, shorten it, or remove it entirely.

Early Lives section

• Size - I will try to expand this if at all possible, but I'm not sure how much info I can find.
• Information - As far as I know, no, but I might need to look into it. It'll probably end up getting removed.

Brand section

• Size - I'll expand this with any relevant and significant information I can.

Personal lives section

Supreme facepalm of destiny This section actually probably needs a serious rewrite. I'm pretty sure the information in the second paragraph is a couple of years old at least. How on Earth did I not see that? I've read through this section several times! Gah!

General Issues

• Citations - Me too. I'll move any that are in the middle of sentences

Thanks for all the things you mentioned. A lot of it was things I have trouble spotting, especially in articles I'm fairly familiar with. I'll be sure to apply your suggestions. Thanks again! - Purplewowies (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

F.C. United of Manchester

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because last year I took the time to get it promoted to GA and I am now wondering just how far away the article is from reaching FA status. I am willing to put in the time again to get it to FA class and hope that I can receive some pointers in the right direction via a peer review. My ultimate aim, as a fan of the club, would be to have the article as a main page FA, but I acknowledge that this is a long-term goal.

Thanks, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Firstly, kudos for your work on this. The article is good but could do with much work if you plan to take this to WP:FAC. It is attainable however and it being your 'ultimate aim' makes it all the more achievable. I have only skimmed read through so below are my concerns:

• Ideally look at other football club articles which are FA and compare them with the article you are working on.
• The article could do with a thorough copy edit as it is perfectly fine for WP:GA but may struggle on prose if you take this to WP:FAC.
• Ref 22 is a deadlink. Consider replacing it.
  •  Done Found a report of the game on the Manchester Evening News website. Did find a cache of the old ref here but unsure as to whether I can use it as a reference
• Under formation, "the prime catalyst for F.C. United's formation was the 12 May 2005 hostile takeover of Manchester United by the American businessman Malcolm Glazer", reads a bit fragmented. Glazer's takeover was months in the making so would it be necessary to include the date? He never officially took over the club on May 12 as this article the following day hints, it was June 28. Perhaps you could exclude the date and in the following sentence clarify that he gained a controlling stake on May 12. You could also use a 'see also' template below the formation header for Glazer ownership of Manchester United, which means you do not need to wikilink it in the text.
• "After the name "F.C. United" was rejected by the Football Association", apply the wikilink to Football Association only or you could choose to capitalise 'The'.
  •  Done Capitalised the "T"
• The bullet points under Future aspirations could be removed and expanded into sentences. Most of the aspirations are outdated, have they met them? If not, perhaps you could state why.
• Criticism could do with some expansion. Surely there must be more opinions. Ferguson must have said more on the subject, likewise footballers, well-respected authors, journalists even. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the tips! I'll get to work on them and tick them off as I go. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Vices & Virtues

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some suggestions on how to improve it, as I've read it over and it reads quite well to me. I'm not the most well-versed in the topic area, so as someone with limited knowledge of the band, I understood the article quite well. That being said, any suggestions for improving it would be fantastic!

Thanks, Yaminator ^talk 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Release date in lead differs from the one in the infobox.  Done
• Link Pretty Odd. the first time in the opening paragraph of the main body.  Done
• Fix the [citation needed] template in the infobox.  Done
• Last half dozen references need to be completed.  Not done Removed them, since they only linked to the charts and didn't actually show anything of use.
• One dead link in there.  Checking... Hmm, I can't see any other sources, so I'll have to remove it.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.  Done
• Don't use spaced hyphens in the reference titles, used spaced en-dashes per WP:DASH.  Done
• Is the "Panic at the Disco" category incorrectly named now? Should it have a ! in it?  Not done It looks like its supposed to be sans exclamation mark. The category with the exclamation mark is intentionally left blank.
• " nervousness in the beginning" -> "initial nervousness."?  Done
• "On Monday, March 14," is the day really relevant?  Done No, I don't think so! Removed it.
• "(see release history)." yuck, either pipe link it or don't have this here.  Done Removed it; folks can scroll!
• "chart and #5 " etc, MOS says avoid using hash to represent "number" in prose.  Done
• "has announced multiple tours" has this already happened? So shouldn't it be just "announced" rather than "has announced"?  Done
• Not sure you should collapse those additional tracks.  Done
• Only one release date is referenced in that table.  Done Good catch!

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This is great! Thank you for your suggestions. I'll look into implementing them. Yaminator ^talk 18:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Acquaintances of Susan Mayer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it to GA status.

Thanks, Akcvtt (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note - if the article is not deleted or merged, feel free to renominate it for a peer review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Krista Branch

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if this article currently meets criteria higher than B-class, which I am pretty sure it already meets. Looking over the GA-class articles I think it may meet that level already, but if it could meet featured criteria I would like to know. Right now my only real issue is that the article just has the one image at the top, but there is a general lack of free images on this person and I am not sure if there is really an appropriate fair-use image out there. There might be room for a little more expansion, but not much. Further input on any other issues editors might notice would be welcome.

Thanks, The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Lionelt

• Add columns to the Discography table, e.g. chart rankings of songs
• Adding pics is going to be tricky since she's alive. But what you can do is add a brief audio clip (ogg) of "I am America" or another song under Fair Use.
• You can also add the cover art of a song, say "I am America" under Fair Use.
• A brief video clip of "Lead Me On" might work in the Career section, again Fair Use.

Great job! I'm not gonna comment on the GA-ness, since it's not my area. Good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Response

Given the nature of her career, I am not sure there will be rankings available. The other stuff shouldn't be too difficult though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Bhagavad Gita

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want help in assessment before FA nomination.

Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Bowling Green State University

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… the page has been improved, expanded, and updated over the past few months and weeks. Significant expansion of the article to become a comprehensive, well sourced and cited article close to GA status. Thanks, Bhockey10 (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - I have been on this campus (though I am by no means an expert on it). Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are quite a few FAs on universities at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the link to United States in the lead is not really necessary (as almost all readers will already know that the USA is).

Comment: I'm not too worried, I've seen "United States" linked and unlinked in other GAs and FA (probably close to 50-50. Since Wikipedia is a worldwide entity I'm inclined to leave it for users that want to find more information on the US.

• At the same time do link things that need links on the first use - for example normal school, which is now linked on its fourth appearance, should be linked on the first.

 Done

• I would also link Boys State in the lead

 Done

• I would probably include the fact that BGSU was founded as a normal school in the lead, and also provide a brief explanation (a teacher training college) somewhere (not sure that has to be in the lead). This is part of providing context to the reader - see WP:PCR

 Done

• Similarly spell out abbreviations like I-75 on first use (so "Interstate 75 (I-75)") per the MOS

 Done

• problem sentence "...and has a on-campus residential student population of 6,500 students.[4]
  • First off, since this is a number that will change with time, the date / year should be given (as of 2011).
  • Second, the infobox makes clear that the total student population is over 17,000, so I would include that number in the lead (as well as this).
  • Third, the lead should be a summary of the whole article and as such nothing should be in the lead only. However, this is only quoted in the lead and is not in the rest of the article that I can see (but it should be). See WP:LEAD
  • Fourth, most leads do not have references except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims (as the lead is a summery, the refs should be in the body of the article). It is OK to either cite the lead fully (just like the body) or almost not at all - this lead is an odd hybrid.
• Check the rest of the lead to make sure claims are not there only (like 85% of Bowling Green's total enrollment is made up of in-state students from Ohio.)

 Done I added the suggestions to the sentence, such as "as of 2011" and added a mention of the total student pop over 17,000. I trimmmed some of the student body statistics and references from the lead and moved the info and references to a more apporpriate section of the article (student life).

• Also make sure the lead is a summary of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to make sure that every header is in the lead somehow

 Done (see above comment)

• In History, I would identify Ohio University and Miami University (and not just the places they are).

 Done

• The article on the Lowry Act points out that Ohio State University had a Normal School by 1907, so that should be mentioned too

 Done

• This seems pretty well cited, but some places still need references like A campus plan was created and $150,000 was appropriated to develop the campus and construct the first buildings.

 Done

• The article can have one ref for a series of sentences all attributed to the same source(s) - so this all could be just one ref at the end SICSIC is an official spirit organization at BGSU that began in 1946 by President Frank J. Prout.[59] SICSIC routinely attends major BGSU sporting events and other campus activities promoting school spirit.[59] The organization is secret and contains six members, two each for sophomore, junior, and senior classes.[59]

 Done

• The references used are in large part from BGSU itself - while some such refs are OK and unavoidable, the article should strive for independent third-party reliable sources for as much of the material as possible. For SICSIC, for example, it would be much better if its notability could be established by reference to external reliable sources (and not just BGSU websites).

Comment: I agree and will continue looking for external sources, This artile is similar to others in the number of university-related sources, however.

• Prose is OK, but could use a copyedit in places - one example The school opened on September 15, 1914 as Bowling Green State Normal School in two temporary locations in Bowling Green at the Bowling Green Armory building on Wooster Street and a branch school in Toledo for the 1914-1915 academic year while construction of the first campus buildings.[14][12]

 Done (also will bring article to WP:COPYEDITORS)

• Headers need to follow WP:HEAD and avoid repeating the name of the article (or the parent header for subheaders) if at all possible. So for example section 2 (which seems like it should be called "Campuses" as there are two) could then have subheads "Main" and "BGSU Firelands"

 Done

• Nice photos.

Comment: Thanks!

• I noticed the unusual verb "eclipsed" and checked the reference. The article here has "...and by 1950 the number of students eclipsed 4,000.[11]" while the original source has "By 1950, the number of students had eclipsed 4,000." This is a copyright violation and should be rewritten - please see WP:COPYVIO

 Done Paraphrased with "by 1950 enrollment grew to over 4,000"

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

 Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for a compehensive and detailed peer preview. It seems like many of the suggestions were fairly small touchups, minor format changes, and other wording fixes. It's good there's not anything drastically wrong. If you have any more comments they are welcomed. I think this peer review was very helpful in the article's move towards GA status and I'm hopeful with some more work and TLC it will get there. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Codex Sinaiticus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is now a GA and it has the potential to become an FA.

Thanks, Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Generally it seems over-reliant on older sources. In particular David C. Parker's 2010 book on the Codex is only used once, for a fairly minor point.
• For FA I'd strongly recommend not repeating all the book titles in the notes/refs. Work out a consistent style for short citations, which are in one section (I use "Notes" as its name), then just give the full title once in a section below ("References"), which lists all the sources used (except maybe one-off web sources) and only those. "Further reading" should be only for books that are not used.
• The style in which books are listed must be consistent.
• The article generally seems rather short. Which institutions have which pages? Many other issues are dealt with rather too briskly. The views of squads of scholars (mostly long dead) are cited as to the origin of the book, but little of their reasoning. What can be said about the context of the book anyway, wherever it was written? Is it certainly monastic? How was it used?
• The English will need a thorough copyedit.
• Soviet sale of Hermitage paintings is worth a link somehow, if only in a note.
• Generally I think a fair amount of work is still needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Book of Parker was written for a popular reader (no references, not too much about textual affinities, scribal habits etc.), but I can use it more often (history of the codex). The same thing with: Schneider, Ulrich Johannes (ed.) (2007). Codex Sinaiticus. Geschichte und Erschließung der "Sinai-Bibel". Leipzig: Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig. ISBN 978-3-934178-72-4. Published by Leipzig University but book is of the same popular type like book of Parker. I used in the article - Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC. This is really very important. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Which institutions have which pages? " There is a section Codex Sinaiticus#Present location. Is it not enough? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, it just gives the numbers of pages, not which sections. Parker may be popular, but it is by a specialist and should be used to reference the modern consensus, or lack of it, on issues. I suspect it may contain exactly the sort of contextual material that the article is currently lacking. The same is probably true of Schneider. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Days of Heaven

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some creative, constructive feedback from Wikipedia's peers and distinguished editors to improve this articles quality and scope in hope of perhaps later nominating it as a Good Article. So far, I have done a little bit of working in cleaning up references and citations, adding visual enhancement and fixing up the introductory paragraphs.

Thanks, Ashton 29 (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in reviewing this article, but I see that the user who listed it (Ashton 29) has not been active in 10 days. Are you available to address comments? --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Right I had a response from Ashton on my talk page, so here is my review. This is probably the most beautiful film ever made, and one of my favourites of all time. Thanks for your work on the article. I made a couple of small changes as I read through it.

Specific comments

• I think the difficulty/length of the production needs to be mentioned in the lead. Also, maybe Malick's Cannes win?
• The $3million budget is already sourced in the text, so we don't need a ref in the lead.
• "only the cinematography and imagery" Pick one of these words, they mean pretty much the same thing so having both is redundant.
• "particularly noted for the beauty of the photography and cinematography." And again. I personally would say use imagery for the first sentence, then cinematography for the second.
• Perhaps mention in the plot that the film is narrated by Linda?
• I think it would make far more sense to swap the positions of the photograph and the quote box, under "Principal photography". They would be closer to when those topics are discussed in the text.
• I think it needs to be made a bit clearer why they chose to use the lighting/imagery they did.
• "While the photography yielded exquisite results," > POV. Needs to be changed.

*I'm sure I've read before that Malick added the voice-over narration as an afterthought? Shouldn't that be mentioned? Unless I'm getting confused with Badlands... The information about the added narration by Manz is in there.

• The information we have in the "Reception" section right now isn't enough to justify the comments in the lead that it received "initially unfavourable critical reviews" but "has since become one of the most acclaimed films of all time". The section needs to be fleshed out with more examples.
• Since this is an American film, I think it should be written in American English. But we have "unfavourable", and maybe some others. Check for consistency.

Sentences needing a reference *"Malick had tried and failed to get Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to star in the film."

• "The actors and crew reportedly viewed Malick as cold and distant."

*The quote in the quote box is unsourced.

General comments, re GA criteria

• Prose: I think the prose is fine for GA standards, which just asks that it is "clear and concise".
• Verifiability: It is well referenced. I don't like, though, that specific page numbers aren't given for the Almendros book. That makes it extremely difficult to verify the sentences it is supporting. Someone would have to flick through the whole book!
• Neutrality: We need to remove the one instance of POV, but other than that there is no original research and the page is written in a neutral, unbiased tone.
• Broadness: I don't think the article covers all "the main aspects of the topic". We need some mention of the script writing process, Morricone's score, and - importantly - some discussion of themes. There is lots of interesting stuff that critics have said about this film, there needs to be a section on this. Looking at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(film), it also seems desirable to have a "Home media" section. Days of Heaven has received a Criterion release, which is notable.
• Images: I think the two non-free ones used right now are entirely justified. In fact, I think it would be useful to have one more - a shot illustrating the discussion of "magic hour". It's an important aspect of the film, it should really be visible in the article.

So, the article is too slight for GA right now, and would strongly benefit from some content expansion. But it is definitely in good shape and on the right track. I hope you're up for further developing the article? It would be great to have information of the things I've mentioned. If you'd like me to look at it again once you've done this, I'd be happy to. Good luck! --Lobo (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a beautiful film and I'm happy to edit it. It's one of my favorites also. I hope to expand it gradually, I have crossed out what I have done so far to the article in regards to your edits, to keep track. I'm not going to expand the reaction just yet, because I believe that needs the most work as it is fairly small in size/scope at the moment. I will address all these things over time, and let you know when I want you to have another look through it. Thank you! Ashton 29 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Work Motivation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to present this to a group of Psychology peers and faculty and this is a major part of my grade for my Industrial and Organizational Psychology class. This is my first Wikipedia Artle and I want to make sure it is adequate.

Thanks, Jastha08 (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Smallman12q

• It needs more wikilinks wp:wikify. (These are the blue links you see)
• It needs additional citations. Every paragraph should have a reference.
• The tone is off in certain areas. For example, in "Self-Regulation Theory", it reads: "Another theory based in self-efficacy", "another" is not needed. An article is not like an essay, you don't need to introduce each section with "another theory".
• The capitalization is off in some areas, for example with "Work Engagement"
• It needs some copyediting
• There really should be a section related to the effect of monetary compensation on work motivation.

Overall, its pretty good for a first article.Smallman12q (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Spinal stenosis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve the quality of this topic's content and make a more beneficial encyclopedic contribution.

Thanks, Dubyahill (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Biosthmors

Lead

• In the lead, explain what the spinal canal is with a few words to make it understandable
• Parasthesia does not need to be capitalized
• Explain what is meant by a foramen
• Wouldn't lumbar stenosis also compress the spinal cord? The article implies otherwise.

Lead & types

• Clarify that lumbar and cervical are two common types in the lead. Currently the article contradicts itself by saying there are two types then later, there are more than two types.

Types

• Could you clarify why degeneration causes a canal to narrow (instead of widen)?
• "frequently surgical" seems vauge. Frequent where? How frequent? perhaps "can be surgical" and move to the Treatment section.

Epidemiology

• Consider reworking this content into prose. See prose vs. lists. (Also consider this in other sections.)

Signs and symptoms

• The sentence that starts with "Characterized by lower limb numbness" is not a complete sentence.

Causes

• correct [{spondylolisthesis]]

Diagnosis

• There is an unnecessary break between the words "physical examination"

Treatments

• This section is inbetween a list and prose, it appears to be a list of incomplete sentences. I bet it would be better off as prose.

In general

• Try reordering the article and possibly adding sections according to this guideline and try using more standard medical sources instead of medical websites
• If using a citation twice you can name it and cite it as shown here: WP:REFNAME

Thanks for working on the article. I hope this helps. Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Goodness, it needs boatloads of work. I did some work here and at lumbar spinal stenosis over a year ago; the problems persist.

1. We have an article on lumbar spinal stenosis, but none on cervical spinal stenosis (which redirects to this article on spinal stenosis in general). This general article should be just that, linking to the other more specific articles, which should contain the detail. This article should be only general, not specific to each kind of spinal stenosis.
2. All sources should be upgraded to secondary reviews, per WP:MEDRS.
3. For citation formatting consistent with most medical articles, you can plug a PMID into the Diberri template filler, which will generate a citation.
4. This dispatch explains how to find reliable medical sources (generally secondary reviews). You should be able to locate several recent reviews from the work I did at lumbar spinal stenosis, but that was in 2010: more recent reviews may be available, specifically in the treatment realm, and discussion of surgicial vs pharmaceutical management.
5. Sections should conform to WP:MEDMOS.
6. This article is excessively listy and lists should be converted to prose.

At any rate, I'm unsure what you want to do here, relative to the more specific articles distinguishing lumbar and cervical and whatever other types there are; I suggest it may be hard to work here without working on specific articles first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Apple Inc. litigation

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was last assessed 2 years ago and I've changed its content significantly. I am aiming for GA status for this article and would like some peer feedback. Thanks, Sctechlaw (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments wow, monster article! And a decent one at that."

• Lead is too short, four paras for an article of this length would be expected.
• Lead image caption is quirky, needs to be more explanatory, and doesn't need a full stop in its current form.
• Wouldn't Bloomberg Television be a better link than "Bloomberg news"?
• I rarely see UK written as U.K.
• " iTunes tracks sold in the U.K" followed two sections later by "cut the price United Kingdom consumers ". Would use "United Kingdom" the first time and the abbreviation subsequently.
• Which? is normally Which?.
• iPhone could be linked first time in the "Apple and AT&T Mobility antitrust class action" section but instead it's linked first time in the "iPad and iPhone privacy issue class action" section.
• "of the apps", however, the sui" think "however" should be a new sentence.
• You link US$ seven times in one section which is somewhat overkill...!
• US$.99 or 99¢? Be consistent.
• "In 2004, independent Apple resellers filed a lawsuit against Apple alleging Apple used misleading advertising practices with resellers by using unfair business practices that harmed reseller sales while boosting Apple-owned outlets, in effect by favoring its own outlets over those of its resellers" reseller is used four times and Apple four times in this single sentence!
• "Apple and Dr. Sagan " suddenly he's Dr. Sagan. Stick with one term for him and be consistent.
• " (see List of Apple codenames)." I don't like this sort of "see also". You could pipelink that article to the first use of "codename" (and be consistent with the spacing).
• Yep, I've found a UK now, so please be consistent throughout and (in my opinion) use UK.
• "Apple Corps alleged Apple's introduction " add Computer > "Apple Corps alleged Apple Computer's introduction ".
• " the name 'Apple' " vs "related to "Apple" ", be consistent with the punctuation.
• "a "token payment" in " why the italics?
• "name he'd registered" avoid contractions.
• Even more linked US$...
• Last sentence of the Woolworths section is unreferenced, and what was the conclusion to this? If still ongoing it should be noted.
• "name - which is iPod spelled backwards - is " should use en-dashes instead of hyphens here.
• Link Microsoft the first time.
• "(see also object file)" is this necessary? If it is, then perhaps say "object code including object files" or similar.
• "and 5 other pending " five.
• " High Tech Computer Corp. in " put (HTC) after the company name.
• Don't overlink Samsung.
• [162][165][166][167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] remove spaces between refs.
• "Against the dramatic backdrop" reads a bit journalistic.
• " iTunes End user license agreement" no need for capital E.
• See also needs a bullet point.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Be consistent with leading zeros for days/months in ref dates.
• for PDFs, use format=pdf in the refs.
• Author names, either First Last or Last, First. Be consistent.
• Is it "Johnson iTunes Settlement" or "johnsonitunessettlement.com"?
• New York Times should be The New York Times.
• Ref 43 (for instance) needs an en-dash for the page range.
• Make sure all refs have titles, publishers, publication dates (if appropriate), access dates (if appropriate), authors (if appropriate) and works (if appropriate).
• Make sure things like the NYT and Billboard etc are treated as works, i.e. in italics.
• Don't need Apple Inc. as a cat because you have Apple Inc. litigation as a more refined one.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I just saw this... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from requester: All of the above reviewer's helpful suggestions have been implemented, save for enlarging the lead, which is underway. Once this is done, the peer review can close, or sooner, if needed. Thanks also to user Khazar2 for helpful suggestions. — Sctechlaw (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from requester: All reviewers changes implemented. Thanks everyone. — Sctechlaw (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Speech generating device

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have a long term goal to get the subject more completely covered on wikipedia - maybe even to FA one day - there was also an issue with the article's GA status being challenged very soon after the status was achieved so I think a peer review might resolve any lingering doubts in the community.

Thanks, Fayedizard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

• "Speech generating devices (SGD)" Pluralized phrases should have pluralized acronyms (SGDs), as suggested by this section of the MOS.

I've gone through and made a few changes - thanks for the tip :)

• "Speech generating devices (SGD) have their roots in early electronic communication aids, the first of which was a sip-and-puff typewriter controller named the Patient Operated Selector Mechanism (POSM or POSSUM) prototyped by Reg Maling in the United Kingdom in 1960" Too many ideas being crammed into one sentence. I suggest splitting after "communication aids".

Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "scanning teletypewriter controller" What's this?

Good point, rewritten. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "During the 1970s and early 1980s, many of the companies that are now well known in the area began to emerge" This sentence falls victim to the common misconception that being "well known" is the same as being notable. Why should we care if they are well known or not? Possible rephrasing "During the 1970s and early 1980s, several companies began to emerge that have since become prominent manufacturers of SGDs."

Done. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm worried about the fact that the Toby Churchill and Dynavox statements are sourced to their respective company history pages. The authors have a very obvious conflict of interest regarding notability, and these sources alone should not be relied upon to determine which companies are mentioned in this article. I suggest replacing the references (currently refs 12 and 13) or backing them up with third-party material. If no such material can be found, the relevant statements should be deleted.

I'll have more of a look around - I should be able to find something - I've spent a reasonable amount of time depuffing the dynavox article anyway... Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Toby Churchill founded the company that bears his name in 1973" This phrasing implies that the reader will already be familiar with said company, but we cannot assume that that will always be true. Churchill Co.? Toby Churchill Incorporated? The Churchill Foundation? I have literally no idea, and Toby Churchill is no help either.

Reworded Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Toby Churchill founded ... cerebral palsy to communicate." Another extremely long sentence. This should be split between Churchill and Dynavox.

DoneFayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "a greatly increased number, range, and performance of commercially available communication devices" The meaning of "range" is somewhat ambiguous here. Does it mean price range? Or variety?

Changed to 'variety' Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s, and synthesized speech in more languages became available." It's not clear how the second clause relates to the first in terms of time. Assuming that they were essentially simultaneous, here's a possible rewrite: "The first commercially available dynamic screen speech generating devices were developed in the 1990s. During this time, synthesized speech became available in more languages, such as Language X, Language Y, and Language Z."

  I've dropped the second clause for clarity… Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• "As of 2011, notable AAC users include Stephen Hawking, Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot." It is unclear to me why this sentence has a date attached to it. It implies that these three dudes are still alive as of 2011, but that's not true; Proudfoot died in 2010. Possible rephrasing: "Notable individuals who have used AAC devices include SH, RE, and TP. It might also make sense to prepend each name with the respective profession for which they were notable.

  rephrasing sounds great - not sure about the predending part - it works for Hawking and Ebert, but it's difficult to refer to Proudfoot as an althete or as a former athete in this context… not sure really….? Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  Looking at this again, I think "AAC devices" should be changed to "SGDs". With that in mind, I don't see anything wrong with using "Notable individuals who have used SGDs include theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, film critic Roger Ebert, and former athlete Tony Proudfoot." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of History focuses too heavily on Hawking. I suggest including a single sentence for each of the gentlemen which simply states why they needed AAC, and possibly what device(s) they employed.

  I've rewritten - ideally I'm trying to find a source that says "Yes, the only one of these you've heard is Hawking, yes it sounds very 1980s - but that's his choice, modern devices sound more natural…" Fayedizard (talk) 05:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  I still think that there should be some information presented about Roger Ebert and Tony Proudfoot. If the article mentions these names, it should take the time to explain why they're relevant, and there's certainly enough space in the section to do it.

• I find it somewhat odd that Input methods and Access methods are separate sections, as their content is very similar and highly inter-related. I find even more odd that Input methods is so much more detailed than Access methods, when the latter has so much more interesting things to elaborate upon. Explaining the difference between fixed and dynamic displays does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject as much as explaining how eye tracking and head pointers work. Do you agree?

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Imaginos

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need advice on the comprehensibility of the text, that should be encyclopedic but also simple enough to be easily understood. I also need help with the placing of the reference tags. Too few? Too many? Are some references missing? Please, let me know what you think.

Thanks, Lewismaster (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

• I feel that the text is comprehensive in terms of background, production, themes, reception, and so on, unless otherwise noted below.
• Overall your strategy for inline citations seems fine; I think you've created a good balance and provided a proper number of citations. There are a couple places where you could combine citations, such as when you've cited one page and then the next page. It's acceptable to cite a range of pages if you make a statement summarized from 2 pages.
• I found the Notes and References sections difficult to read as formatted. Recommend placing References after Notes, and using a multi-column format for your Notes section.
• Unfortunately you will have a long struggle demonstrating that the Swartz BOC FAQ is a reliable source per WP:RS. Since it is cited quite often, you should expect it to be challenged heavily if you attempt to attain GA or FA status for the article. Essentially, there is no indication of an editorial or fact-checking process on that site, and no indication of the credibility or authority of the author. You would need to produce at least 2-3 secondary reliable sources (books, magazines, journals) that refer to the BOC FAQ as reliable and authoritative.
• Attention is needed to the wikilinking strategy. Some plain English words such as "arcane" should be delinked per WP:OVERLINK.
• Take care when assigning literary genre labels such as "gothic" without attribution to an authoritative secondary source. I would consider neither Pearlman nor Popoff an authoritative source in this matter.
• The prose is in need of attention from a copy-editor with a strong command of English. I listed some random pot-shots from the Lead below, but the whole thing needs treatment. This would be a necessary step before the article would be ready for GA or FA status.
• "aptly subtitled 'a bedtime story for the children of the damned'" As this quotation comes from liner notes, who decided it was "aptly named"? It seems an editorial or critical comment that should be attributed to someone other than the album creators.
• This sentence is awkward: "For this fact the album is often considered not a real group effort, but more producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman's project." I recommend "For this fact, the album is often considered less a real group effort and more a project of producer and lyricist Sandy Pearlman."
• "The album received some critical acclaim but no commercial success" Awkward; you wouldn't say that an album "received...commercial success".
• "cease the contract" is odd; recommend recasting as "end their contract" or similar.
• Why is Imaginos Tour in single quotes?
• "material of the album" is odd; "on the album" would be standard.

I hope these comments provide some direction. I don't want to provide a lot of micro-level comments about the prose until it is more polished. I would be happy to review the prose after it is copyedited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review. I realize that the article still needs a lot of work for grammar and phrasing, but at this stage my concern was for it to be understandable, complete and with the right tone. Regarding the BOC FAQ, it is cited as a reliable source both by Popoff in his book and by the Blue Oyster Cult official website [1], so I relied on some information it reported. Most reviews that I checked on the Internet have references to that FAQ, which is the only online source giving a coherent and comprehensive summary of Imaginos' storyline and production process. I'll try to differentiate the sourcing and find more reliable ones, leaving the FAQ only as a source for the opinions expressed by the fans. I'll treasure your comments and I'd like to contact you again when the article will be in better shape for a GA attempt, if you will have patience and time to spend on it. Lewismaster (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been re-working extensively the article about the album Imaginos that you started peer reviewing last week and now it should be more readable. If you have time and patience to have a look at my work and give me your opinion, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Charles Inglis (engineer)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I feel this article would benefit from a peer review. I would like to take this to FAC eventually, if peer reviewers think it likely to be suitable, (Engineering is heavily under-represented there and this would be the first FA about a civil engineer) but my last FA was three years ago so I am a bit rusty. In particular a check on the prose would be helpful as my previous FAs have been picked up for this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A few things, not a full review by any means:

• The automated peer reviewer found some things that should be checked on:

• It says the article is short for a FA, and I have to agree.
• The article is not consistent between British and American spellings. It seems to be mistaken.
• Checklinks, if one turns on reporting of everything but good links, reports some subscription-only links and another that looks suspicious at first glance.

• For a check on the prose, I advise listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ or WP:GOCE/FA, although I can try to do some copyediting myself; are you worried about errors (I can help on that), style (I can try, but no guarantees), or what?
• An additional thing - the references are not currently in any consistent format; I suggest putting them all into {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. formats. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, not a full review by any means. Allens (talk | contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Allens. Thanks for taking a look at this. I agree with you that an FAC is a while away yet (I would like to improve the depth of coverage first) but if you could take a quick look over the prose style (in particular I know I tend towards a lot of "in 1919..." sentences) or any grammatical mistakes that'd be fantastic. With regard to the refs, I don't think I can replace many of the subscription only ones, but what was the one you thought suspicious? I'll try to take a look at the references when I get a moment- Dumelow (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I've started doing a copy-edit of it (first pass done, will go over again). I've marked the suspicious one (which, upon examination, is now an essentially dead link) with {{dead link}} (it's for his honorary degree). I understand about not being able to replace the two subscription-only ones; I'd just make sure they are marked with {{subscription required}}. Allens (talk | contribs) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Hill & Adamson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm still pretty new at creating articles, and I want to see if I've covered all the bases (Notes/References, infobox, authority control, talk page, etc.)

Thanks, Scewing (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: The article looks to be in a fairly early stage of development at present. The peer review process is really meant for articles that are rather futher along the line than this one is: "...intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." However, I can offer a few suggestions as to how to improve it.

• The lead should be a concise summary of all the main features of the article – an encapsulation of the whole. Everything of significance in the article needs to be touched on, however briefly, in the lead; for this reason it is best to write this last, when the main text is complete.
• I assume that the studio name was "Hill & Adamson" though this needs to be specifically stated. You need to avoid the ampersand when you are writing about them as individuals rather than as the partnership.
• We need more introductory material. Give us background information about Hill and Adamson, their dates of birth say, and a summary of their activities before they met. Don't require your readers to use links to find this information. The whole article could do with some expansion; it runs to less than 600 words at present. A single quotation from a web page cannot be considered to represent an adequate "Historical perspective".
• Remember that you are writing a neutral encyclopedia article, not a piece of magazine journalism or promotional literature. Some of your phrasing is definitely not neutral, e.g. Adamson's "considerable sensitivity and dexterity"; "their amazing photographic works"; "extremely" successful – are examples of what I mean. Even "untimely death" carries an emotional whiff and would be better as "early death"
• Informal expressions such as "the great and the good" are fine in magazines, but strike the wrong note here.
• Web pages are written (and hopefully, read). They do not write, however.
• Note 2. looks artificially attenuated
• The checking tool reveals that there is one disambiguation link: (creel)
• I noticed the odd MOS violation, for example use of a hyphen rather than a dash within the text.

I hope these points will help you to develop the article further. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Sheriff Hill

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. This article has been PRed twice previously: once prior to GAN and once afterwards; and I hope that the issues raised in both have been dealt with. The article is a GA but I'd like, now I have some time free from work, to see if I can get this (finally) to FA but the last PR was last summer so I'd appreciate a fresh look so any issues can be ironed out prior to FAC. Thanks, Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Did the settlement have men with a Pals battalion in World War I? Was it severely affected by losses? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I am told anecdotally by elderly residents that there was one (and that Hodkin Park was dug up and used as an allotment during both WWI and WWII) but I have found nothing in any reliable source to confirm or deny this, so I cannot say that they did here. There is very, very little material available relating to the settlement and both World Wars I'm afraid...Meetthefeebles (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Is "City" in "City of Durham" really capitalised?
• Avoid linking common terms like "Park".
• Any news from the 2011 census?
• For FAC, most of the time the reviewers would expect to see no refs in the lead since everything should be expanded upon in the main article. Suggest you consider that.
• Our article on "tinker" leaves it a little unclear as to which meaning you're referring to here.
• Industrial Revolution is typically capitalised.
• " was the regular haunt of" is a little colloquial to me.
• " Gateshead Fell; itself a " comma, not semi-colon.
• "Sheriff's March (Sheriff Hill)" the main article is just "Sheriff's March".
• Be careful with over linking. I note Gateshead is linked section after section, is that really necessary?
• " It is as a direct result of the "Sheriff's March"..." that sentence is unreferenced yet makes a claim which could (could) be disputed.
• "Sodhouse Bank/Sheriff's Highway" first para is a single sentence, would consider merging.
• "the historic city of Durham" is that really necessary, or is just "Durham" sufficient?
• "High Fell- 2010 Local Elections" use a spaced en-dash rather than this oddly spaced hypen, and local elections are not proper nouns.
• Neither is Name, Party, Votes or Cast.
• "Durham to the north".[29] which " punctuation problem.
• "254.5 miles (409.6 km) from London." no need to link London and that's a little bit too accurate for my liking, just stick to whole miles.
• "Thomas Miles Richardson Sr." doesn't need that Sr.
• Some people seem to have an aversion to galleries, I'm not sure why, but just a note in case it comes up at FAC.
• In any case, if you have complete sentences, or more than one sentence in a caption, make sure they end in full stops.
• "Neighbouring Settlements and Villages" too many capital letters here.
• " of 5,051[45]- 53% of the population" en-dash, not a hyphen here.
• "Sheriff Hill compared" I'd add a year for that in the title.
• "A*-C" en-dash.
• "1750-1925" ditto.
• "playing a pivotal role" is there a ref for that?
• "A surviving reference to Sheriff Hill's potting heritage at 124 Sheriffs Highway." no need for a full stop.
• " two main shafts- Fanny Pit and" en-dash rather than the oddly spaced hyphen.
• " (1926-present day)" en-dash, might even need to be a spaced one, check WP:DASH.
• Don't think you need to link "supermarket".
• "Sheriff Hill Asylum. Picture courtesy of Gateshead Council public archives" needs a final full stop.
• " with barbed wire (or broken glass in places)[107] By 1903 " punctuation fail.
• "8041" for consistency within the article, I'd say 8,041.
• Same for 4111.
• "emphasized" for now, BritEng says that should be emphasised.
• "was rife- indeed" same old dash/hyphen comment.
• "Thankfully" not encyclopedic.
• "An additional ten minute break is provided for the youngest children at 2.40pm." not really the sort of trivial detail I expect to see in an encyclopaedic article.
• OFSTED quote is far too much, just say how they were graded. It's borderline copyvio in any case.
• The Upon in Newcastle upon Tyne is not capitalised.
• The "and" in Scottish & Newcastle should be an ampersand.
• "1-2 Southend Terrace" en-dash required.
• I think the bus list is overkill as well.
• "The No.28 stops at Sheriff's Highway" needs a full stop.
• " is located 2.78 miles (4.47 km) away" far too accurate.
• En-dashes for page ranges in the references.
• No need to capitalise P of para in the refs.
• Don't have bare URLs in the refs.
• Is it No or No.?
• Newcastle Evening Chronicle, for example, is a work, so should be in italics.
• Don't mix date formats in the various reference sections.
• Really, do you need ALL of those external links? I very much doubt it.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Bernard Stone

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

Thanks, Hugh (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A fair amount of work still to do

General

• The article's structure needs rethinking. At present much of it is broken up into too many often very short sections. I am sure that many of these could be combined, if not extended by new material.

Lead

• Too short: not a complete summary of the article, rather a collection of snippets: half the words are on trivial information
• "Alderman" needs a link

Education

• None of the information is cited - 4 citation tags
• Chronology needs clarifying. He was 18 when he enlisted; how much of his education was completed before then? In what year did he earn his law degree?
• The information requires some dating - year of graduation, year of law doctorate
• What is a letterman? Is there a link?

Early attempts at elected office

• "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way race in the Democratic primary for the Illinois state House of Representatives from the 8th district" - needs rephrasing, e.g. "In 1956 Stone ran in a multi-way Democratic primary for the 8th district Illinois state House of Representatives seat". Link "primary" for the benefit of non-US readers.
• The second paragraph needs further rewriting, so that readers can understand what was actually happening. At the moment it is all confusion: Barnes is one of 233, then one of 11 of whom 10 are trying to unseat an incumbent...etc. What's the relevance of the information about the incumbent seeking a third four-year term? Why, ultimately, was Barnes not on the ballot?

1973 campaign for alderman

• Three consecutive sentences begin "Stone..." Variety of expression is needed
• "including ... including" in a single sentence

The Republican years (1987–1990)

• "...to run for recorder" → "to run for Recorder"
• Who did Vrdolyak threaten?
• Subsection title should capitalise Recorder of Deeds as this is a formal office (and for textual consistency)
• Why did Stone return to the Democratic Party? You gave detailed reasons for his leaving it.

"Berny's Wall"

• "the most significant altercation in recent decades". Whose view is this? And "altercation" is probably not the best word to describe a long dispute
• I tried to read the details, gave up. Why is it necessary to discuss this particular incident in such extensive detail? This level of attention seems wholly disproportionate, and unbalances the article; I would have thought a single short summary paragraph would do.

Sleeping in Council Chambers

• Is this trivial incident really worth a main section to itself?

Campaign employees convicted of vote fraud

• Avoid contractions such as "wasn't". Encyclopedia articles should be in formal language
• As with the preceding section, there is probably too much detail in this section, and some repetition (Salone calls the sentences "a kiss" twice).
• There is more chronological confusion, particularly in the third and fourth paragraphs. When did the trial begin (we are only told when it finished).

Committees

• Probably Stone's committee memberships should be cited somewhere

Loss in 2011 run-off

• "Certified Public Accountant" is a profession, not a title. I'm not sure of the relevance of this description, but if you must use it I'd rephrase: "Silverstein's wife Debra Silverstein, a Certified Public Accountant..."

Political philosophy

• One single unoriginal line does not amount to a political philosophy, and certainly doesn't justify a whole section to itself

Personal life

• Scant content, and citation tag.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I am not watching individual peer reviews at present, please contact me via my talkpage if you wish to raise any points arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Jack Chesbro

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi. I'm hoping to get a quick peer review from an editor familiar with the FA process. I'm curious to see if this article has the potential for FA status. Is there anything that seems problematic for an FA review? Anything that an FA reviewer would request that isn't currently here? How is the prose? Should I nominate this, after incorporating your suggestions, or should I be satisfied with promoting it for DYK and GA and leave it at that? Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Realistically, you may have to wait a while for a peer review. At present there are 28 articles in the backlog, some of which have been there several weeks. PR is suffering from a chronic reviewer shortage at the moment, and it is a case of being patient. It might be worth your while seeking out another editor who is active and knowledgeable in the baseball area and asking if they would be prepared to review your article. Otherwise, I'm afraid it may be a longish wait. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. I will seek out WP:BASEBALL opinions on the matter, but I would like non-baseball readers to review this as well, since one of my sins is not explaining baseball terms clearly enough to the non-baseball audience. I'm in no rush to nominate this anyway, got another I'm getting close to nominating first, so I don't mind the delay. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

I think this article is currently some way from FA quality. The main issue is with prose and accessibility. There are several parts which are not easy to understand to someone like me who is not an expert on baseball. Also, the sentences are a little choppy and make the article hard to read. In addition, there seems little flow to the article and ideas and facts do not seem particularly connected or integrated into the whole. I read around half of the article without really getting an impression who this guy was or why I should be interested in him. This, and the lumpy prose, rather put me off reading the whole thing. I would suggest a few rounds of copy-editing, initially by someone familiar with baseball and maybe with FAC experience, before asking another copy-editor to have a look and then putting up for PR again. Overall, I think the subject and information make it worth trying for FA, but it needs a lot of work to reach that standard. I've left some more detailed comments on the early part of the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead does not adequately summarise the article (see WP:LEAD): there is no mention of his early life and barely any mention of his career.
• "His 41 wins during the 1904 season remains an MLB record for the modern era, and is viewed as unbreakable": Viewed by whom?
• Although I have a reasonable working knowledge of baseball, the second paragraph of the lead is impenetrable to me. Who usually did the electing? Why was it a mistake? If this is notable enough for the lead, it should be explained why this seems to be so controversial.

Early life

• The paragraph should not begin "He", but "Chesbro".
• I appreciate that his name changed, but the article should be consistent throughout; Cheesborough in this section jars a little. It may also be worth explaining here that his name changed, as well as stating it later.
• It reads as if he worked at the hospital merely to play for the baseball team, which seems difficult to believe.

Professional Career

• This section suffers from choppy, repetitive sentences with a fairly formulaic structure. ("In XXXX, he pitched for XXXX of the XXXX, until XXXX")
• There is also an overuse of "pitched". I'm particularly not sure about "He pitched the remainder of the 1896 season" (maybe "For the remainder of the season, he pitched")
• "Chesbro began his professional career in minor league baseball in 1895. That year, he pitched for the Albany Senators of the New York State League until they folded, at which point he joined the Johnstown Buckskins.": Redundancy here: Why not "In 1895, Chesbro began his professional career pitching for the minor league Albany Senators of the New York State League. The team folded [in the same year? Later?], and he joined the Johnstown Buckskins."
• "However, Hanlon took a job with the Brooklyn Superbas and the Orioles were nearly contracted, resulting in Chesbro not signing with Baltimore, as Hanlon allowed the option to lapse.": I find this impossible to understand.
• "After the season, on December 8, 1899, Chesbro was traded…" This long list of names is a very bad idea and particularly unreadable.
• "The Louisville club dissolved that offseason…" Which offseason? When, more precisely? Why? Why was Chesbro assigned to that particular team afterwards?
• "After going 15–13 for the 1900 Pirates": Jargon.
• "the upstart American League": Upstart?
• "to join the AL..": Doubled periods. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. This will be helpful in improving the article, whether or not I nominate it for FA. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Rodney Atkins

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to get another country music GA under my belt and I think I've got something here. The article as it is seems pretty comprehensive to me, but I'd like some more feed back before I send it to GAN. Does anything need improvement?

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Overall, this looks like it would comfortably meet the GA criteria. My only real issue is that part of the article are a little listy, and merely give all his single releases and their chart position. But while it makes parts a bit lumpy, it is not a huge issue. I confess to never having heard of this person, and my knowledge of country music is non-existent, but everything seemed fairly clear to me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Should it be "number one" rather than "number 1"? I prefer the former but I'm not sure if there are MOS exceptions for chart listings.

• Either is acceptable, as long as the article uses only one or the other.

• Second paragraph of the lead reads a little like a list of number 1 singles, and is a little too list-y for me.
• I don't think the lead adequately summarises the whole article: there is no mention of his pre-2003 career and nothing on personal life or awards.

• It does mention the pre-2003 career.

• "His biological mother, who was 19 at the time, gave birth to him after a "traumatic first date"." Slightly misleading here: it suggests that she gave birth after the date! The source states she became pregnant after a difficult first date.
• "His first adoptive parents, Charles Hutchins and Linda Weems, put him up for adoption after he developed a major respiratory infection.": Repetition of adoption; also, were they foster or adoptive parents as it seems unusual for adoptive parents to give someone up after they become ill. Even more so for this to happen twice.
• As couple is plural, should it not be "couple who inquired about him were…"?
• "After Margaret Atkins recovered, she called Hutchins a second time": Why would she call his first adoptive parents who, according to the article, had already returned him by this stage?

• I'll have to check the Guideposts article again, but at the moment I forgot where I put it.

• "During his youth, the Atkinses moved frequently": "the Atkins family" may be better here.
• "He signed with Curb Records in 1996, the same week that LeAnn Rimes did." Is Rimes relevant to his career? If not, why mention her?
• "Its b-side": I always assumed B-side was capitalised on every mention.
• "He had also planned to release a self-titled debut album on September 17 of the same year, but it was never released.": Why? Also, although I know what it means, "self-titled debut album" here comes across as a little vague. I think "debut album" would be sufficient here.

• Explained later where he says he was dissatisfied with the album.

• "Hewitt also changed Atkins' style from a cowboy appearance and a vocal style similar to Roy Orbison to a more polished appearance." Repetition of appearance, and this does seem a little vague and woolly here!
• "In the meantime, Atkins, Hewitt and Max T. Barnes wrote the track "Don't Think I Won't" on Mark Wills' 1998 album Wish You Were Here." Are either the singer or song significant (please pardon my ignorance!)? If so, how did they perform? The inclusion of the fact suggests it must have done well.

• Because it shows that he was doing other things before his first album got out.

• Should "followup" be hyphenated?
• The second paragraph of "If You're Going Through Hell" is a little dense and list-y. But not a huge issue.
• General: as the chart references all seem to refer to country charts, are there any releases where it is worth mentioning placement in the general music charts? If it is not worth it, no problem.

• All of his Top 10 hits made the Hot 100, which is ironclad standard for country top 10 hits — should I mention at least the ones that placed in Top 40?

• I don't watch peer reviews, so please leave a message at my talk page if there are any problems or questions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Replies. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would recommend giving the ones in the Top 40. As I said earlier, I think this is comfortably a GA. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Wonderlic Test

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my class PSYSC 373 Industrial & Organizational Psychology. We are currently trying to update Wikipedia articles that deal with I-O Psychology for a project. My team is responsible for the Wonderlic Test article, which had previously on mentioned its use in the NFL. We are wanting people to be aware that the Wonderlic Personnel Test had its roots in I-O Psychology and that other professions use the test in order to screen potential employees. We are asking that the editors review are article and provide feedback on how to improve the article

Thank you for your time and consideration, VLord89 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are several areas needing copyediting for grammar and clarity (you can try listing it at WP:GOCE/REQ, but be forewarned that it has a several-month backlog); examples include:

• "Some psychologists state that the sole use of intelligence testing for personnel selection most notably were Malcolm James Ree and James A. Earles who claimed" - this is pretty much incomprehensible.
• "developed latter and" - try "developed later and"
• "Personnel tests, are currently being used as a gauge for professional capability within the industrial field. Dealing with the assessment of employees or potential applicants the Wonderlic Test has its primary function within the NFL industry, while there are numerous personnel test such as the IQ or the Mechanical Aptitude Test, the Wonderlic Test is a quick and simple vocational Test for personnel recruitment and selection" - multiple grammatical, etc errors.
• "The tests are divided into four different sections cognitive, skill, personality, and behavioral. Serving as a quantitative and a qualitative test for employers, scores are collected by the employers and are often judged according to their score. Each industry has its own unique average therefore, different standards are required. The scores are predictors of the possible conformity a potential employee has within the field that they are applying" - needs a citation (in general, you need a citation at least for each paragraph, and others wherever something is controversial or using material from a source other than the general one for the paragraph); also needs grammar cleanup.

Other difficulties:

• "general cognitive ability in the areas of math, vocabulary, and reasoning" - it doesn't make sense to be discussing areas for general cognitive ability.
• "In the 1970s Tom Landry, former coach of the Dallas Cowboys, was the first to use the Wonderlic Personnel Test to predict player performance" - was he the former coach at the time?
• "to say the least" is probably not appropriate in tone; ditto "and the like"
• "One person in particular, Robert Sternberg and Richard K. Wagner" - I doubt these two names are for one person
• "While an average football player usually scores around 20 points" - "while" is an awfully weird way to link the two sentences; try deleting it and putting in a semicolon."
• You've got various in-text outside links; those should be replaced with <ref>{{cite web|...}}</ref> - see {{cite web}} for some further info.
• That the US supreme court has ruled against the use of general IQ tests without evidence for each test being valid for the particular job should be brought up (it's a power company vs an employee, I forget the exact case; it was ruled out on the grounds of affirmative action).
• Instead of two {{Main}} uses, try {{Main|article1|article2}}.

Allens (talk | contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Common Eland

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because after fixing the many problems this article had, I wish to know whether any more improvements need to be made. Please ass your opinions if they are helpful.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – umm, no offense intended, but the article could really use a thorough copy edit and polishing up. You might ask around to see if somebody will do that for you. There are also some issues with insufficiently developed references. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "Common Eland" and "southern eland" in the lead sentence, be consistent with capitalisation.
• "largest[2] and slowest [3] in the world." watch ref placement. Preferably after punctuation and definitely not after a space, so I'd recommend "largest and slowest in the world.[2][3]"
• Avoid linking very common terms like "grass" and "foliage".
• "These terrestrial animals " um, do you really mean "territorial"? "terrestrial" means they come from Earth which is probably a given.
• "These terrestrial animals form large herds of individuals, usually ranging from 25 to 70." not great, I would say "These territorial animals form large herds of individuals ranging from 25 to 75 in number."
• More unnecessary common term linkage with things like "milk" and "leather".
• " but its population trend is decreasing." I don't think the "trend" is decreasing, do you mean the actual population itself is decreasing? Or do you mean that its rate of population increase is decreasing?
• Online references need publisher information, publication dates, author information etc wherever available.
• "focusing at the tuft " not sure I know what that means.
• "and Greek(generally orygos" space missing.
• "which focuses at the pointed horns " again, not clear to me what this means.
• "When Dutch settlers " and "In Dutch", both link "Dutch" but to different articles, not recommended.
• "color . Males " remove the space before the full stop.
• "as 25 years . When " ditto.

In general there needs to be a lot of copyediting here for this to be ready for GA, so I'd suggest a request over at WP:GOCE. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Heather Chasen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because from this peer review I am hoping to be able to cleanup the article to a high standard, aswell as being able to further nominate for FA. I would also like to confirm whether the article is at the standard I think it is. Thanks, MayhemMario 16:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead could be a bit longer, maybe two paras.
• What precisely cites her birth date?
• Don't link common terms link England.
• Don't over link terms like soap opera.
• " She was in the..." "was in" reads clumsily to me, appeared in?
• "(who had pulled out of the role for personal reasons)" not really necessary in the lead.
• Explain what RADA means before you just use the abbreviation.
• Regents Park is actually Regent's Park.
• "Chasen had a relationship with Amanda Barrie although has never spoken about this" if you believe this to be true and cites back it up then consider LGBT cats.
• No need to link London.
• " received nice fan mail" reads a little weakly to me.
• "and Norman Simmonds " ->" and Norman Simmonds'"
• " for the 14th June episode" remove "th" from 14th.
• "other TV programmes" -> television
• Z Cars is Z-Cars.
• What is "the BAC"?
• "was nominated for the Tony Award " when?
• 1 Episode -> 1 episode (etc)
• Make sure data tables comply with MOS:DTT for col and row scopes to enable screen readers to make the most of these lists.
• 1959–77 vs 1966–1968 be consistent with date range formats.
• Ref 19, what does " 32. 30-5 August 2011." mean?
• Is it BBC or BBC?
• Ref 5- "Retrieved 25June 2011." space needed.
• Ref 5- it's The Daily Telegraph.

 Done all — M.Mario (T/C) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

James Burbage

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently undergone extensive editing. The additions are substantial, and the topic important enough to warrant a review.

Thanks, Redcknight (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure if you're heading to GA or similar shortly but these comments are based on that assumption.
• Check WP:DASH, I see a lot of hyphens being used incorrectly.
• Three links to dab pages, The Rose, The Swan and The Globe, need to be fixed.
• The Globe Theater -> please, it's a theatre.!!
• Lead is very short.
• Who said the quote about his "life"?
• Don't overlink (e.g. "joiner" is over linked quickly).
• "in manor" -> "in manner".
• "depicted James as more motivated" -> depicted Burbage.
• "March 25, 1576. [9] " remove space before ref.
• As a British English article, dates should be dmy.
• The Gurr reference needs an en-dash per my second comment.
• Don't think you can use 1531 births as a ref as you don't know it's true. Is there a 1530s birth category?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Lanny McDonald

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been a while since I've taken a hockey player bio to FA, and Lanny seems the best choice as one of the more popular players in league history. I have all the usual requests, prose quality and thoughts on what a reader unfamiliar with the subject may be expecting but doesn't see. Appreciate any and all feedback. Thanks, Resolute 22:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Lead

• "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989": Presumably his team won it, not him personally?
• "He won the Stanley Cup in 1989, captaining the Flames to the championship in his final season": Forgive my sketchy knowledge, but would he have achieved the championship before the cup? If so, maybe reword slightly to show this.
  • The Cup is what the players won by winning the championship, and the words are so closely related in the context of the NHL that they are virtually synonyms. I have reworded to try and address both above comments, hwoever.
• "among the most popular players in Flames history": Unless I missed it (which is possible), I don't think this is in the main article.
  • I implied it in the personal life section, but you are right, I didn't explain it well overall. Will rectify that.
• "well known throughout the league for his bushy red moustache and support of the Special Olympics": Should it be "well-known". Also, his moustache seems an odd item to go in the lead! While I agree that it is worth a mention, I'm not sure I would have it in the same sentence as his popularity and support of the Special Olympics; the three things do not seem to go together.
  • I think for most individuals, a thing such as their moustache would not be that important, no. But in McDonald's case, it is one of the things that has made him an iconic figure in the sport. I have clarified that. Also, joined the note on the Special Olympics to his humanitarian/leadership awards, as it fits better there.
• "He represented Team Canada": Would it be better to make this more accessible and say "at international level [or similar wording] for Canada", as not everyone may realise what this means?
  • Reworded.
• "The Flames retired his number 9 in 1990.": Phrasing a little odd: maybe just "The Flames retired his number in 1990", as I'm not sure his actual playing number is essential for the lead. If it is, maybe "Known for his number 9 shirt [? Phrasing of hockey is NOT one of my strengths!], the Flames retired…"
  • Most of our FA/GA bios include the actual number in the lead. I've reworded slightly to note that it was his uniform number, but will see if anyone else has further feedback before removing the actual digit.

Early life

• "McDonald credits his father for teaching him the value of honesty and hard work.": I'm not completely persuaded that this is important enough to include. However, if he was known for his honesty… Hmmm….
  • I'll leave it in for now, but am open to removal if others feel it does not benefit the article.
• "He served as a stick boy": I think this needs a little expansion. What would this involve?
  • Clarified, hopefully
• "He began playing organized hockey at the age of six, following his brother.": Into a specific team, or just copying his path?
  • Reworded to avoid. Realized I pretty much mentioned twice that both Lanny and Lynn played hockey.
• "Despite both having full time commitments, their parents drove them both to Hanna": Both…both.
  • Fixed
• "McDonald recounted that half of his time…": Using "recounted" leaves the question hanging: recounted to who? Maybe "recalled" avoids this?
  • Fixed
• "He completed his high school diploma while playing in Lethbridge, choosing to remain with his junior A team in 1970–71 rather than join the Medicine Hat Tigers of the Western Canada Hockey League so that he could complete his diploma": Diploma…diploma
  • Fixed
  • All of the above should be now addressed.
• "He was named to the AJHL's Second All-Star team": This one always confuses me a little; is it kind of the "second-best" team?
  • In essence, yes. The first team would usually be those voted as the best at each position, and the second team would be those voted as second best. It is obviously not something I can add to this article, but such awards tend also to be very subjective, so voters could choose to reward a player in this fashion for intangible effects, "leadership" and other things not directly related to the on-ice performance.

Junior career

• Was this part of his career amateur? Maybe worth specifying.
  • I admit, I am not sure how to add that in early without it seeming forced. The link in the above section to junior hockey and the below note that he was selected in the amateur draft might be sufficient?
• "Additionally, McDonald appeared in six Western Canada Hockey League (WCHL) games with the Calgary Centennials." Obviously this is a step-up. For lazy readers like me, maybe explain the relationship between the leagues. (I'm assuming the AJHL feeds into the WCHL?)
  • It can, but it doesn't have to. And in modern days, the relationship can be fairly complicated. I wouldn't presume to guess how defined these relationships were 40 years ago. You are correct that the WCHL (now WHL) is a higher level than the AJHL. I have made note that the Alberta league was then considered 'tier II' to help enhance the fact that it was step up.

• "The Medicine Hat Tigers acquired McDonald's rights": Related to my first point, were there contracts for these leagues? If not, how did such a trade work? Was it a swap, or did money change hands. Or did he just move?
  • It would have been a swap of players, IIRC. I have linked to Trade (sports) to help, and will try to find a story on the actual trade itself.

• "…rather than Vancouver. Instead, he went to the Toronto Maple Leafs with the fourth overall pick.[12] Additionally, he was taken 10th overall by the Cleveland Crusaders in the 1973 WHA Amateur Draft." Hockey ignorance alert! How could he be taken by two teams? And it gets a little confusing here; he was going to the WHA instead of Vancouver, but instead went to Toronto. And Cleveland. Then signed for Toronto. Help!
  • lol! Rival major leagues battling for talent. I've touched on it in other parts of the article, but will try to explain the connections a little more clearly here.
• And this amateur draft. Was it amateur players who were chosen and then signed as professionals, or were they chosen to play as amateurs?
  • Junior players are considered amatuer (in most cases), and are drafted into the professional ranks. I might just pipe link it to 1973 draft to avoid confusion.
• "The deal came as a result of the battle the NHL and WHA were waging over young talent, and McDonald found that some of the older players in Toronto resented him as a result." Too many results here, and I'm not sure it's clear how this "battle" affected his signing. Could be clearer.
  • Related to the WHA/Vancouver/Toronto issue above. I will clarify.

Toronto Maple Leafs

• "scoring 37 goals and 56 assists": reads as if he scored the assists.
  • Fixed
• "Playing with both a broken wrist and broken nose suffered during the series": Slightly inelegant. Maybe "His wrist and nose were both broken during the series, but he scored the overtime winning goal…"
  • Changed
• Presumably they then lost their semi-final? Worth expanding as it kind of tails off.
  • Correct, and clarified.

Colorado Rockies

• "Punch Imlach was named the general manager in Toronto": Why not "Toronto general manager"?
  • That works too, changed.
• "The two disagreed frequently and Cherry was fired following the season." Specify which two: McDonald and Miron or Cherry and Miron?
  • Clarified

Calgary Flames

• "league goal scoring title": "goal-scoring"?
  • Reworded to eliminate that bit entirely. There actually was no award for leading the league in goals then.
• "reduced his scoring to 33 goals and 66 points": First time points are mentioned. I'm lost now! What is the difference?
  • I actually have used points several times by this point. I went back and linked to point (ice hockey) on first use.
• "McDonald was the 21st player in NHL history to score 400 career goals": Maybe "McDonald became…"?
  • Agreed, changed
• "It was thought he had scored the milestone goal in his previous game…": By whom? Press, player, team-mates, crowd…?
  • Clarified
• "In the playoffs, McDonald was witness to one of the most infamous moments in NHL history.[53][54][55]": Without checking them, three refs seems excessive and looks a little ugly. Also, however many refs it has, infamous also suggests POV or editorial voice. (And it doesn't seem that bad)
  • I use those three references on this mention specifically to try and dispel the notation that it is my POV.
• "The series ended in disappointment: He watched from the bench as a furious attempt at tying the final game fell short": Stray capital letter after colon. And the tone of this sentence is not the most encyclopaedic: "furious", "fell short". I'm also a little confused as to what the "furious attempt" was, as it is a little vague.
  • Clarified and tried to clean up the tone
• Are we missing a season? It goes from 86-87 to 88-89.
  • Nothing special happened that season, but I added a brief note.
• "McDonald was the sentimental favourite as the 1989 Stanley Cup playoffs began": Not sure what this means; sentimental how? And favourite in the popular or the bookmaker sense?
  • Reworded entirely
• "McDonald was scratched": Not quite encyclopaedic.
  • Reworded
• "who saw a streaking McDonald": Again not sure about the tone.
  • I'm not sure how else to phrase "old man flies up the right wing really, really fast"  ;)

Management career

• "Vice President": "Vice-President"? (Not sure on this one)
  • Common spelling in the sources does not use a hyphen
• "He chose the corporate role partly due to a fascination with the business world, and partly to remain close to his family as a role in hockey operations would have necessitated greater travel.": Role…role.
  • Removed one use
• Big jump from his retirement in '89 and his VP role, to his search for a manager in 2000. Anything in between?
  • Nothing major that I have come across. I will perform an additional search before a FA run.
• "While team sources claimed he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired, McDonald denied the claims": Maybe "McDonald denied claims from team sources that he was upset at not gaining a new role when Button was hired".

Playing style

• "He was often a healthy scratch": Lost by this one!
  • Reworded. It means he was left out of the lineup for reason other than injury.

Legacy

• "The arrival of the Flames in Calgary for the 1980–81 NHL season found a team in transition": I'm assuming that the franchise arrived in Calgary at this point. It may be worth mentioning this in the playing career section. Also, possibly "The Flames were a team in transition when they arrived in Calgary for the 1980-81 NHL season".
  • The team arrived in Calgary (relocated from Atlanta) before McDonald was traded to the Flames. I am trying to set the background of what the Flames' situation was like prior to his arrival. I've reworded this to try and make it flow better.

• A few other bits here, such as the WHA battle may be usefully repeated in the earlier sections as well.
  • It is touched on, but I will expand the earlier mentions
• "His efforts left a lasting impression on his teammates,[86] among them was Tiger Williams who called McDonald "a great ambassador" for the NHL.": Either replace the comma with a semi-colon, or cut "was".
  • Semi-colon it is!

Personal life

• Possibly an issue with my browser, but the text seems to be overlaying on the quote box here.
  • I'm not seeing it on my browser (Firefox), but will check a few other browsers and screen configurations before a FA run.

Career statistics

• I know hockey articles often leave this section uncited, but I really prefer a reference for statistics.
  • It is effectively cited in the external links section. But I will add an entry to the general references section that specifies it supports the stats table.

General

• Really high-quality and really enjoyable. The prose seems very good, and as a non-hockey person, there was little that I found difficult. I have listed anything I was unsure about. Very easy to read.
• I have not checked the referencing or done spot-checks.
• I do not watch peer reviews so please let me know on my talk page if you have questions or comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Your review and compliments are very much appreciated! I'm glad you found the article informative, especially coming from a non-hockey background. I'm always concerned about ease of understanding for unfamiliar readers, so this is quite beneficial. Thanks again, Resolute 01:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Ranch to Market Road 187

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for a peer review because I wish to nominate it as a featured article, and wish for it to pass on the first or second try.
Thanks, Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• It's short. Very short. You may struggle, despite quality, to get this to fly at FAC. But good luck!
• "Ranch to Market Road " is really just "farm-to-market road" (i.e. without all the capital letters).
• "and made an appearance" no, too active, it "appeared in" but didn't "make an appearance".
• " longest Ranch to Market Road in " per above.
• " line on June 11, 1945. Just 14 days later, on June 25, 1945," don't think you need to give us two clues about the second date.
• Solve the [not in citation given] tag.
• Make sure the table complies with MOS:DTT for row and col scopes.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Texas Department of Transportation maintains a Farm to Market Road System and a related Ranch to Market Road System, so in this case, they are proper nouns. For the other states in the US, I agree though that it would be a common noun. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Rihanna videography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… when I removed the direct from Rihanna discography I worked hard on it. By hard I mean, I wrote the tables and the lead and properly sourced them. Now I am listing it for peer review, because in near future I want to nominate it for FLC. As a result of that I want to hear some comments that can help to improve it.

Thanks, — Tomica (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from What a pro.

• was disco and dance inspired[2] as its lyrical theme Uh, what?

• I don't understand your point here. What I wanted to say is the themes of both the song and the video are dance and disco themed. — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, then change "as" to "like". Alternatively, put "as" after "was".

 Done— Tomica (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• in a dangerous love triangle struggled between her lover and husband. Remove "struggled", and replace "between" with "with".

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• In 2006, Rihanna also starred No need for the "also".

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• For the new album, Rihanna presented completely new image and style.[8] Perhaps "For the album, Rihanna completely changed her image and style."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• scenes of Rihanna naked; only covered in silver paint.' I don't think a semicolon is correct here.

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Seven more singles were released from the album The Good Girl Gone Bad article says there are only seven singles, so remove the "more".

• "If I Never See Your Face Again" was also single from GGGB, but I don't know why constantly someone is removing from the infobox there. — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• ; all directed by Mandler. --> "; all of them were directed by Mandler."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Rihanna flew to Europe, to shot --> "to shoot"

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• ideo for "Run This Town"— a collaboration Remove the space after the em-dash.

• I did it right ? — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah.

• Jesse Williams made cameo appearance --> "made a cameo"

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• In all of them are featured various dance sequences.[32] ––> "All of them feature various dance sequences."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• shows Rihanna naked - only covered in silver paint. Replace the hyphen with an em-dash.

• I hope I did it right. — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup.

• photography-based, late-1970s/ early-1980s situation.––> "late-1970s or early-1980s situation."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is there really nothing on the "Live Your Life" video?

• No, there is. I will add. — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• post-apocalyptic inspired video, shot in No need for the comma.

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• makes cameo appearance. ––> "makes a cameo appearance."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• while wearing a stylized military costumes. ––> "while wearing stylized military costumes."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• makes references to some artist ––> "to some artists"

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Laetitia Casta makes cameo appearance ––> "makes a cameo appearance"

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Other notable scene' ––> "Other notable scenes"

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• David Guetta makes cameo appearance. ––> "David Guetta makes a cameo appearance."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• designed 18 feet long bed ––> "designed an 18 foot long bed" Also, consider putting a metric unit for that.

• Could you help me with the metric unit. — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Put this: {{convert|18|ft|m}}.

 Done— Tomica (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The video is footage of Rihanna's lifetime that she had during her 2011 Loud Tour. Remove "'s lifetime that she had".

• I don't understand what should I do :S — Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just make it "The video is footage of Rihanna during her 2011 Loud Tour.

Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• It contains reference to the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange.[82] ––> "It contains a references to the 1971 film A Clockwork Orange."

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merge the two cells that say "Akiva Schaffer".

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Also merge the two cells that say "The Lonely Island" in the same table.

 Done— Tomica (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• The skit was also shot for Saturday Night Live. Unlink Saturday Night Live.

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Add a note in the "Commercials" table saying what "—" stands for.

• I think this is better. What do you think?— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 15:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure.

• Rihanna's track, "Skin" Dablink!

•  Done— Tomica (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate this help. — Tomica (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Oh, and I changed your {{done}} templates to {{done-t}} templates because uh, that's what it says in the "How to respond to a request" section above. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 02:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Algoman orogeny

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be near GA status and could benefit from a review before submitting it as a candidate.

Below I transcribe some comments by Chris.urs-o (talk) from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Algoman_orogeny.2C_a_Good_Article_prospect:

I changed User:Bettymnz4's Great Lakes tectonic zone to Mid importance. I personally think that the Great Lakes tectonic zone, the San Andreas Fault, the Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone are the most important geologic features in the USA. The Yellowstone hotspot and the New Madrid Seismic Zone aren't part of the WP Geology. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

The USA could be described as: Yellowstone hotspot track, Basin and Range Province, Rocky Mountains, Mississippi Basin and Appalachian Mountains. Great Lakes tectonic zone and New Madrid Seismic Zone are near the Mississippi valley. Jemez Lineament, Rio Grande rift and Hawaii hotspot are interesting formations too, but there are in less populated areas. There are faults in the direction of the North American craton's motion in or near the Basin and Range Province, the Jemez Lineament has a SW-NE orientation too.

Thanks, RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• " it is known as the Kenoran orogeny in Canada." - reads very clunky. Suggest re-word first sentence: "The Algoman orogeny (also known as K.O.) was a mountain building episode .."  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• There is no See Also section: are there any similar articles that readers may want to know about?  Done A comprehensive article doesn't necessarily need a See Also section, but I found one link that seems relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Continents were much smaller than today; they were a series of granitic nuclei a few kilometers across" - When? Also, this sounds like all continents in the world were only a few km across ... that cannot be right.  Done That detail seems dubious; I have removed some of this and replaced it by introductory material earlier in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Red links: "Wabigoon subprovince" etc. See WP:RED: if it is unlikely that WP will ever have an article on these subprovinces, then remove the links.  Done - I unlinked them; they don't seem likely to have separate articles. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• "protocontinents" - Im not a geologist, but it seems odd that such a fundamental term is red-linked. Can another term be used? Does WP have an article on it by another name? Do the sources use that term? Why has no editor yet created the article?  Done - I think "protocontinent" is an informal term, and I have replaced it by "terrane". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Basalts became greenstones." - That may be a legal sentence, but it doesnt read well. Re-phrase.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Section name: "Age, names and location" - Is there a more pithy phrase available? "Identification", or "Overview" or "Characteristics"?  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sidebar image: The image of the upper-right sidebar is obviously useful, but it is rather large, and seems to crowd the top of the article. I'd recommend moving it down into the body of the article, and putting a smaller image (or nothing) at the top. The sidebar contain a terse overview of the article's topic ... not too much detail.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Standard sidebar? - On a related note, the article Canadian Shield has a nice sidebar: can that format be used in this article? It is {{Infobox rockunit}} ✗ Not done - that template is for rock units and this article is about a tectonic event. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Provinces? - The hierarchical breakdown of the region into provinces is not clear. I gather from the table of contents that the thing is divided into three provinces (Sup, Slave, Nain). That should be explained and made clear in the prose _before_ the first (Superior Province) section on a particular province.  Done - This is done in the lead and the overview. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Lead: it says the AO is a "mountain-building episode" ... but the text reads as if the AO is a location, or a region, or a formation. I suppose it could be both an event (in the past) as the present physical manifestation of that event ... but that duality should be made clear in the lead. ✗ Not done - I don't see any text where the AO could be interpreted as anything but an event. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Photos? - the maps & diagrams are great, but are there any photos of actual rocks/formations available?  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Caption: "This is an illustration of how the Minnesota ..." - no need to tell the reader they are looking at a picture. Just start the caption with "The Minnesota River ..."  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Terminology - The article assumes that the reader is familiar with geological terms, and uses some rather specialized words without explanation. WP articles on scientific topics are not required to be tutorials, and are not required to define everything. But this article is a bit intimidating to the layman. Top priority is providing blue links to other articles so the reader can educate themself; but you may want to consider adding some more layman-friendly material, especially at the start of each section.  Done - I have defined a lot of the terms, added several links and put more introductory material in. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Links - "cratons" is not linked .. double check all technical terms & make sure the first occurrence is linked.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Grammar - "During the Late Archean time ... was the mountain-building episode known" - Doesnt read well. Try "During the Late Archean time a mountain-building episode, known as ..., ". Also, "time" seems colloquial ... shouldn't that be "eon"?  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Degrees: " 90°" - Check the WP:MOS to make sure that is okay, vs. spelling out "degrees". - I checked an the symbol is okay.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Clarify: "Most greenstone belts, with all of their ..." - It this talking about the belts in the AO? or all belts in the world? ✗ Not done - Everything in this section is about the Algomen orogeny, so I don't think that should be necessary to clarify it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Also about 2,700 million years ago ..." - that is a few paragaphs after the other "2,700 ago" ... so the "also" may confuse the reader, or make them pause to look up. Consider eliminating the "also", or reword to specifically refer back to the other contemporaneous event.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Link needed: "Voyageurs National Park" - review all similar terms & phrases and make sure the article links them.  Done RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Map comparison: the map File:World geologic provinces.jpg shows "orogen" zones in the world but the region of the AO is not indicated on the map as an orogen .. am I reading the map wrong? or is the AO too small to show on the map?  Done - this map paints with a broad brush. Most of the orogens marked still have mountains. A lot has happened in the Canadian shield since the Algomen orogeny, so it is classified as "shield". RockMagnetist (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• GA status: I think the article is close to GA status. It has great sources, nice diagrams, appears to be complete, and uses decent prose. I think, after addressing the items above, you can take it to GAN with confidence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent comments, Noleander. I have not quite addressed all of them, but I think I'm close enough to nominate the article for GA. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Rockstar (2011 film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article has a good look and feel with all the relevant information that a film article should have. I want the article to be peer reviewed to get further inputs on improving the quality of the article article and going for a GAN.

Thanks, -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid linking common terms like countries and languages, per WP:OVERLINK.  Done

I don't think so. Europe, Italy and quite a few are still linked.

• Cast section does not require sources  Done
• "As Ranbir and Kareena happened to be cousins, this would have been a problem." - Sounds like POV. "Was touted as a problem" would be better.  Done
• Apply italics to "Rockstar" all over the article.  Done
• "Nargis Fakhri" is linked more than once in the "Production" section.  Done

No, its once in a section, not in a sub-section.

• "Kashmiri Pandit" linked more than once in the same.  Done

Same as above. Its not been done yet.

• "Rockstar is a musical journey" - If it is quoted, add quotes, or re-write it neutrally.  Done
• Remove the "see also" section (unnecessary): Have retained it, but only linking appropriate articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No no, the other two articles which you retained are already linked within it. Hence it should be deleted.

• References are not formatted properly. Make sure they have these six fields : Date, author, accessdate, title, url and publisher. Apply italics to news media and do not overlink them.  Done

No again. For Box office India, the author is usually "BOI Trade Network". Add that to all the links. Missing details in refs 1 & 6.

I'll try a more detailed look soon. Secret of success (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

More issues: Secret of success (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why are half the dates italicized in the refs?  Done
  • Corrected. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Fix the mdy, dmy and ymd to a consistent format in refs. Based on a brief look, I see dmy being the common one, and I suggest the other two be converted to this.  Done
• The plot summary in the lead does not seem to be adequately boil down the entire plot. Some irrelevant details like the canteen owner should be removed, and other missing relevant ones added.  Done
• Mention a sentence about the controversies in the lead.  Done
• Instead of putting up the awards for the individual category, just mention the ceremonies in the lead. In that way, all can be covered.  Done
• Questionable reliability : 25, 56, 59.  Done
  • Removed a source, as it was replaceable by an existing source. Replaced another source with NDTV one. This source is very difficult to be replaced -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:Saadda Haq, Rockstar.jpg does not have a proper rationale. Its replaceability parameter needs to be justified, its resolution must be reduced and its purpose needs to be elaborated to make it satisfy WP:NFCC.  Done
  • Even i had taught that it may bring up some issue, hence i have removed it now and added it to the song article. Will add some other screenshot in the polt section later, fine? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. You also might want to take a look at my response in the first set of comments above. Secret of success (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Situational judgement test

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my class at Ball State University has been working hard to improve it but we feel that we need more advice from other Wikipedia editors.

Thanks, (Amgardner13 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

Comments not an expert on the subject matter but some technical guidance.

• I don't think you should capitalise "Situational Judgement Test" in the opening sentence of the lead, it's not a proper noun. Same for "Inventories".
• "Test tend to test " repetitive use of "test", not great prose.
• "organization. [4]" avoid spaces between references and punctuation.
• "to personality. [5]" see above.
• "The situational judgement test have " grammar.
• "came about by Bruce and Learner" what does that mean? They wrote it? They discovered it? Clarify this.
• See WP:HEAD about section headings and avoid capitalising nouns that don't need to be capitalised.
• "A Thesis Submitted to " -> "A thesis submitted..."
• The examples are too much. You should just summarise what an example would be rather than copy/paste the whole question/answer for two of them.
• The Sample tests section, you should try to format links to external sites consistently and preferably using one of the many {{citation}} templates.
• Also, this list should be bullet-pointed.
• References, please re-use them where appropriate using ref name= (like ref 1). You currently have the same ref being used in 3, 4, 5 and 14, also in 6 & 7, also in 8 through 13.
• Format ref 8 etc correctly so the accessdate is shown properly.
• Use WP:DASH i.e. replace hyphens with en-dash in the page ranges in the references.
• See also section should come before references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Brothers Grimm

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I substantially rewrote in a short period it for the Core contest. Eventually I'd like to submit to FAC, but would appreciate another set of eyes first.

Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yomangani's comments

Bit busy, so this won't be comprehensive and will probably jump about randomly:

• It needs a copyedit: there's partial rephrasing ("and rewrote with the intent of having the stories an accurate reflection of German culture", "causing some of the more grim details have been sanitized", "the 1937 release of Walt Disney's version of "Snow White" as a color animated feature film in the production Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs"), lack of variation in the vocabulary ("...often published in English as "Grimms' Fairy Tales"), was published in 1812", "with their tales Charles Perrault's tales", "illustrators. Successful 19th century children's book illustrators ... illustrated", the whole paragraphs on spinning and collecting the legends) and some awkward exposition (In the 20th century educators debated...).
• Rackham and Dulac are 20th-century illustrators (with regard to Grimms' Fairy Tales at least)
• The "Reception and legacy" section is a little confused. "In Japan, like in the US, the tales have spawned two theme parks" Really? Are these some Grimm World parks that I haven't heard of? Disney's Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella also probably owe more to Perrault than the Grimms. "Other stories, however, have been considered too gruesome and have not made a popular transition....Regardless of the debate, the Grimms' stories have continued to be resilient and popular around the world" Make up your mind.
• I'm sure this should be at "The Brothers Grimm" rather than "Brothers Grimm" despite Wikipedia's revulsion for articles (of the definite/indefinite type)
• "Little Red Riding Hood", shown here in an illustration by Arthur Rackham, became identified as a uniquely German tale. The Grimms' version might have become so in Germany, but it isn't quite as general as implied here.

More later, if I get time. Yomangani^talk 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yomangani for taking the time. I lost perspective and needed another set of eyes - good points your raise. I'll need a few days to get to these. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After stepping away for a few days, I've swept through and cleaned up a lot of the mess. Thanks for pointing it out - I could have used a copyeditor here. I think I've addressed your comments above, and also thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Wyntoon

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about a piece of property that has held some wild and fantastic homes, and is now owned by the Hearst Corporation. The article made GA last fall and has rested quietly since then. I would like to advance it to FAC but I could use some objectivity. Thanks in advance! Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

• "Famous architects..." avoid WP:PEACOCK terms. "Humble", which appears later, should also be avoided.
• "sited at two sharp bends in the river" Which river?
• The lead needs to give some sort of time frame. How long has Wyntoon been established as such?
• Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those that appear in the first main section. These should be merged, expanded, or deleted.
• "He advocated for a railroad line to be extended northward from Redding to his location, and was successful." It is not clear from this sentence that follows it to whom Sisson was advocating. State government? Congress? A railroad company?
• "and Sisson bought 120 acres (49 ha) in its path, the area of his inn" This phrasing suggests that he bought the land on which his inn was already situated, which doesn't make much sense...
• "he built a fishing resort a half-day's ride away on the McCloud River" It should be kept in mind that articles are to be written for the modern audience, not for 1800s readers. What is a half-day's ride?
• "It became known as "Sisson's-on-the-McCloud"—popular with hunters and fishermen." This is an unusual construction, and one which would be better suited for a folksy novel than an encyclopedia article. I suggest replacing the emdash with "and was" or something similar.
• How is "Wyntoon" pronounced?
• Compare "Justin Hinckley Sisson came to the area and established a hotel" with "He established the town of Sisson surrounding his inn". Are the hotel and the inn the same structure? Varying the language can be helpful, but I think in this case it's a little confusing. Assuming they are the same structure, it should be consistently referred to by the same word.
• "The railroad was completed in 1887 and brought miners, hunters, fishermen, loggers, naturalists and tourists." Brought them where?
• "The multi-wing lodge, dramatic with its stone walls and slate roof" The characterization of the lodge as "dramatic" is not a fact, it is the opinion of one author. This distinction should be made clear in the article, or else the description should be rewritten to something more objective.
• "and included an 800-book library with room for hundreds of Native American baskets." Should there be an "a" between "with" and "room"? It seems silly to describe a library by how many baskets can fit inside. Shea Stadium could probably fit thousands of Native American baskets inside, but that's not really relevant, is it?
• "Polk's design was pictured in July 1899 in The American Architect and Building News which described it as a "California Mountain Home"." Lots of problems here. First off, citation definitely needed. Second, "pictured" should probably be "featured". Third, does the "California Mountain Home" really clarify anything here? It's a home that was built by a mountain in California, why would they describe it as anything else?
• "The dining room enjoyed a three-sided view" No it didn't. Dining rooms aren't people. Even if they were, it is not the place of an encyclopedia to speculate as to what emotions they would have.
• "and diners could take the air on a wraparound porch." Take the air? Are they birds?
• A general note, before I go any further: Much of the language used in this article is highly questionable. It seems to me that much effort has been made to write the prose using the same vocabulary as is present in the sources. No. Bad. Language has evolved in the past 100 years. I strongly suggest going through the entire article and updating it to a more encyclopedic tone.

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed each of these good points. Thanks for your review! Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

You Are the Apple of My Eye

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to list this article at GAN. I would like another editor to have a look through this so that I can correct any problems before its nomination.

Thanks, Lionratz (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• " he self-directed " not sure you need "self-" here. (done)
• "was completely filmed in " -> "was filmed entirely in" (done)
• "lyrics of this film's main " "the" film, not "this" film. (done)
• "... by Giddens himself.[7] Those Years was well-received ..." merge with "himself,[7] and was..."(done)
• "for his role in this film" the instead of this again.(done)
• "claims has no interest " -> "claims he has no interest"(done)
• "the class teacher changes Ching-teng's seat" more "moves where he sits" rather than "changes his seat".(done)
• "he did not bring the textbook" "did not bring his own textbook".(done)
• "moved by his behavior, prepares a practice paper for Ching-teng" I think it would read better as "moved by Ching-teng's behavior, prepares a practice paper for him."(done)
• "Since then, .." "From then on,"(done)
• "not even once" unnecessary if you have "never".(done)
• "manages to enroll at " just "enrolls at".(done)
• "doesn't do well during " avoid contractions.(done)
• "first unofficial date." what makes it unofficial and why is date in italics? (It is noted in the film that this date is "unofficial". Deleted the italics)
• "which upsets Ching-teng and " upsets "him".(done)
• "manages to regain contact " just "regains contact".
• "Japanese AV porn jokes " expand "AV porn" (done)
• Avoid that floating reference in the cast section ([13]).(done)
• "is hyped as the director by the fawning Taiwanese " scathing and opinionated. (done)
• "to produce this film" _the_ film.(done)
• "money for this film" same again.(done)
• "Mypaper" -> My Paper.(The spelling is the original spelling of the paper's name)
• Filming section, use italics for film title.(done)
• "the 3rd highest " -> third.(done)
• Check references for double periods ".."
• Check references for MOS compliance, avoid SHOUTING in titles.
• You don't need "Taiwanese films" as a cat since you have the more refined "Taiwanese romance films". (This category is added by a template, and I dont know how to remove this)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! In particular, thanks for alerting me about the opinionated comments. It was not done by me, and it had obviously slipped through my checks. I have added some comments above. Can you take a look?--Lionratz (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Pi

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I"m planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. The reviewer should be someone familiar with the Featured Article criteria, and not afraid to nit-pick the article. The reviewer need not have special mathematical skills (many other editors have taken care of that). Thanks! Noleander (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RJH – Overall it looks decent, although I continue to have concerns about the multitude of formulae being presented to what is likely a non-mathematical audience. I've attached a list of comments below; please pardon my somewhat terse style.

• The lead contains the following long sentence:

  π is found in formulae related to the area of a circle, volume of a sphere, trigonometric functions, Stirling's approximation, Einstein's field equation, the Gaussian integral, the Cauchy distribution, Buffon's needle problem, Kepler's third law, the approximate period of a simple pendulum, the probability of two random numbers being relatively prime, the Mandelbrot set, and Euler's identity.

However, for most readers this is probably just going to be a list of things they have never heard of. Is there some way to put these in a context that is more meaningful for Joe reader? For example, many of these, but not all, have ties to the geometry of space. The odd ones out are perhaps Stirling's approximation and the Riemann zeta function. [Done - Noleander]

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that is a good idea. I'll take a stab at that. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I might collapse this discussion, so other potential reviewers don't see this and think you've volunteered to do a full Peer Review. Is that okay? --Noleander (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to add more, if that's okay. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Featured Article criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I'd appreciate it if you could do a pretty detailed review and identify any shortcomings relative to those criteria. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll wait until you finish the review before I begin implementing your suggestions, so we don't get confused. Thanks again! --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep I'm fairly familiar with the criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are redundant terms: 'also', 'now', 'some', 'a variety of', 'several', 'many', &c. These need to be culled judiciously. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy. [Done - Noleander]
• "Another definition of π, which also relies on Euclidean geometry is $\scriptstyle \pi =Area/radius^{2}.$": this assumes the reader understands the parameters relate to the circle. It'd be better to make it clear. [Done - Noleander]
• "Mathematicians use the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of circumference to diameter." Of any closed/convex shape? [Done - Noleander]
  • It looks unchanged. My question is whether π is specifically used for the circle, or for any closed/convex shape. The passage doesn't communicate which perception is correct.

Thanks for finding that. I did make the change here. It looks like another editor may have undone it (or I somehow accidentally reverted??). I'll just restore my wording. --Noleander (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened. Two consecutive paragraphs in the Name section contain the phrase "ratio of circumference to diameter". I fixed one, but not the other. You were looking at the unfixed one; I was looking at the fixed one. I've fixed them both now. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Salikhov has given the approximation 7.6063" Who is Salikhov? [Done - Noleander]
• "An important consequence of the transcendence" is making a value judgment. Why is it important? See WP:YESPOV. [Done - Noleander]
• "...their efforts are sometimes ingenious, but doomed to inevitable failure..." This statement seems full of opinion and emotive language. From an impartiality perspective, it may be better if it were in the form of a quote. [Done - Noleander]
• "The digits of π appear to be very irregular or random": 'very irregular' is vague. How does it differ from just 'irregular', or from 'random' for that matter? [Done - Noleander]
• "meaning that all possible sequences of digits (of any length) are equally likely": I think the likelihood is at a given length, rather than any length. Thus '111' does not have the same likelihood as '11'. [Done - Noleander]
• "They hypothesis that π is normal has not been proven or disproven." Who are 'They'? [Done - Noleander]
• "digits of π all consistent with normality": 'are consistent'? [Done - Noleander]
• "very evenly distributed" is an opinion, but I'm not quite clear what it is expressing. Is it just a judgment call on the part of the author, or did he perform a statistical significance test? [Done - Noleander]
• In paragraph the "Motivations for computing π" section, the point about breaking records is made twice. Once should be sufficient. [Done - Noleander]
• "Accounting for additional digits needed to compensate for computational round-off errors, a few hundred digits would suffice for any scientific application." This statement seems absurd for a number of reasons. [waiting for more detail from reviewer]
  • I think here it may just need a statement about practicality. For example: "In reality, the number of digits needed for any practical computation involving π is less than 20." Not sure how you'd cite it though.
    • The article contains the text "For most calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the universe with a precision of one atom...." There are several sources that mention the 39 digits; but I dont recall any saying a specific smaller number like 20. I can look again. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm probably making too much of a fuss about it. It's not a significant problem. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Some Egyptologists conclude" is bordering on WP:WEASEL, but it does mention some in the reference. Still, it might be good to note that the idea originated with John Taylor (English publisher). [Done - Noleander]
• "Some authors explain": 'some' is an indeterminate number. The reference only lists two. Does the reference say "some authors"? [Done - Noleander]
• There are a number of uses of 'which' that seem to be missing a comma, but that's just an opinion. [Fixed one. The others, I read aloud, and the commas captured where my pauses were. If any particular instances are brought to my attention, I'll double check them]
• "but it is not certain how he arrived at the value, which he may have obtained from Archimedes or from Apollonius of Perga": the statement about uncertainty seems redundant here, since it is clearly implied by the "may". [Done - Noleander]
• In some locations, names of persons are given with their nationality and profession; in others it does not. It would be good to be consistent and list the nationality and profession throughout. Some FAC reviewers seem to like that. [Done - Noleander]
• "Two new algorithms were discovered in 1995...": new is redundant. [Done - Noleander]
• "may be easily extracted": easy for whom? [Done - Noleander]
• In "Geometry and trigonometry" could discuss the formula for an n-dimensional sphere and show how it collapses to the expected formula in three dimensions . [I don't recall any sources mentioning that in relation to pi ... I'm trying to limit the article the the material that secondary sources about pi discuss. - Noleander]
  • No problem. It's already covered at Sphere#Generalization to other dimensions.
• "A complex number z can be expressed in polar coordinates as follows": you might put (r, φ) immediately after "polar coordinates" so that a non-mathematician isn't confused with the i (which is not explained until later). [Done - Noleander]
• "results in the remarkable Euler": for the non-mathematician, why is this remarkable? [Done - Rewrote as "results in the Euler's identity, celebrated by mathematicians because it contains several important mathematical constants:" - Noleander]
• "the number of iterations needed for the point (-.75,ε) before escaping, multiplied by ε, was equal to π": escaping what? [Done - chagned to "diverged". The explanation is rather complex; Im not sure how much detail to put here. The link to Mandelbrot set may be sufficient .. let me know if you think more is needed. Noleander]
• In the "Physics" section, the parameters in the formula for the period of a pendulum need to be explained. [Done - Noleander]
• The "Probability and statistics" says "there are many distributions whose formulas contain π". This is both vague and unsourced. [Done - Noleander]
• "The approximation 355/113 was known in the fifth century in China" belongs in the history section. Does the citation for that statement apply to the sentence before? [Done - Noleander]
• The caption for the image in the "Continued fractions" section repeats a statement made earlier in the article. [Done - Noleander]
• "Poems for memorizing π is have been composed": 'is' or 'have been'? [Done - Noleander]
• What, no mention of the Indiana Pi Bill? [Done - Noleander]
• The references need some work for consistency.
  • Holton, David; Mackridge, – missing a first name? [Done - Noleander]
  • OED online", "pi" n.1; "pie" , n.2. [Done - Noleander]
  • V Kh Salikhov 2008 Russ. Math. Surv. 63 570 doi:10.1070/RM2008v063n03ABEH004543 [Done - Noleander]
  • C. Boyer, A History of Mathematics – more than one instance [Done - Noleander]
  • Ogilvy, C. S., and Anderson, J. T., – 'and' instead of semi-colon [Done - Noleander]
  • Halliday, David; Robert Resnick, Jearl Walker [Done - Noleander]
  • Raz A, Packard MG, Alexander GM, Buhle JT, Zhu H, Yu S, Peterson BS [Done - Noleander]
• Several sources need expansion, such as a listing of the publisher, the work, &c. [TBD]
  • "5 Trillion Digits of Pi – New World Record", Oct 17, 2011. [Done - Noleander]
  • Plouffe, Simon. "Indentities inspired by Ramanujan's Notebooks (part 2)". Retrieved April 10, 2009.
• Can this be addressed? Bellard, Fabrice. "A new formula to compute the nth binary digit of pi". Archived from the original on September 12, 2007. Retrieved October 27, 2007.

Hopefully this is helpful. Good luck with your FAC. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the scrupulous review. I'll start implementing your recommendations tomorrow. My plan is to get it to FA status, then nominate it to appear on the WP main page on pi day, March 14, 2013 :-) --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Is this of interest per the history section? In 1775 the French Academy banned the submission of papers regarding the squaring of the circle in order to "keep the lunatic fringe in check" (per the author). If not, it might be useful on the Squaring the circle article instead. RJH (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Nageh

I understand that I am probably not as competent as your fellow WikiProject Mathematics colleagues. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try:

• Definition: It is being pointed out that pi is sometimes defined using the trigonometric functions to avoid the particularities of geometry. But it is not being mentioned that in order to avoid these particularities the trigonometric functions must be defined over their infinite series representations. In this regard it should be noted that such definition is more common in analysis. Also, the German pi article knows that Edmund Landau has defined pi as twice the smallest positive root of of the cosine(x).

I believe that you are correct ... but the sources I read did not explicitly say that, and for Featured Article status, everything has to be given a footnote which names a source. Ditto for the Landau fact. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google books search brought up this. This site includes the series and has a reference to a book this is supposed to be in, which I unfortunately don't have access to. You referenced Beckman, does it include a reference? Nageh (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Polygon approximation era: "Archimedes' upper bound of 22/7 may have led to widespread belief that π was equal to 22/7", ...a value which was frequently used as a convenient approximation before the advent of the computer and electronic calculator.

True. But I think lots of values that were "frequently used". Later in the article, it says "Archimedes' upper bound of 22/7 may have led to widespread belief that π was equal to 22/7" which is from a source. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe figure File:Archimedes_pi.svg could be used centered at the end of the Polygon approximation era so it doesn't get lost within the flow of images at the right border of the page. This would also move some of the other images and boxes further up near the text they belong to.

Done: I centered that picture; fairly near the bottom of the section. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Properties of pi: When was it first speculated that pi was irrational?

I don't recall any of the reliable sources mentioning that. I Googled it, but found nothing except a few unreliable web sites that discuss it. --Noleander (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Usage section:
  • Subsection Geometry: hint to Euclidean geometry?
  • Of course, the Fourier transform method has applications in several science fields, including telecommunications, multimedia encoding, signal analysis, in algebra for improving the speed of algorithms, etc. This gets a bit lost in this Usage section, e.g., it isn't mentioned in the Engineering section below.

I added the Fourier transform to the engineering section. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it appears twice. :( I meant that its application should be better highlighted resp. the article better organized. Nageh (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see the other mention ... I remove the other one. Again, I'm not sure I see that kind of detailed information about the FT in the sources that are about pi. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Related to Stirling's formula, pi is a re-appearing constant in formulas expressing cycle length values in functional graphs. Indeed, Graph theory wrt. cycle detection should probably have its own subsection.

I don't recall seeing any sources that specifically mention graph theory related to pi. Can you give some sources on that? I can take it from there if you start me off. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out this is rarely discussed under aspects of functional graphs but commonly under random mappings. A Google search for "random mapping cycle length" reveals tons of sources. Do you think you can identify some good ones? Nageh (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. The sources I see are not about pi. If you look in the References, those are sources about pi. I think the article should be limited to that kind of material. Other topics that use pi are in the thousands, and this article cannot hold them all, of course. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Surveying has nothing to do with restricting itself to sources that explicitly are only discussing the use of pi. That is why it is called surveying. A more valid argument of course is missing notability of a particular use compared to other uses. And in this regard I probably agree with you – I thought it was being discussed within graph theory but it is not, so no need to cover. Nageh (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Approximations: I'm a bit confused about this section. Approximations are discussed at length in the History section. Now it gets its section on its own but it is rather short. Can this be improved organizationally?

Yes, that needs to be fixed. I'll work on that. --Noleander (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I've moved the summary of hex/dec/60 approximation up into the Fundamentals section ... which is good, since a reader quickly looking at the article to grab some digits will see them near the top. As for the MonteCarlo & ContinuedFractions: I dont think they fit comfortably in the history section. It is probably best to leave them outside that, as stand-alone auxiliary sections, not tied to any particular historical era. --Noleander (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Continued fractions: It should be noted in a sentence that continued fractions provide the best rational approximations of a number given a maximum denominator, and further that the values 22/7 and 355/113 determined in the antique correspond to two of these approximations.

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• In popular culture: I think it would be fair to note that the legislature was accepted by the House of Representatives before it was rejected by the parliament.

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you did find some of these comments useful. Nageh (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

One more: Why are the formulas in the Rapidly convergent series section more important than the other ones? I would suggest that you pick some particularly important formulas for centered display presentation, and box the other ones (without overwhelming the right border). Nageh (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a good question. I think the article should be mostly words, a narrative. Formulae should be de-emphasized, and place in boxes, generally. However, in that section, I cannot find a way to move those to the right, without eliminating the photo of Ramanujan, which I consider very informative and pleasing aesthetically. I also tried making the formulae smaller (still centered in the text), but that looked bad. Another option is to eliminate the boxes altogether and make all formulae large and centered; but then the article is harder to read for the layman; and may discourage readers from reading the text. I'm open to new ideas. --Noleander (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one: Section Complex numbers and calculus could also mention pi's appearance in formulas for contour integration in complex analysis. Nageh (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a tough call. I think the "Usage" section could get very dry and ugly if it turns into a large list of things that employ pi. The pi article has a subarticle List of formulae involving π ... I'm wondering if additional examples would be better off in there? --Noleander (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And another one: Should the Feynman point be mentioned? Nageh (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC) ← Possibly it could be mentioned in relation to the question whether pi is normal. Nageh (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Your suggestions are good. I'll start implementing them in a day or two. --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know you haven't added this text, but can the first paragraph of the Name section be phrased in a better way? It reads a bit awkward currently, and "curves" for serifs is probably not the best choice of word, either. Nageh (talk) 13:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. --Noleander (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---

William T. Anderson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I haven't worked on a military history article before, and am probably unaware of some of the specific conventions for such articles. Also, this turned into a fairly long article, so I'd welcome advice on streamlining it/potential omissions-ambiguities and prose issues. It's currently a good article, but I hope to get it to A-class and eventually FA.

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Review incoming. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Lead:
  • "...earning the trust of William Quantrill and George M. Todd." The reader can assume that Quantrill was the leader of Quantrill's raiders, but who is Todd and why was earning Todd's trust important?
    • Rephrased.
  • "His service as a guerrilla resulted in the imprisonment.." Last person mentioned was Todd - I assume the "his" meant was Anderson.
    • Done.
• Early life:
  • "Mutual distrust and animosity soon developed between Northerner and Southerner immigrants to Kansas..." that first bit is really awkward - can we reword?
    • Hmm, good point, took a first try at it.
  • Given the number of times various siblings are mentioned later in the article - it'd be nice if we could have a listing of who his siblings were up here.
    • Noted
  • "Although the Anderson family did not own slaves, they supported the institution and their move to Kansas was likely motivated by economic, rather than political, interests." If they supported slavery the "and" connecting the two parts is out of place ... you're setting up a contrast here that although they supported slavery, their move to Kansas was not motivated by political support of slavery but by economic interests. Suggest "The Anderson family supported slavery, although they did not own slaves but their move to Kansas was likely motivated by economic, rather than political, interests."
    • That is tricky, I used your suggestion.
  • "By 1860, Anderson..." which Anderson - the father or the son?
    • Fixed.
• Return to Missouri:
  • "...members of the 1st Northeast Missouri Cavalry, killing nine..." be nice to show what side this unit was on.
    • Noted.
• Growing infamy:
  • "As Quantrill and Todd became less active,..." they did? This hasn't been discussed...
    • Explained.
• Death:
  • I'm failing to see the connection between the two things in this sentence... "Although he was given a fairly well-built coffin, some of the Union men cut off one of his fingers to get a ring."?
    • Yeah, I guess that's not clear, split.
• General :
  • I believe the MOS requires that you use numerals for all numbers over 10, so that needs looking into and fixing.
• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the article with that in mind. I reviewed the article as I would at FAC.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Acdixon (talk · contribs)

Lede:

• Minor issue: Is being a guerilla a "service"? Just seems like an odd word choice to me, although I can't immediately think of something better.
  • Changed.
• "then later" -> "and later" or "then"
  • Fixed.
• Link "Texas"
  • Done.
• What is a "routine raid"? Maybe drop "routine".
  • Done.

Early life:

• Who said he was a well-behaved child?
  • Noted.
• Any idea what motivated the move from Kentucky to Missouri?
• You do talk briefly about the motivation to move from Missouri to Kansas, but for me, it occurs too late. I'm wondering why the family is doing all this moving for several sentences.
• The second paragraph is very disjointed. The second and third sentences relate to each other, but the other two don't seem connected to each other or much of anything else nearby.
• Is there no more information about the wagon trip to New Mexico? The wording raises doubt about whether Anderson actually lost the shipment or just said he lost it, but provides no alternative explanations. Do we know what was being transported or how it was allegedly lost?

Horse trading:

• It strikes me that this section really isn't about horse trading, at least in the legal sense. It's more about Anderson's introduction to criminal activity. The section title should probably reflect this.
  • Good point, done.
• "Anderson had stated to a neighbor that sought to fight for financial reasons" This seems to be missing a "he" before sought.
  • Looks like somebody got to it before I did.
• The fact that the Kansas Sixth Cavalry arrests Anderson and his colleagues kind of caught me off guard. Was the group notorious at this point? Were they actively on the lam? If so, why would they draw attention to themselves by joining the Confederate Army?
• After the death of the elder Anderson, it is probably unnecessary to continue differentiating between him and his son by using the middle initial.
  • Good catch, fixed.

Quantrill's raiders:

• I admit I got confused here. I see Anderson joining Quantrill's Raiders, but in the previous section, Quantrill scolded Anderson for attacking Confederates, which according to the scholars cited, fostered resentment toward Quantrill. So why is he now joining the man he resents so badly? Are these events out of their natural chronological order?
• "In May 1863, Anderson joined members of Quantrill's Raiders on a raid near Council Grove, in which they robbed a store 15 miles (24 km) west of Council Grove." Can this sentence be re-worded to avoid mentioning Council Grove twice?
  • Changed
• I find the last paragraph of this section particularly strong. Nice job.
  • Thanks :)

Lawrence Massacre:

• "Quantrill attained near-unanimous consent to strike Lawrence (40 miles (64 km) into Union territory)," Because the convert template puts parentheses around the metric measure, is there a way to reword this sentence to avoid the outer parentheses?
  • Rephrased.
• "On the trip" Consider "En route".
  • Added.
• What is the significance of the taking of the Union flag and the captain's uniform? Did the guerillas impersonate Union soldiers during the raid, or were these just trophies?
• "killing almost every man who appeared on the streets" Is the gender-specific language meant to imply that women generally were not killed by the raiders?
  • Yes, harming women was unacceptable to them (hence the outrage later when Anderson shoots a woman).
• If you know what tribe the Indian belonged to, it would be better to use this. If not, it is understandable.
  • Found it, noted.

Texas:

• Check the image caption. I think the word "painting" appears once too often.
  • Fixed.
• Anderson's wife (if, indeed, they were married) is not mentioned again outside this section. Did she stay at home (wherever that might have been) during his raids, or did she accompany him? Was she hunted down by Union forces? Did she survive the war? Do we know anything more about her than what we have here?

Growing infamy:

• "fillip". Kudos. It's rare for me to run across a word I've never even heard of before.
  • Thanks, I learned that word a few months ago, can't recall where, and I've been trying to sneak it into articles ever since.

Missouri River and Fayette:

• "Anderson met Todd and Quantrill on September 24, 1864" Was this a planned or chance encounter?

Raid on Centralia:

• "They found a large supply of whiskey and all began drinking, including Anderson, who retreated into the lobby of the town hotel to rest" This probably needs to be two sentences.
  • Split.

Aftermath of Centralia:

• "Wood notes that the St. Louis Daily Missouri Democrat reported that Anderson raped the man's twelve- or thirteen-year-old black servant." With the footnote, you can probably omit "Wood notes that" for simplicity.
  • Omitted.

General comments:

The fact that this was so well-written means it didn't take nearly as long to review as I anticipated. Note that many of my questions, especially about the early sections, may not have available answers in the reliable sources. I just thought I'd throw them out there as an example of some of the things I wondered about when reading the article. In my opinion, the article isn't far from FA standards. I made a few minor copyedits and links, any of which you are free to revert. A very interesting read. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

A Free Ride

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because some concerns are raised in a failed FA nomination regarding sourcing issues. Please review the article to check if all available significant sources are utilized. Thanks. SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images are too dark, especially the humorous title card. I uploaded a new version of the title card with greater contrast so that the text can be seen. (It was all black on my monitor when I first saw it.) The other still image could benefit from judicious treatment of a similar nature. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your new upload was very good. Regarding the other image, I've found it to be best for highlighting the fake mustache. I'm not sure if the 3:13 still will be better. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 16:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen the mustache image on several monitors and I agree it is suitable as is. Binksternet (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments really interesting read, glad I didn't stumble onto it at work! I guess most of my comments are questions rather than answers, but perhaps some of it may be of use (hopefully!).

• Is there a reason why we're referring to it as a "stag film" in this day and age? I'm not an expert, so I'm guessing that's what old fashioned porn was called?
• "hardcore pornographic" you link only hardcore, but to hardcore pornography so why just pipelink "hardcore pornographic"?
• You mention "Grass Sandwich" in the lead but don't expand on it in the main body (and hence reference it and it alone in the lead), FAC would ordinarily be upset by that...
• "from the lower stratum of society" what does this really mean in encyclopaedic terms? Sounds like something I'd read in a middle-upper class snobby newspaper!
• "The film is currently in the collection of the Kinsey Institute " however the infobox indicates it's public domain, do you mean the original physical film reels?
• "A wealthy male motorist..." is he wealthy because he a model T or for some other reason?
• "After the session is over," hmm, very euphemistic!
• Could say that Dave Thompson is British.
• Again, I think lumping "mentally ill" etc into the "lowest stratum of society" really should be a quote because otherwise it's not exactly neutral in tone.
• "Al Di Lauro" isn't cited unlike his other two scholarly brethren.
• You tell the reader where the Museum of Sex is on the second occasion, better off doing it first time round (I initially thought Amsterdam...)
• Some references end in a full stop, others don't...
• Fifth "Reference" needs an en-dash for the year range per WP:DASH.
• As does Schaefer.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to The Rambling Man

Statement:

Is there a reason why we're referring to it as a "stag film" in this day and age? I'm not an expert, so I'm guessing that's what old fashioned porn was called?

Response:

Well, we know "stag" means "for men only". In the early 20th century, women generally did not view what is now known as pornography. The society was conservative, patriarchal, and women were not free. Pornography was only for men. In those early days, pornography was called "stag films". These films were viewed in stag parties and all-male gatherings. You can see from Pornographic_film#Terminology, "Older names for a pornographic movie include stag film". Standard pornography, developed during the Golden Age of Porn and continued till then, were viewed by both men and women, thanks to the women's liberation movement, sexual revolution and sex-positive feminism.

You should read this reference (The hypersexuality of race, p.103-105) which will give you a clear picture on the difference between early stag films and modern pornography. Since A Free Ride was made as a stag film, it will be the most appropriate label for the movie, no matter if the time is changed. We are writing history. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"hardcore pornographic" you link only hardcore, but to hardcore pornography so why just pipelink "hardcore pornographic"?

Response:

Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

You mention "Grass Sandwich" in the lead but don't expand on it in the main body (and hence reference it and it alone in the lead), FAC would ordinarily be upset by that...

Response:

The fact is that the film has an alternative name, A Grass Sandwich. There is nothing to expand in the main body of the article about this alternate name. Which is why the alternate title is mentioned in the lead. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"from the lower stratum of society" what does this really mean in encyclopaedic terms? Sounds like something I'd read in a middle-upper class snobby newspaper!

Response:

Fixed. I have reworded it to "the cast were drawn from among people with low social status". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"The film is currently in the collection of the Kinsey Institute " however the infobox indicates it's public domain, do you mean the original physical film reels?

Response:

Actually the Kinsey collection is just a print of this film, not the original. Thanks for pointing it. So I have reworded it properly "The Kinsey Institute has a print of the film in its collection". --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"A wealthy male motorist..." is he wealthy because he a model T or for some other reason?

Response:

The assertion that the man was wealthy is found in these two references — Filmsite.org and Smart Set. May be it is because it was only the wealthy who could afford an automobile, especially one like the model T, during the early 20th century. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"After the session is over," hmm, very euphemistic!"

Response:

Reworded to "After finishing the sexual acts, they return to the car." --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"Could say that Dave Thompson is British."

Response:

Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"Again, I think lumping "mentally ill" etc into the "lowest stratum of society" really should be a quote because otherwise it's not exactly neutral in tone."

Response:

Reworded. "Thompson notes that some historical accounts, which he describes as "casual histories", have suggested that the cast of early pornographic films were drawn from among people with low social status such as the homeless, drug addicts, mentally ill, prostitutes, and petty criminals. Thompson argues that this claim has almost no documentary evidence, and suggests that the actors likely had higher social status." --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"Al Di Lauro" isn't cited unlike his other two scholarly brethren."

Response:

Yes he is cited, it is Lauro & Rabkin 1976, p. 47, the same reference used to cite Gerald Rabkin. I did not use the same reference after the names of two different individuals because that will result in overreferencing. Where two consecutive names have the same inline citation, there is no need to give separate references. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"You tell the reader where the Museum of Sex is on the second occasion, better off doing it first time round (I initially thought Amsterdam...)"

Response:

Well, since the lead should summarize the points and the main body should give the details, I omitted the location in the lead and mentioned in the main body. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"Some references end in a full stop, others don't..."

Response:

Done. However there is no way to add full stop in case of the journal articles. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"Fifth "Reference" needs an en-dash for the year range per WP:DASH."

Response:

Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement:

"As does Schaefer."

Response:

Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't see this before, but since RM pointed it out above re: periods. You're using {{citation}} templates in the references and putting a period after them. If you use {{cite book}} the template will automatically put the period in. If you use {{cite journal}} a period will be added there, as well. If you're interested, I think there's a script or something that converts them. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 12:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments about comprehensiveness: I'll try to read through the sources and note passages I see that aren't reflected in the article. Haven't read all the sources, but here's a few suggestions.
• In Slade 2006, note 58 he mentions "some collectors insist that it was shot in Southern California;".
• There's a bit more you could use at the end of the second paragraph of the Hoffman source "Here already developed

are many of the basic elements which make up the typical pornographic film:" etc.

• Williams p. 64 has a few bits you could probably use. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please give the page number for Slade 2006. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Expanded the Hoffman bit. Done. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 01:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Horse

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because a group of us (User:Ealdgyth, User:Montanabw and myself, mainly) have been working very slowly over the past few years to get this to FA, and we think we're about there. The article is currently at GA, and has been looked over by quite a few horse editors, but we'd like to get some (or at least one) outside opinion on it before we run the gauntlet at FAC. Comments specifically on jargon, structure and overall readability would be most helpful, although comments on the article as a whole will also be appreciated. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Please bear with me if the review takes a little time! Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Since Cryptic C62 has decided to review the article, and it would make little sense to have two long reviews going at the same time, I will leave the field to him. If I'd known that he intended to do this review, I could have saved time spent making many of the same points as he has made. For what they are worth, here are my notes on the early sections:-

I see nothing wrong with redundant review points. It can be a helpful indicator to the authors that the points are highly visible and relevant, not just pedantic nitpicks. Please, continue your review. A topic of this magnitude deserves more eyes than just mine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Brian, thank you very much for the comments. For what it's worth, I would love to see any further thoughts you have on the article; as Cryptic said, an article this large can use as many eyes as it can get. However, I know that PR, FAC, and basically every other review process on WP are backlogged, so if you feel your time can be better used elsewhere, I understand completely. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead introduces the range of the subject well, but the prose needs a little further work. Too many subclauses make for difficult reading, e.g. "These feral populations are not true wild horses, as this term is used to describe horses that have never been domesticated, such as the endangered Przewalski's Horse, a separate subspecies, and the only remaining true wild horse". And even longer: "Horse breeds are loosely divided into three categories based on general temperament: spirited "hot bloods" with speed and endurance; "cold bloods", such as draft horses and some ponies, suitable for slow, heavy work; and "warmbloods", developed from crosses between hot bloods and cold bloods, often focusing on creating breeds for specific riding purposes, particularly in Europe."

  We'll probably tackle the lead last, after we fix everything else. Thanks for mentioning where we need to focus. --MTBW

Biology

• The introduction to this main section reads: "Specific terms and specialized language is used to describe equine anatomy, different life stages, colors and breeds". The "is" should be "are", as you mention specific terms and specialized language. But you could simplify to "Specific terminology is used..."
• Breeds are actually dealt with in a different subsection of the article, and life stages are discussed before anatomy, so you may want to reword the opening statement anyway.

  Made temporary tweak for now. --MTBW

Lifespan and life stages

• "Regardless of a horse's actual birth date, for most competition purposes, an animal is considered a year older on January 1 of each year in the Northern Hemisphere[6][9] and August 1 in the Southern Hemisphere". For clarity and grammar I would slightly amend this: "Regardless of a horse's actual birth date, for most competition purposes a year is added to its age each January 1 in the Northern Hemisphere[6][9] and each August 1 in the Southern Hemisphere". And I would say "the horse's actual calendar age" at the end of the paragraph.

  Fixed some. We say "animal" sometimes because if we say "horse," then the mule and pony people get mad at us and say we are too horse-POV. (smile) --MTBW

• "Some people, particularly in the UK, refer to a stallion as a 'horse'". I'm not sure why it's necessary to point this out in relation to stallions. Most people over here also call foals, colts, fillies, mares etc "horses", as it is by no means always obvious to non-horsey people what is the correct classification, and "horse" is considered generic.

  Precisely the problem, some people use the archaic form "horse" to refer to males, hence the completely illogical phrase "horse colt" --MTBW Follow up: I tweaked this a little, may not have helped, OK to revert. --MTBW

Size and measurement

• The second paragraph is very longwinded, when a much simpler explanation is possible. Thus: "The English-speaking world measures the height of horses in hands and additional inches. One hand equals 4 inches (101.6 mm); thus '15.2 h' is 15 hands plus 2 inches, signifying a total height of 62 inches (157.5 cm). The abbreviation 'h' for hands is sometimes given as 'hh' for 'hands high')." Does that leave anything out?

  Yeah it does. People think the radix point is a decimal if we don't. This was a carefully crafted section that ended an edit war. --MTBW

• I notice that for heights, the imperial measurement is converted to metric, but for weights the metric is converted to imperial. Should this not be made consistent?

  The hands template governs height, hands were based on imperial measurements, hence why they come first, and it was a real effort to make it work, so we'd hate to tweak it. I think there was once an edit spat over being US-centric for putting imperial measurements first, but I can't remember where or when. If you think it is quite important, we certainly can tweak weight to do imperial measurements first. Please advise? --MTBW

Ponies

• I recommend a slight reorganisation of material. The subsection should begin with a general statement about how a pony differs from a horse. Thus: "The distinction between a horse and pony is partly a difference in height, but also covers aspects of phenotype or appearance, such as conformation and temperament." Then follow with the height details, and begin the second paragraph "Ponies often exhibit..."
• Encyclopedic sentences should not begin "In fact..."
• "While the Shetland pony stands on average 10 hands (40 inches, 102 cm),[33] the Falabella and other miniature horses, which can be no taller than 30 inches (76 cm), the size of a medium-sized dog, are classified by their respective registries as very small horses rather than as ponies" - two many sub-clauses in a single sentence, needs some reworking.

• Working on it . -- MTBW Follow up': Done, see if that helped. --MTBW

Colors and markings

• I had understood that horses coloured black and white were termed "piebald" and horses coloured brown and white were termed "skewbald". Perhaps it's my ignorance; but I see no mention of those terms here.

  Only in places where they use UK English, not the states. Will look at it though. --MTBW Follow up: The term "pinto" covers piebald, skewbald and tricoloured horses, I am not certain if UK English contains a generic term for all three, though I've heard "spotted" -- except that would confuse people with leopard complex spotting... anyway, please advise of where you think we should go with this? --MTBW

• Up to the second paragraph of this section I found the article generally easy to understand, with good explanations on all significant points. Suddenly it's got rather technical and obscure: "One of the first genetic relationships to be understood was that between recessive "red" (chestnut) and dominant "black" allele that is controlled by the Melanocortin 1 receptor, also known as the "extension gene" or "red factor..." etc. The change of style may be confusing to the general reader.

  We can try to smooth that out. We did major work on the color articles and their genetics; it's the hot topic in horse land these days. Will try to put it in English. --MTBW Follow up Did what I hope was a whack at a translation into normal language. Will need to run that by the genetics gurus to be sure I didn't screw up the nuance, but if all want to look and see, I think it is now more understandable and aligns with the sources better. --MTBW

Reproduction and development

• Two unnecessary "alsos" and one unnecessary "actually" in one sentence: "Also, if the horse is larger, its bones are larger; therefore, not only do the bones take longer to actually form bone tissue, but also the epiphyseal plates are also larger and take longer to convert from cartilage to bone." Suggest lose them.
• Word missing: "as young age two in some countries" → "as young as age two..."

Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62

It would be an extremely impressive feat for this article to reach FA, and a quick glance at the page view statistics reveals how many readers would benefit from such an effort: Over 200,000 per month! With that in mind, I intend to provide a rigorous prose review to insure that the article is accessible to all of us non-horses.

(starting in Biology; will return to the lead later on)

• I find it very odd that Biology dumps the reader directly into Lifespan before answering the very basic question: "What is a horse"? I think that it would be wise to give the Biology section its own mini-lead, as there is a *lot* of information to sift through here. The current intro, "Specific terms and specialized language is used to describe equine anatomy, different life stages, colors and breeds," doesn't really cut it. Remember: an encyclopedia should seek primarily to teach, and only secondarily to inform.
• Regarding File:Points of a horse.jpg, I find it somewhat confusing that the subject of the image is wearing some sort of headgear. Does "poll" refer to the upper strap, or to the top of the horse's head? The same confusion also applies for "muzzle". Ideally, I would like to see the same image recreated on a horse that is not adorned by any man-made garments.

  We have a difficult time finding points of the horse charts that are both accurate, sourced, AND free use. I realize the horse is wearing a halter, and I will ask the editor who created it if the halter can be photoshopped out, but we really don't think we'll find a different or suitable free image that is accurate and can be sourced; we had to create this one ourselves as it was... --MTBW

  I figured that this would not be an easy task, which is why I said "ideally". Perhaps this should just be something to keep in mind if another suitable image comes along. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think it is necessary to list Hand (length) as the "See Also" for Size and measurement. The article is linked to in the very first sentence of the second paragraph. Furthermore, the only relevant piece of information is that the hand is equivalent to 4 inches, which is already explained in this article.

• Removed - DB

• "This point was chosen because it is a stable point of the anatomy, unlike the head or neck, which move up and down." Citation? Chosen by whom, and when? Perhaps "is used" would be better than "was chosen". Also, is it not true that the withers can also move up and down? Surely if one were to attach the horse to a crane, the entire animal would move upwards, not just the head and neck.

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• ""15.2 h" is 15 hands (60 inches, 152 cm) plus 2 inches (5.1 cm)" Criminy, there are six measurements in that tiny little chunk of text! I would greatly prefer to simplify the last sentence as much as possible: Thus, a horse described as "15.2 h" is 15 hands plus 2 inches, for a total of 62 inches (157.5 cm) in height.

• Changed to your proposed wording. - DB

• Why is hands linked five times in Size and measurement? Linking the first instance should be sufficient.

• It was the default function of the conversion template that we use. I've tweaked the templates to remove the excess linking. - DB

• "Heavy or draft horses are usually at least 16 to 18 hands" This construction does not make sense. "at least" implies that the number that follows will be a bare minimum, and that many of the instances will be larger than that minimum. If that's the case, what is the significance of 18 hands? It is certainly not the bare minimum, since that is covered by 16 hands. Two possible interpretations: "Heavy or draft horses are usually at least 16 hands" or "Heavy or draft horses are usually between 16 and 18 hands". Clearly there is some ambiguity here.

• Fixed - Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• My concerns about the density of measurements in Size and measurement also applies to the Ponies section. Not only is it unnecessary to provide three different units for each measurement, it is also somewhat confusing to do so, particularly the consecutive parentheticals.

• I edited to remove some of the parentheticals. However, the three units of measurement is something that has been discussed through an RfC and it was established there that the three-way conversion is needed, in order to cover the main method of measuring horses (hands) as well as the two main world systems of general measurement (inches and centimeters). If you have suggestions on ways to remove density overall (as with the point above, where I changed the article to your suggested wording), I would love to hear them. I know that these sections are particularly dense on measurements, and so any help would be appreciated. - DB

• "Some breeds which typically produce individuals both under and over 14.2 h consider all animals of that breed to be horses regardless of their height." So... the breeds consider the animals? Perhaps the first "breeds" was meant to be "breeders"?

• Breed registries. I tweaked it, let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Ponies implies that the distinction between ponies and horses is based entirely on height, but the second paragraph suggests that the distinction exists on the hereditary level. The two notions are somewhat contradictory, and as of yet there is no clear resolution to this contradiction. It may be necessary to employ three paragraphs: one to explain that there exist multiple classification schemes, one for the height scheme, and one for the phenotype scheme.

• I've reworked the opening sentences of both paragraphs to hopefully explain things better. Basically, height is just one aspect of differing phenotypes. Let me know if it's more understandable now. - DB

• And I did further tweaks --MTBW
• This definitely helps, but there's one thing that is still a bit unclear: how do ponies relate to horses on the taxonomic level? Is the pony a subspecies, variety, or form of the horse? Or just a subcategory with no rigorous taxonomical definition? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ponies and horses are taxonomically identical, both equus ferus caballus --MTBW

• This fact should be made clear in the Ponies section, ideally in the first sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done, but we may need to source the statement, I'm at work and don't have my horse books here. --MTBW

• "In fact, small size, by itself, is sometimes not a factor at all." Avoid phrases like "in fact" per MOS:OPED.

• Reworded. - DB

• "These colors can be modified by at least ten other genes to create all other colors." Really? I've never seen a blue horse before.

• Then you've apparently never seen a blue roan before :) Anyway, reworked a bit. - DB

• "Also, if the horse is larger, its bones are larger; therefore, not only do the bones take longer to actually form bone tissue, but also the epiphyseal plates are also larger and take longer to convert from cartilage to bone." also not only also also...?

• Ick. Reworked to remove all of the "also"s, although I left the "not only". - DB

• Try to avoid extremely short paragraphs, such as that which begins Reproduction and development. In this particular case, one question that is left unanswered is: do wild horses have a mating season, or do they just bump and grind whenever they please?

• We spun off a lot of material into horse breeding, Equine anatomy, mare and stallion. Not sure how much to spin back; the article is very, very long as it is? Can you suggest how much detail we really want/need here? The short answer is that mares do go into an anestrous (not interested in boys) period during the winter. -- MTBW

• I'm not all that concerned about bringing back material, I'm just offering suggestions on how to deal with the very short paragraph. I usually prefer to add a sentence or two rather than delete/merge the paragraph, though in this case the first two paragraphs of Repro. and Dev. could probably work as one larger paragraph. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tweaking --MTBW

• Another question that is unanswered by the Reproduction section: do mothers care for their young? If so, for how long?

• Ditto, and the problem is that it varies without a hard and fast answer -- many horse breeders wean foals from the mares at four months, some at 5-6 months, nearly all by 7 or 8, but there are cases in the wild of mares letting their yearlings nurse alongside of the current year's foal. -- MTBW Follow up: Tweaked this and added source. --MTBW

• "For endurance riding competition, horses are not deemed mature enough to compete until they are a full 60 calendar months (five years) old." How is this in any way relevant to the biology of horses? This sentence is an excellent example of a symptom that permeates the article: much of it is written as though the horse is an aspect of human society, rather than a species of animal.

• In this paragraph, we're trying to show that different scientists, horse experts and sports have different ideas on when horses mature. Some groups (racing people, including many of the scientists who work in the sport) are convinced that horses are mature enough for heavy work as young as two, while other groups (endurance riding, also many draft horse breeds) are equally convinced that horses should be five or older before they begin even lower levels of competition. Thoughts? - DB

• Ha ha! That's why we are asking for a peer review from a non-horse person! The horse, you see, IS a huge component of human society, with major changes in human culture, particularly language and warfare, linked quite clearly to horse domestication. But seriously, the example of the endurance horse is provided as evidence of how long it takes a horse to actually be physically mature, as the horse industry often starts horses in work at age 2, when they look all grown-up but are not. Age of starting young horses is a hotly debated topic amongst horse aficionados and any hard and fast "rules" are simply, well, not. --MTBW

• What I've learned from this PR page is that the maturity of horses is a subjective issue, and one whose interpretation depends largely on the activities that the horse will engage in. The Repro. and Dev. section, on the other hand, presents a series of factoids and benchmarks that appear (on the surface) to be wholly unrelated to the critter's biology. I suggest trimming down the number of examples used in the article and focusing more on what you've told me here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've made some changes, did these address your concerns? If not, can you point me at the sections that still need more work?

• The third paragraph does indicate that there are several different standards for horse maturity, but the purpose of this is lost since it hasn't been made clear that horse maturity is a contentious issue to begin with. In fact, the second paragraph does exactly the opposite: "Horses four years old are considered mature". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• A bit random and out-of-order, but why does the infobox claim that "48" is a synonym for "horse"?

• It means there are 48 synonyms for horse. I agree it's a bit confusing, but do you have any ideas for changing this without actually listing all of them? Or should we go ahead and list all 48? - DB

• Listing all 48 would be a waste of space, unless we were to use a collapse template. A more elegant solution might be to pick out the more common synonyms, though that might be bordering on WP:OR. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure we can find all 48. Nag, hayburner, critter...  :-P --MTBW

• "Horses have a skeleton that averages 205 bones." Averaged across the lifespan of the horse? Or averaged across all adult horses? In other words, does this number vary with age?

  Averaged across all horses; basically some breeds/horses have slightly more or fewer thoracic, lumbar or coccygeal vertebrae, and occasionally (if they have fewer thoracic vertebrae) sets of ribs may vary by one set or so. No, the number does not vary with age, any more than any other animal -- I don't think anything grows or loses actual bones. It's complicated, because it's just sort of a weird thing that happens, they used to think it was linked to certain breeds until they did skeletal studies showing that it isn't consistent even within certain breeds prone to fewer vertebrae. Suggestions as to how we can clarify this without it getting too complicated? --MTBW

  How about just slapping "adult" at the beginning of the sentence? This clarifies that the number of bones does not vary with age, which is one of the possible (mis)interpretations of the sentence. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I find it somewhat odd that Anatomy only features comparisons with humans. What I often see in other critter articles is comparisons between the subject critter and other critters that are similar. Bat, for example, compares bat wings with bird wings, a practice which makes more sense (to me) than comparing bat wings to human wings.

  The relevant comparison is to other mammals, then, I think; with bipeds such as humans being the most different (grin) -- they are always comparing the horse's hoof to the human fingertip, it's the interesting stuff (smile) horses also have no gall bladder and no clavicle --MTBW

  I think the most relevant comparisons would be with mammals that appear to be structurally similar: zebras, camels, perhaps even other animals that serve vital roles in human society, such as dogs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Stallions and geldings have four additional teeth just behind the incisors" Stallions have nuts and geldings don't, so why not replace "stallions and geldings" with "males"? Or am I missing something here?

  You are right, I wonder if the next person will ask us if it's both stallions and geldings, though?? :-P --MTBW

• "Therefore, the incisors show changes as the horse ages, but a distinct wear and growth pattern, and changes in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet." This can be made clearer and more concise. "As the horse ages, the incisors show a distinct wear and growth pattern, as well as changes in the angle at which the chewing surfaces meet." Does that accurately capture what the original sentence was trying to convey?

  We may have to change the whole way that is phrased. The teeth actually erupt, they are full length once the adult teeth develop, they don't "grow" like those of rodents, and in fact, very old horses lose their teeth because there is no more tooth left to erupt. I'll take a whack at that. --MTBW

• When converting to several different measurements,Ponies uses a comma: (56 inches, 142 cm). Digestion uses a semicolon: (8.4 imp gal; 10 US gal). These should be made consistent. I don't have a preference either way.

  Thank the hands and convert templates, I think. If that's what's making it happen, we are helpless... but I'll check that too. --MTBW

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review, Cryptic! I've replied to a few of your comments above - more later, possibly tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Update - More done, more later :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Cryptic. We'll keep plugging away. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Josephus on Jesus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is very comprehensive, well-written, and well-sourced. I am requesting feedback from the reviewers to prepare the article for submission to WP:FAC. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: In view of this talkpage discussion, is this the right time, and are you the right person, to be requesting a peer review for this article?. You appear to be engaged in a fairly hostile current discussion with the article's main editors, and are not a main editor yourself. It would be better if you first resolved your dispute, and then got the agreement of the main editors as to whether the article is ready for review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a fair question. In all honesty, I stepped into something I didn't expect would happen. The article has not been without controversy because of the nature of the topic. However, my only interest as the nominator is to see a well-written article get its due. I think a good peer review at this time would help to settle any remaining controversies rather than stir them up. Ignocrates (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but a peer review requires that someone responds to points raised. I am not going to waste time doing a detailed review, only to find that the main editors ignore it as they didn't want it in the first place. Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is your call of course. However, I'm not going to pull the request for a review. Ignocrates (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria is that there be no ongoing edit wars and that the article is stable (not changing significantly as a result of such edit wars). Looking at the directions at the top of WP:FAC it says in part that Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Articles nominated at FAC by people who are not major contributors and/or where there is an ongoing content dispute have their nominations quickly closed.

Furthermore the Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy states that PR is not for resolving content disputes. The basic idea is that it is pointless to make detailed comments on the article until the content dispute is resolved, as the final version may change significantly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments

• Section headers do not follow WP:HEAD which says that there must be a unique name for each section (I think there are too many headers too)
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing
• It seems to me that the article could be tightened somewhat by avoiding multiple repetitions of the same arguments in different places.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Several key points are missing. The 62 (Josephus and Jerome) vs 69 CE (62 (according to Josephus and Jerome) or 69 (Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Early Christian tradition) being this biggest problem. Note that his conflict is noted in Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144 pg 189 and Bauckham The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young 2006 ISBN 0521812399 page 297 but efforts to put these point sintot he article have been repeatedly removed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with Brianboulton's statements. I do not agree with Bruce. But in any case, the other editor who used to be active on the page (Lung salad) is now permanently blocked from Wikipedia, and I have spent more than enough time on this page already. Hence, in view of the comments above, I also see no further point in this review and I think it is best abandoned and concluded. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is, and will remain, a C-class piece of junk. Further evaluations of article content in peer review serve no useful purpose. Ignocrates (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, time to move on. I therefore assume this discussion is over, and someone will close it. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

U.S. Route 5 in Vermont

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get some editor feedback before listing it as a good article nominee.

Thanks, Theking17825 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

1. It would be helpful if the infobox listed major intersections along the route.
2. ". The highway serves the major cities of Brattleboro, Hartford, and St. Johnsbury.", I don't think those are major cities.
3. The route description needs references. I would suggest using an official highway map along with a Google Maps overview of the route to show the physical surroundings.
4. Try not to use "US 5" in every sentence of the route description.
5. "North of Putney, it crosses over the interstate to serve the towns of Westminster, Bellows Falls, and Rockingham." indicate this is I-91.
6. The route description could use more details about the physical surroundings.
7. Do not use "then" in describing progression of route.
8. The history section needs references.
9. The history section could use more details. Have there been any changes to the route since 1933?
10. The major intersections table should have a row for the MA border and the Canadian border.
11. You can use {{VTint}} to generate the major intersections table. Dough4872 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the enthusiasm, but this article would likely be quick-failed if it was nominated for GA in its present state. As Dough commented above, the entire article is under-referenced, which is one of the core components of the good article criteria. Other issues I see:

1. Hyphens are used in several places where an en dash should be used. See MOS:DASH.
2. The two photos have fixed image sizes. This is discouraged unless there is a legitimate reason to set the size, and in this case there isn't. See WP:IMGSIZE.
3. This article uses a mix of abbreviations (VT #) and full names (Vermont Route #). It is recommended to only use the full name at the first instance of said name, place the abbreviation in parentheses after it, then use only the abbreviation in the rest of the article. In the current revision at the time of this posting, that means the VT 103 link in the first paragraph would become ("... Vermont Route 103 (VT 103) ...") and all other instances of "Vermont Route #" would be replaced with "VT #". The same thing applies to Interstate Highways ("Interstate #/I-#").
4. On that note, there should be non-breaking spaces between the route numbers and the abbreviation or word that accompanies them (thus, "US 5" would be entered as US 5).
5. Although it is allowed under the road junction list Manual of Style, the rest of Vermont's articles do not use the "stacked" junction list method (the method used to display the routes at MP 9.105).
6. And on that note, the rest of Vermont's articles denote the endpoints of intersecting routes with a note in the notes column that reads "<direction> terminus of <route>". Simply appending a direction onto a route doesn't imply a terminus at all - it could easily be interpreted to mean a junction where only one direction of the intersecting route is accessible. Lastly, the rest of Vermont's articles add the "continuing" direction for routes that overlap. See Vermont Route 11.
7. Not all images need to be placed in a thumbnail box, and the Route 2 marker in the history section is one that doesn't unless a caption is added to it.

This article is off to a good start, but it needs more work before it can be considered for good article status. Thanks for asking for others' input - it's refreshing to see an editor seek a second opinion when they're not sure about something, as that's a practice that has fallen by the wayside in recent years, unfortunately. – TMF 01:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for both of your comments! I should have probably rephrased my request, I know this isn't ready for GA status but I was just looking for some input to get it going along the road to hopefully becoming a GA soon. I'll get to work using your comments! Thanks. Theking17825 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Imzadi1979

Specifically dealing with the references, some of which might be regarded as personal preferences:

1. It's probably a good idea to spell out "Vermont Agency of Transportation" instead of VTrans in the citations.
2. If a source is online, an access date is needed. Most of the footnotes have them, but some are missing.
3. If a source is a PDF, it's a good idea to indicate that using the |format= PDF coding in the template. Not all readers have graphics turned on, so you can't assume that the PDF icon will be present. Also, not all URLs to PDFs end in ".pdf". If you pre-emptively archive links to combat WP:LINKROT using http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php , the links it generates lack a file type suffix.
4. You've used {{cite map}} to generate the one citation, but there is the specific {{google maps}} that exists to simplify the formatting. However you've used {{cite web}} for other maps. I'd recommend switching them to cite map for consistency, and using the Google-specific template.
   1. As a better practice, you should re-generate the Google Maps search you used, and then get the specific link. There's a chain icon on the page that will give you the URL. As it stands now, you're directing readers to the main page. They can't replicate your work to verify it.
5. Most Americans don't use a leading zero in a date, so while it isn't wrong to use "April 01, 2012", it's non-standard. According to WP:DATEFORMAT: "Dates: Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes, articles, or leading zeros", so they need to be changed to conform to our Manual of Style.
6. I recommend trying to add an author for all non-press citations. On corporately authored works (documents generated by VTrans without an explicit author named), this would something like the specific office/bureau/division/department that generated the document. As a default, I use "Staff" as the author. Either way, it helps indicate that the same entity is both the author and the publisher. (The side benefit is that you always get a citation that looks like <Author> (<date/year>). <title>. <pubilsher>.) For the route log, the author would be "Planning, Outreach and Community Affairs Division Traffic Research Unit".
7. Make sure that if a source is multi-page, and it is paginated (i.e. the pages have numbers printed on them), you need to include the page numbers. To minimize confusion, don't use the page number from the PDF file, but what is printed on the page. That way if a reader is looking at a copy of the document printed on paper, they won't look for "page 3" which might be "page ii" on the printout.

Other comments:

1. TMF above suggested that you un-stack junctions and merge them together in the junction list. The problem I have with that is now you're implying that the two highways at the junction are concurrent with each other. If they are, you're ok, but if they are not, they should be separated.
2. I would reinsert the directions in addition to the termini/overlap notes. My practice is that if a driver along the subject highway (in this case, US 5) is at the intersection, what direction(s) are accessible on the intersecting highway. If there is only one direction available (I-91 north, for instance) to leave the subject roadway, then I list that direction in the destinations column. If both directions (I-91 north and I-91 south) are available, then the directions aren't needed.
3. I highly recommend switching over to the junction list templates. That way if MOS:RJL changes in the future, and we update the templates to accommodate those future changes, the article will update itself.
   1. The {{jcttop}} template generates coding for the header row of the table that complies with MOS:DTT in terms of accessibility.
   2. The templates for the rows of the table (VTint as Dough noted above) also right-align the milepost column which roughly aligns the numbers by the decimal point, making them easier to read in a longer table. Right-alignment is an item that has been suggested that MOS:RJL should require, and the templates already format things that way.
4. Where is the zero milepost for the highway? Where is the terminal milepost for the highway? (According to the infobox, they are at the state line and the international border, but the junction list lacks them.) The reason I ask is that a reader looking at that table could naturally assume that the first MP is 7.932 miles and the last is 188.388 miles and deduce that the length is therefore 180.456 miles, not the 192.316 miles stated elsewhere in the article. (Not all roads start at a MP 0; the motorways that radiate away from London are measured from a point downtown but most start out near the beltway.)
5. Another personal thing I'd recommend is to give the exit number of the interchanges from the other highway. For instance, for the I-91 interchanges, rather than just say "Interchange" as the notes, say "Exit X on I-91". You'll need a non-breaking space between "exit" and the number.
6. In the lead, you have "Numbered Highway System" mentioned on its own; I think you meant the US Highway System or the United States Numbered Highway System. Later you have "Highway System" by itself in capital letters, but in that context, that's not a proper noun. (It's also confusing if you're referring to the US Highway System or the New England system.) Just watch the capital letters on words that are common nouns.
7. I found a few cases where lengths are used in the prose without metric conversions. You can use {{convert}} to generate the needed conversions for you. For even numbers under ten, which really should be spelled out, there's also {{convert/spell}} which will generate something like two miles (3.2 km) or five-mile (8.0 km) for you.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Some of what I mentioned is picky on the level expected of FAs, but I've found that it's easier to get the references in shape early than try to whip them together later during a review when an editor has given you a laundry list of minor details to fix. Imzadi 1979 → 08:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about your point about implying a concurrency. If that really was an issue, the practice of having separate lines for each intersecting route would be codified into MOS:RJL. On the contrary, I can think of at least three states that put all routes on a single line, whether they're concurrent or not (PA, NY, and VT), and a cursory glance of other states shows that they do as well. – TMF 07:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And after some more glancing, it looks like that the only state that follows the practice you suggest is Michigan.

The purpose of the column is simply to list what routes are present at a particular intersection, and no more. Making formatting exceptions for intersecting non-concurrent routes is a bit overkill in my book. – TMF 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

MOS:SLASH states: "Generally avoid joining two words by a slash, also known as a forward slash or solidus ( / ). It suggests that the two are related, but does not specify how." The two (or three) items are related if a highway is concurrent, which is the implication from the formatting in reliable sources. In talking about an interchange or intersection between two roads, the correct punctuation would be an en dash as that section continues with: "In circumstances involving a distinction or disjunction, the en dash (see above) is usually preferable to the slash: the digital–analog distinction." Highway articles only get away with usual slashes because MOS:SLASH says that "[a]n unspaced slash may be used ... where a slash occurs in a phrase widely used outside Wikipedia, and a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous." Highway concurrencies are typically denoted with slashes, thus allowing the exception. If states other than Michigan are doing this wrong, that's a problem to be fixed in articles. If our articles are falsely implying concurrencies between two highways at an intersection or interchange, then that falsehood needs to be corrected. Imzadi 1979 → 09:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good luck getting anyone else on board... – TMF 09:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

---

IPad 2

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because both the iPad and iPad 3 articles have reached GA status and I want to get this one there as well.

Thanks, Zach Vega (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead could use some info specific to what changed from iPad to iPad 2.
• Could also touch on the sales.
• Infobox has a lot of overcapitalisation (e.g. Audio Formats, 3G Model, Micro-SIM Card tray...)  Done
• Fix the [citation needed] in the infobox.  Done
• Normally you don't include anything in the lead that isn't included and expanded upon in the main part of the article so you ought not to need those citations in the lead.
• First three sentences of History start with "Apple..." which is a little dull.  Done
• "Apple announced that the iPad 2 will be released...." already happened.  Done
• "struck the entire nation " no need for "entire".  Done
• "The iPads may be delayed..." again, this is in the past.  Done
• " of the iPad (3rd generation)" would prefer "of the new iPad" linked accordingly.  Done
• "that was released on October 12, 2011 " no it uses the iOS 5.1 released later. Done
• "and is supposed to bring" well, either it does or it doesn't, we should know by now. Done
• "Another application made by Apple available for the iPad 2 is the Apple Store app." really worthy of inclusion? Deleted
• "plus a 3 axis gyroscope" a three-axis gyroscope. Done
• "The original iPad (left) compared to the iPad 2 (right)." would put left/right in italics and no need for the full stop. Done
• Don't overlink Watt. Could only find one instance where watt is mentioned - YuMaNuMa
• There's a "times" symbol (×) that you should use rather than an x (for 5x). Done
• [25] [26] - remove space from between refs. Done
• " Apple claims doubles processing"... can't we verify this by now with independent benchmark tests? Done
• You don't need to include articles in the See also that you've already linked in the article (e.g. Tablet computers...) Done
• DON'T SHOUT in the refs. Done
• Use en-dash per WP:DASH in the refs for titles, year ranges etc.
• Don't have bare URLs in the refs. Done
• Author names, are they First Last or Last, First?
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Avoid double periods in the refs (e.g. after an Inc.)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Also in addition to what was mentioned above, I think a critical reception section is vital for this article to achieve GA status. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Rhino tank

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some feedback and opinions on everything, so that it can be ready for FA. Thanks, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A few things:

• The automated peer reviewer says (and I agree) that:

• The lead is too short.
• There aren't enough outgoing links, although try to add these without adding duplicate links (duplicates between the lead and the rest of the article are fine, as are duplicates between image captions and the rest of the article).
• It could use an infobox, if there is any applicable one (perhaps there's one about modifications to armored vehicles?).

• I encourage you to use the {{sfn}} template instead of the current manually-done references (which don't include years, I note). Note that ref=harv will need to be added to the cite book/etc templates.
• Reference "Blumenson, pp. 205-206" can be replaced with a combination of "Blumenson, p. 205" and "Blumenson, p. 206".
• Make sure that all books with ISBNs have them filled in; I also suggest, for any books with only a few pages used, checking Google Books to see if those books and pages are available and linking them if so.
• The article is not consistent between British (e.g., "defences") and American (e.g., "armor") spellings.
• I've done a touch of copyediting, mostly of an automated sort; I may do more.

That's about all I can spot at the moment. Interesting article! Allens (talk | contribs) 22:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. One other thing - the book and web references are not consistent on whether to use a period after an initial (I generally don't, but it's a matter of taste as far as I know - as long as it's consistent). Allens (talk | contribs) 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd advise going for GA before FA, incidentally. Allens (talk | contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did a first run-through of copyediting the article. I marked some places needing clarification or similar. I also tried to add a few more links. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Maya Angelou

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have more eyes look at it before submitting it FAC. I've worked on this and most other Maya Angelou articles on my own, so input from disinterested parties is much needed and would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody! Thanks, I'll wait until you've given me a bit more before I start addressing your comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Wording: " author and member of the Harlem Writers Guild, ..." - Probably should be separated by comma, since they are in a long list of comma-separated jobs: " "author, member of the ...". Although, is member of a Guild an "occupation"?

  I just removed the phrase, since it's not notable enough to mention in the lead, I think, or at least not notable in comparison to all her other jobs.

• Sidebar Navbox is a bit skimpy. Not to suggest you should go overboard with trivia, but are there some fields you could add to the sidebar that are informative? See, e.g. Ayn Rand for a fuller box. See {{Infobox writer}} for all possible fields.

  That's because, to be honest, I hate infoboxes. But done nonetheless. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Name pronunciation: In 1st sentence: consider also showing the simpler pronunciation key Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key - (see W. E. B. Du Bois for an example)

  I believe that was the key that was used. If anyone can help improve it, please do.

• Repetitive: "Angelou is one of the most honored writers of her generation. She has been honored by ..." - Can one "honor" be replaced with a different word?

  "Decorated" is there now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Works" section - Should be reformatted to be consistent with other poet/author articles. As it stands, it is a bit incomplete, and doesnt really sync up with the rest of the article. I recommend the following: eliminate the section; move any important facts into other, more specific sections (Legacy, era of her life, etc); and a new section be created at the bottom of the article named "Selected Works" or "Works" (the latter, if the number of her works is less than, say, 40). In that new section, just bullet list all the works; so it is a reference section, not a prose/text section. For examples, see Langston Hughes or e. e. cummings, etc.

  Angelou's template at the bottom of this page (and all her articles) list her works, and there's the list that's linked in this section. Her works are definitely longer than forty. I looked at FAs about authors. Ann Bannon doesn't have a "Works" section, but it discusses each of her books. Anton Chekhov has a dedicated section with a link to a separate list. Noel Coward lists his bibliography. My point is that there seems to a wide variety of how to handle an author's works. It's set up in this article because MA's "works" include much more than books and poetry, and I thought a more general discussion with a link to the list better suited this article.

• Something unsaid? - The first paragr of "Style and genre" section discusses fiction vs autobiography; there are many examples where authors pretended there autobio work was 100% true, and it turned out there was some fiction, which resulted in a scandal. Did that happen with Angelou? (BTW: I have no idea if it did or did not) The section seems to hint there was some controversy, but doesnt come out and give details. If there was no controversy, that is fine, just curious.

  Believe me, I looked for controversy and scandal, but I found none. Personally, I think that it was implied because when autobiography is discussed, the fictionalized part of it is discussed, at least cursory, partly because of these famous scandals and partly because it's part of the genre. That issue has been brought up before [2], in the many improvements of the Caged Bird article (a FA). The issue is addressed here in the same way it's addressed there, and reviewers have seemed to be okay with it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hyphen: "African American oral tradition .." - AA used as adjective needs hyphen.

  He he, I laugh because those two words (and "Black") are the two most discussed words in all of MA's articles. First time anyone's brought it up, but you're right of course. Changed.

• " used similes and metaphors (i.e., the caged bird) " - should be e.g. not i.e., correct?

  Ah, hard English stuff! ;) Obviously, I wasn't sure, so I looked it up, and sure enough, you're right again. Changed. I love how much stuff you get to learn here in WP. ;)

• Section mismatch: One section is "Poetry" and another is "Style and genre" ... they seem to not be consistent. Is the S&G section intended to be about her autobiographies? If so, it should be retitled to "Autobiographies" to parallel the Poetry section. Or, if S&G is about the S&G of both poems and autobiographies, that is okay, but then what is the intention of the Poetry section?

  Wondered if anyone was going to catch that after I expanded the S&G section and created the forked article. It's exclusively talking about her autobiographies. the "Poetry" section is exclusively about her poetry, both its style and the content of her poems. Easily handled: I changed the title to "Style and genre of Angelou's autobiographies. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reception/criticism material seems to be spread out in 3 sections: (1) Critical Reception; (2) Poetry; and (3) S&G. Recommend that you clean up the article organization as follows: eliminate those into three sections and move the material into three new sections which replace them: (a) Style & Genre; (b) Reception (includes all criticism and analysis); and (c) Legacy/Honors. Hence, eliminate format-based sections "Poetry" or "Autobiography". Merge Legacy with Honors into 1 top level section (with 2 or 3 subsections). I'm not talking about writing new material for the article: just moving the existing paragraphs around into more logical sections.

  Um, I think that your way make them more confusing. There is a huge difference between the style and themes in MA's autobiographies and in her poetry, and there has been much more written about her autobiographies. If there were more information out there, I'd even create the forked article Poetry of Maya Angelou, but I don't personally feel that it's warranted and that the content belongs better in her bio article. I've seen a lot of author articles formatted this way, with a separate list (or in this case, section linked to a list) of his/her honors and awards. I did some experimenting to see what your suggestions would look like, and decided that I like it. I put the "Honors" section as a subsection in the "Reception and legacy" section. Does that work? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Personal life section: - I see there is no "Personal Life" section; that is optional, and not a bar to FA status; but many readers may find it informative. In this case, it may be especially useful to avoid confusion; for example in the section "Adulthood and early career: 1951—1961" you write: "Angelou has been married three times or more ... After Angelou's marriage ended...". Which marriage? When were the marriages? Any children? Readers may benefit from "one stop shopping" in a "Personal life" section. That section could also include details about her daily writing habits, idiosyncrasies, and any other personal information that secondary sources comment upon.

  When I first read the above, I went, "Ugh," but after thinking about it, I think it's not a bad idea at all. It would solve some of the issues others have brought up, about if some content fits where they're currently in, like her Mende background and writing habits. I'll get to work on that in the coming days, I promise.

* Hyphen again: " African American culture ..." - check all uses of AA for hyphens if adjectival.

• "There have been many negative reviews of Angelou's poetry, ..." - The quantity "many" needs a specific source to justify it; Is that really what the Burr p 181 source says? I trust you, just making sure.

  I can get overzealous at avoiding close paraphrasing at times, so that statement needed clarification. Changed to: Scholar Zofia Burr has connected Angelou's "failure to impress professional poetry critics"... Better?

• Cite year: Lupton (1998) .... dont need (1998) in the footnote since there is only one Lupton

  Grr, thought that I had dealt with that when all instances of the 2nd Lupton book moved with the Themes forked article. Thanks for the catch.

  More later. I need a nap now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cite formatting: You have period ending the non-book footnotes; and no period on the book footnotes. I recommend making them all use period ... it looks inconsistent to have half end one way, and half the other. I see the logic, but it still looks odd.

  Wow, that pick--er, thorough! ;) You're the very first person who's ever noticed it; it's because the templates used for the "non-book" sources put a period in automatically. I suppose it's accurate, so I went ahead and added the missing periods.

• Web site in Sidebar Navbox: It looks like an orphan at the bottom: most web sites in SideBars have a bold face "Web Site" on the left side, so it is aligned with the other info above it. Never mind ... it looks like the sidebar template imposes that format for the web site; can't say that I like it.

  No argument from me. It gives evidence to my dislike of infoboxes. They make articles ugly, and I'm not ashamed to say how important that is! ;)

• Photo rights: the FA reviewers are pretty strict about photo rights. For photo File:Angeloupoem.jpg: can you provide any more detail on its provenance? The NPR site says "courtesy of white house" ... but that doesnt mean the author of the pic gave away their copyright; it may just mean the White house gave permission for NPR to use the photo one time in the NPR site.

  This could be an issue. That image is used to tie together all of the MA articles on WP; it's used in all of them and in the template. It's used in the two MA FAs, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, and it was never an issue for their FACs. I've actually looked for the image on the White House webpage, but had no luck finding it. Images used for government purposes or published by the White House and federal sites tend to be free as a rule, so I suspect that it's all right. At least that's my hope. We're wait and see what happens. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Writing habits" section? - you have a nice quote box in the "Style and genre" section with 3 quotes. It looks like they are intended to illustrate her writing habits ... why not create a subsection devoted to "Writing habits", so readers grasp the purpose of the quotes & accompanying material?

  Actually, this article at one point had that section, but other reviewers suggested that it be cut and put elsewhere. I think it better belongs in a "Personal life" section as per your suggestion above.

• Parallel section titles: Two of the chrono sections have years in their names: 1951-1961; 1961-1969; but the third one "Later years" does not. Seems a bit asymmetrical. Consider adding "1969 - present" or similar.

  Well, asymmetry is a valid artistic style. ;) Seriously, part of the reason it's done this way is "artistic" reasons, and I think that readers are smart enough to know that the section is about the last portion of MA's life. "Early years" doesn't have a year span, either, so there can be an argument made that it is symmetrical. How 'bout I leave it as is and see what others say about it?

• Clarify & reword: " Some of her more controversial works have been challenged or banned in U.S. schools and libraries, but have been used in schools and universities internationally." - Needs to be rewritten. The way it is written now implies that her works are not widely used in the US. Also, the "challenge or banned" is misleading: just because some crackpots challenged her book in a library, does not mean the challenge succeeded. Consider: "Although attempts have been made to ban her books from some US libraries, her works are widely used in schools and universities worldwide".

  I'm good with that; changed.

• Final note: it is a great article on an important figure. I think it is very close to FA status. The key improvement, in my opinion, is the section re-organization mentioned above. I'd recommend doing as much of the above recommendations that you concur with, then consider doing one more Peer Review before going to FAC.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, thanks so much for the PR! I'll take care of the re-organization and re-submit it to PR. I think we're very close too, so I appreciate the input and valuable feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Strong reciprocity

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am hoping to eventually apply this article for featured article status, so any feedback/suggestions to that point is much appreciated.

Thank you, Ethulin (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts, not a full peer review by any means:

• The automated peer reviewer found some potential problems (not sure if anything can be done about the lack of images, though).
• You might want to go to the WikiProjects that the page is part of and ask them for an assessment with comments on what should be improved. Once they say it's at least class B, then nominate it for a Good Article review.

Allens (talk | contribs) 00:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I bet this is obvious, so sorry for asking) but how do I see the results of the automatic peer reviewer? Thanks!

Ethulin (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

See where it says "automated tips" in the box to the right? Click on that. Quite welcome, and no need to apologize! Allens (talk | contribs) 09:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead could be longer, I'd suggest two paras per WP:LEAD. It should summarise the article.
• Robert Boyd and Turkana are dab links.
• First sentence of lead has about 65 words in it. In one sentence. Too much! Split perhaps into three.
• "One game used to measure levels of cooperation is through the dictator game." don't repeat game here, perhaps "One method to measure..."...
• Shouldn't "nash equilibrium" (a) be explained and (b) be Nash?
• And don't over link it.
• "is the public goods game. In a public goods game" repetitive, dull prose.
• "to a common pool. The common pool is then" ditto.
• Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
• Don't see the point of a "See also" that doesn't exist.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Uttarakhand

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want a wholesome review as to how to improve this page so as to make it one of the best articles on this site.

Thanks, [[User talk:ayanosh|T]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/ayanosh|M]] (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)ayanosh

Redtigerxyz's comments

• FA Karnataka model can be followed in structure and as a reference
• The article suffers too much from WP:RECENTISM. "Chief ministers of Uttarakhand" list and dates of elections is not needed.
• There are many lists in the articles which need to be incorporated in the text format. List of Universities is not needed. Name few prominent ones and give overview
• Transport: list -> text. Add road, rail.
• Tourist destinations: merge list into text
• State only ten most populous cities ("important cities"). Merge in Demographics, may be Format like in Japan#Demographics
• Tourism as an industry needs to figure in Economy
• Add dates in "History". eg. The region was originally settled by Kols in the Xth century CE/BCE. "The Pauravas(years), Kushanas(years) ... have ruled Uttarakhand in turns" Maintain chronology.
• History also discusses people and terrain??

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Vallabhbhai Patel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want help in assessment before FA nomination.

Thanks, Ayanosh (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Does not look like much significant edits were done since the featured article review in July 2010. Major concerns of the FA review still persists. Without going to detailed review, this article should probably be taken off the review, improved and worked on, and then re-submitted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

1920 APFA season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to become GA. My goal is to have this and all the teams' season, so I can make it my first GT. I know how to do the season pages, but I have like no idea what to do for this page. I've edited some to cover the basic of basic stuff. I'm lost, however, and I was hoping someone here can help me. Thank you to anyone in advance.

Thanks,
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: There's obviously a lot of research gone into this article. The prose needs attention if it is to make GA, and some clarification of certain details in the tables is necessary. Specific points:-

Prose

• "later named the National Football League in 1922". You shouldn't have "later" when you give the year 1922. Thus "...renamed the National Football League in 1922".
  • Done.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the article's content. You have far too much minor detail in the lead, that ought to be given in the later sections
  • Alright. Fixed some.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think "Offseason" is the appropriate heading to describe the period before the league's existence. In sports, "off season" generally refers to periods of inactivity between the sport's formal seasons. Furthermore, the narrative of the article is confused by having the story of the league's setting up told in both the lead and the first section.
  • That makes sense. What do you suggest changing it to? Would "Formation of the league" fit?
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• "At the meeting, the representatives tentatively agreed to introduce a salary cap for the teams, not to sign college players nor players under contract with another team, and called their new league the American Professional Football Conference." This seems an odd order in which to present the meeting's business. I imagine they decided first to form the league and then what to call it, before settling details of player registration and salary caps.
  • True. Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Since the Akron Pros had a 1.000 winning percentage..." 1.000 is not a percentage. Does "1.000" equate to 100 percent? Also, I see that they won 8 and tied 3 games, so how does that mean either "1.000" or "100 percent"?
  • Before 1972, the NFL did not count tie games into the winning percentages, so it was just (wins)/(losses). Also, in sports, the media uses the decimal formula (1.000) instead of the percent (100%).
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• "If this rule was in the case in 1920..." - Not grammatical. Try "If this rule had applied in 1920..."
  • Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Media section:
• A single short sentence does not warrant a section. And apart from the poor grammar, the sentence is an unnecessary statement of the obvious, since there were few if any other forms of mass media in 1920. I advise delete this section
  • Alright. I was just looking at the other years articles. Guess there wasn't enough information. Deleted.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Awards: What is the status of the "All-pro" list compiled by Copeland, and what was the nature of any "award" associated with it?
  • An actual "award" was not given out, but Pro-Football-Reference.com uses it as the official All-Pro for 1920. I added a mention to it.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Tables

• Format: why is the general format "Away → Home" rather than "Home" → "Away"?
  • That's just what was there before I started to edit the article.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• What is the meaning of the (0–1–0) and other unexplained parenthetical details?
  • The team's season record after that game.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Final Standings table: column headings are cryptic. I can work out W, L and T. I assume "PCT" is "percentage", although the figures in the column are not percentages. PF and PA presumably points for and against, but I've no idea about STK.
  • It means winning/losing streak. The use of {{Tooltip}} helps out.

Other points

• In the notes, page ranges require pp. and single page refs require p.
  • Not sure how I missed that. Fixed.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Image: Did women play - or should the caption be redrafted slightly?
  • Fixed the caption.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• The image source link is uninformative - it doesn't confirm the details shown in the file description, nor that the image was from the Akron Beacon Journal. Where does this information come from?
  • Changed the details of the image.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope these points are helpful in getting the article towards where you want it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Cedar Point

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I plan on nominating this for GAN soon but I need a little more input on the article. I understand it has a lot of lists but it lists everything an amusement park article should have. Any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Astros4477 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will be doing this PR, probably somewhat slowly because of limited time and I tend to work through PRs/reviews/ce slowly anyway. As is often my practice, I'll draft this PR in one of my sandboxes and then move them over here as my thoughts are more complete.[3] You can wait until I'm done, or you can address my feedback as we go; it's totally up to you. Should be fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Take your time. I have a few little things I have to do for the article but I'm relatively done until I get feedback. We'll see how it goes.--Astros4477 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It took a lot of this morning, but here's the feedback.

• References: They need to be consistent and complete. I use WP:CT; you don't have to use the templates, but they're a good guide for how your sources should be structured, and the information they should include.
• Ref 6: I'm not opposed to off-line sources, since many of the articles I work on have them out of necessity, but there needs to be more information: author, page numbers, ect.
• Ref 7: Links to CP's webpage, but not to the content discussed in the article. I suggest that you find where it comes from and use that link. The reader shouldn't have to go hunt for what you're referencing.
• The History section is almost entirely uncited, as is the end of the Boeckling era section. If the entire section comes from one source, I would either make an inline citation (According to ---), create a note {The information in this section comes from ---), or add a reference at the end of each paragraph.
• This article is full of unencyclopedic writing. The 2nd paragraph in the Boeckling era section is an example. You state that Boeckling innately understood what people wanted in a resort and tried to provide that for his guests. What do mean? There's no way for me to know that because your source is off-line. Also, the sentence In fact, by 1901, the resort was controlled by G. A. Boeckling, August Kuebler, Jocob Kuebler, and Charles G. Nielsen who bought out Adam Stoll’s interest in Cedar Point. I recommend that you read WP:W2W, which is about words and phrases you should avoid. I would cepyedit it, but since I don't have access to the sources, that's difficult because it's unlikely that I'd retain their spirit.
• One of the major issues with this article is its length. Perhaps one of the ways you can shorten it is to give general information in the history sections. For example, in the "After Boeckling" section, you spend a lot of time listing the attractions at CP during the time, but you list them later, in the "Timeline" section. Listing them like you do is boring, especially for those who have never visited the park. Again, this section has very few references.
• Here's what I'd do with the first paragraph of the "After Boeckling" section: After the death of Boeckling, Edward Smith took over management of Cedar Point Little expansion happened through the 1930s. In the 1940s, the park's restaurants were expanded. I'd cut most of the specific information, since it really doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of the park. I'd make similar cuts throughout the article. The claims you make about its roller coasters being "the tallest and fastest" have no support.
• I'm fairly certain there's no paraphrasing problems, although with the off-line sources and lack of general referencing, it's not totally possible for me to assess it. One indication that it's not an issue is ref 13, which is actually a good source and something you should use more.
• One of my personal preferences is that sections are longer than just one paragraph. "Soak City", "Defunct attractions", and "Fast Lanes" link to other articles; the way I deal with that is that I treat them like "forked" articles, with the section in the original article being a summary (kind of like a lead) of the content in the forked article. If you don't have that available to you, that's fine for GAC but probably won't help you if you take this article to FAC.
• As I state above, this article is too long. Another idea is to create some forked ones. Perhaps you can create Cedar Point attractions, and then cut-and-paste all that information into it.
• I'm not sure that "Slogans" is a necessary section. It smacks of WP:TRIVIA to me.
• Related to the above point, read WP:IPC. I'm of the opinion that the "Popular culture" section is unnecessary, especially since nothing in it is sourced. It might get past GAC, but I can guarantee that it won't get past FAC.

• Why isn't there any information here from the two Francis books listed in "Further reading"? I'd think there'd be a lot to use.

I hope this helps. Let me know other ways to help improve this interesting article. Not being from the midwest, it was fun to read. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will get to work on fixing those things. Since the park is so old, there's very few references from the beginning years. Would it be ok to use the same reference for the Boeckling era and After Boekling?--Astros4477 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's all you have, that's what you have to work with. Reviewers, especially at FAC, tend to like a variety of sources, though, but remember that WP articles represent a summary of the literature on any given topic, and if one source summarizes the information out there, it's best to use it. IOW, find the best source; oftentimes, there's just one out there. You may be surprised, though. When I started working on Stanford Memorial Church, for example, I assumed that the sources would be scarce. Once I started digging, though, I found more than I thought they'd be, from some unlikely sources. Then other editors showed up to give me sources. There might be an obscure and unknown history of the park out there that you may find. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I found this source which has a video on the early history of Cedar Point. I have yet to watch it but would that be considered reliable?--Astros4477 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Documentaries are often the most reliable sources, especially for pop culture topics like this one. It's so exciting when you're able to find potential gems. I'd think there'd be even more, since CP seems to be much beloved. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I added some content to the beginning of the History section which included a reference, so unfortunately the numbers listed by Christine above are going to be off. If someone wants to undo the change for now, I'm OK with that. I can always add it back later. Before adding anything else, think I'll work on the list first! —GoneIn60 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The numbering of the refs don't matter; I included them for illustration. My general point about the sources in this article still stands; they need to be more complete and accurate, and the prose needs more attributions. Good luck and have fun! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Goneln60, how much more do you have to do in the article? There's still more work that needs to be done but I'm going to list it for a Copy edit when we're done.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately with the weather warming up, the house and kids' extracurricular activities have been consuming most of my spare time! There are a few offline resources I need to look into before the History section can be finished. Hopefully I can get it done in the next few days. I'll at least post another update soon. —GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand. I have gone ahead and listed it for a copy edit because there's not alot of work to do, just some things here and there.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Chef (South Park)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's informative, well-written, well-interlinked with other articles, and well-referenced. I can't find any problems with it myself, and believe it is Featured Article material.

Thanks, Arran64 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is missing info on merchandise and on some cultural references. Nergaal (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

According to checklinks (click "external links" in the toolbox to the right), there are a number of bad external links. Allens (talk | contribs) 00:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The IPA (I think!) is only a pronunciation of his surname which is a little odd.
• Should the article be forced to display a title of "Chef (South Park)"?
• Don't think you necessarily need to link out to music in the 1970s.
• I would state that the show uses "cutout animation" rather than just assume we'll guess it.
• First sentence of Character section is 58 words long consider chopping it up a bit!
• "... pejorative "crackers", including the children." ref?
• "(and in a few other instances" not keen on "a few".
• Last three sentences of Character section are unreferenced.
• No fair use rationale in place for use of File:Chocolate Salty Balls.jpg.
• Don't link the word "album", it's commonplace.
• "reached #1 in" don't use "hash" to represent "number" in prose.
• "(an unsubtle jab at Scientology)." we both know that's true but (a) that's not neutral or elegant prose (b) it's not referenced.
• Don't link "lightning", commonplace.
• really dead[28]). -> move the ref to after the full stop.
• "having never met the man" -> "never having met Chef"
• Ref 3 needs fixing, both format and dead-wise.
• And ref 6.
• And refs 4 and 5 are tagged as dead.
• What makes collegeprowler.com a reliable source?
• Same question for www.everwonder.com?
• Ref 22 needs to be appropriately formatted.
• Ref 25 incomplete in format and claims to be dead.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs.
• Ref 26 is missing date/accessdate info.
• Ref 29 is incomplete, but we don't use IMDB as it's not a reliable source.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Don't Let Me Be the Last to Know

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because so many content has been added since it was reviewed that I want to make sure that the prose quality and sources are good.

Thanks, Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 16:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• " After meeting up with..." not keen on the "up" here, I understand it's typical American English but I think it's entirely redundant.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Spears recorded the singer recorded " eh?

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Additional songwriting was done by " yuck on the "was done by", clumsy phrase.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The teen-pop ballad, speaks of a " no need for the comma.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "a similar sound to " -> "a sound similar to"

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "said to be miffed at " miffed -> annoyed. Or put "miffed" in quotes.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Oops!...I Did It Again" is missing a space after the ellipsis.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think you need to link Sweden and Switzerland, very common geographical terms...

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "writing was done by his " same again.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it "Robert Lange", "Lange" or "Mutt Lange"? All are correct but I suggest you stick with one in the prose.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "seconds.[8][3]" put refs in order.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "that the "Eagles-esque chorus" worth linking Eagles here I think.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Barnes and Noble" should really be "Barnes & Noble".

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "on the last week " surely "in" the last week?

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "March 2, 2001.[30][19] " put refs in order.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "time, Justin Timberlake[26][27]." put refs after the full stop.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Spears performing "Don't Let Me Be the Last to Know" on 2011's Femme Fatale Tour." no full stop required.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "she is seen on a tree where " you really don't need to link tree here.

  Lol sorry!  Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "and a guy from " a little colloquial.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• "broadcasting done by American " again, "done" is clumsy.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Weekly charts table is out of order to start with (the Belgian charts switch when you sort by chart name).

  They switch because one is Ultratop 40 and the other is Ultratop 50. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Year-end and Certifications tables really don't need to be sortable with a single entry in each.
• Ref 6 has a spaced hyphen in the title, should be an en-dash per WP:DASH.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent with the spacing after the ... in reference titles featuring Oops!... I did it again!

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 18, 20, 25, 34, 35 need an en-dash.

   Fixed - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry it took me so long. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Employment integrity testing

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are part of Wikipedia's Initiative to better articles. Please look over and comment.

Thanks, JAShelton (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't use level one headings, i.e. those like =Types of integrity testing=, try ==Types of integrity testing== instead.
• Then make the current level two headings into level three headings (with three = either side of the title of the section).
• Although it's short, I'd prefer to see a pair of short paragraphs in the lead summarising the article.
• Odd start by using dictionary definitions for integrity and test, not engaging at all, try telling me what "employment integrity" means straight away and I might be interested!
• In fact, three dictionary definitions (including "construct") in the lead is a real turn-off.
• "the honesty of the potential candidate is well enough " is "well" enough? Not sure that's good English at all.
• No need for so many example questions.
• "from your employer? [4]" no spaces between refs and punctuation.
• "Examples of personality-oriented integrity test are: Personnel Reaction Blank, Employment Inventory from Personnel Decisions Inc., and the Hogan Personality Inventory. [4]" while I'm sure this is true, it doesn't tell me anything about those particular tests. And why so many capital letters?
• Refs that are online need publisher/accessdate/publication date/author etc information.
• Refs with page ranges need to use an en-dash, not a hyphen, per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Job analysis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am working on this page for a psychology class at Ball State University. We are trying to improve the Industrial/Organizational Psychology-related articles on Wikipedia. For most of us, this is our first time editing articles on Wikipedia. I am hoping that someone will be able to review this article and let us know if we are on the right track, or what information needs to be added/changed.

Thanks, Mnshumate (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is way too short, a couple of brief paragraphs are needed for an article of this size which summarise the topic under discussion.
• "Industrial/Organizational Psychology" no need for all those capital letters, these aren't proper nouns.
• "to prepare job description and job specification " either "to prepare job descriptions and specifications" or "to prepare a job description and a job specification"
• "workforce into the organization" into "an" organization. Remember, this is an enyclopedia article, not a "how-to" guide.
• "definition of a job domain; describing a..." be consistent. Either "definition..; description of..." or "defining ....; describing..."
• Human Resources -> human resources.
• Industrial Psychology -> ditto.
• You link "task analysis" on the second time round. Usually we link things on their first use.
• "and/or compensation. [2]" no spaces between punctuation and reference.
• "conducted: task-oriented or worker-oriented." no need for the bold.
• Task-Oriented etc -> Task-oriented.
• Avoid more upper case stuff like Functional Job Analysis...
• (0-6) -> use an en-dash (per WP:DASH) here so (0–6).
• "The Dictionary of Occupational Titles " is not linked first time either, so make sure it is!
• Needs more references for the "Procedures" section.
• "(an online resource which has replaced the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)" missing a closing parenthesis.
• Refs need titles, accessdates, publication dates, publishers, authors, etc where possible.
• You have a duff "interwiki" link, see [[nl:Arbeidsanalyse.
• Other Sources -> Other sources.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

John Robert Boyle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm thinking of taking this to FAC, though it's a good deal shorter than anything I've nominated there before. I'd hoped that I might be able to dig up more about his career as a jurist, but the legal literature databases don't turn anything up about him, so I think we may be left with what's seeped into the political coverage. I'd welcome thoughts on any aspect of the article, and there's nothing in particular that I'm wondering about (though if you notice any obvious gaps in coverage, I can try to dig up sources). Thanks, Steve Smith (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• I think a footnote explaining (or at least noting) the vast difference in dates of birth would be useful.
• "he came west " not sure what that really means, I would suggest he moved to the west of the country rather than "came west"?
• "1888 and 1889" how does one complete high school twice?
• Lake Louise is a dab link.
• "Table (parliamentary procedure)" is linked, but is a kind of dab because it says the same phrase has two opposite meanings.
• You link Canadian dollar the second time round.
• Just a question really, you have Quebec with no accents but Québécois with two. Is that conventional?
• Not sure you need to link "pipeline" really.
• "1921|1921 election]], Boyle " something odd going on here...
• "In the [[Alberta general election," ditto.
• Do the colours in the table mean anything?
• Perhaps separate the last part of the table out since there are seemingly no political affiliations. Currently with the empty cells it looks quite odd.
• I would typically expect the notes to be referenced.
• "Law, John M.." spare dot.
• 1892-1940 - en-dash needed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Louis Riel (comics)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it to be reasonably complete and comprehensive, and would like to get some more eyes on it to improve it and spot any oversights.

Thanks, CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 14:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria

A few points. Before I get too much further, can you elaborate on your hopes for this article? Is this improvement for its own sake, or are you hoping to go the GA/FA route?

• Mix of spelling conventions - should probably use CanEng consistently (so -ization but -our)
• Don't use contractions in article text
• Suggest moving the Appendix section up, or perhaps merging into Overview
• Any further information on influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

—

Thanks for the quick feedback.

I'm aiming at at least GA. My long-term goal is to bring all Chester Brown-related articles to GA-status. This is the first one I've done that feels more-or-less complete (with all statements reffed). FA would be nice, but I'm not sure that Canadian alternative cartooning would be considered the stuff of FAs. I'd be delighted to be told I'm wrong.

When you say influence, do you mean influences on the book, or influence the book has had on others? As for the former, Brown has a long list of influences, but he changes his style from project to project. With Louis Riel, the influence was overwhelmingly Harold Gray, with a few others thrown in (I think I've listed all that were explicitly mentioned in my sources). As for influence on others, I don't have anything concrete from reliable sources (there are many who claim Brown as an influence, but I don't have anything that says "Work X was influenced by Louis Riel" specifically). CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, if Cartman Gets an Anal Probe can be FA, I'm sure an alt comic can. I meant influence the book has had on others, but if there's no info on that, that's fine. The article seems a bit on the short side, but for GA that shouldn't be a problem. Some more comments:

• Quite a few duplicate links - User:Ucucha has a script that highlights them, if you're interested
• File:Rielcomicstripcover.jpg needs a FUR for its use in this article
• File:Thomas_Bland_Strange.jpg needs a US PD tag
• Some typos and grammatical errors - for example "governement", "incidient", "rôle" (actually, it seems like some parts may be translated from French?), "Alan Moore use", "because was amused", etc
• Check for consistency in details like U.S. vs US
• Suggest "Plot" instead of "Summary"
• Be careful to distinguish between what is actually considered historical fact and what is presented as such by the book
• "caricatures his features in an ideological charged manner" - you'll probably need to explain this further
• "and in softcover in 2006.[2] A softcover version was released in 2006" - why the repetition?
• Avoid first-person pronouns
• Some of the See also links would be better incorporated into the article body
• Further reading should go after References per WP:LAYOUT
• Referencing format needs cleanup to be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

—

I think I've tackled all you've brought up here, although I've expanded a number of the sections along the way as I found more things in my sources (and a some new sources), so I may have introduced more issues. A couple of things:

1. "Rôle" is actually an accepted English usage, albeit an obnoxious one (I also use the spelling "coördinate"). If someone removed it, I would never revert it, but it is how I actually spell it in real life.
2. I'm not sure if the formatting of my referencing is up to par, and could use some help.

Thanks. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 10:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Museum of the Earth

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have rewritten the content and added in sources. I want to make sure the page fits into the proper Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks, Sarah Stapp (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Refrain from making it sound like an advert, using language like "highlights include"... that's POV and not encyclopedic.
• Neutralise the tone, "takes the visitor on a journey " is really not what I'd expect to read in an encyclopedic article.
• The article is short, I'd expect two brief paragraphs in the lead, perhaps one on the foundation and ownership etc of the museum, another describing the type of exhibits and perhaps including some info on the number of visitors etc.
• Alhough I've suggested you remove that "highlights" from the lead, this: "United States. [3]" is worthy of note - place the refs immediately after punctuation, no spaces. Check the other refs in the article.*Put (PRI) after the explanation of what it means.
• "(1,700 m2)" use a superscript or say square-meter.
• "recently best known for designing the award-winning women's war memorial at Arlington National Cemetery." unnecessary.
• "The design for the Museum has attracted much critical notice" good, bad or ugly? Expand this.
• "offers a multitude of exhibits" reads like an advert.
• "In 2003, the North American Right Whale #2030 skeleton" explain what it is!
• "ended her life." killed her.
• "The exhibit now serves as the whale’s memorial." schmaltzy.
• "obtained... obtaining" repetitive, aim for more engaging prose.
• "the whale’s bones arrived " the whale's skeleton?
• "an eon (geology), five hundred and fifty million years" pipelink eon so it doesn't have (geology) after it.
• "aiming to challenge their perceptions about the present, future, and human effects and dependence on Earth" if this is a quote from the museum, put it in quotes, if not, rephrase it so it's not quite so adverty.
• "guests to do a variety " don't like "do a variety" here, reads clunkily.
• "10,000-15,000 pounds" see WP:DASH for this, we would use an en-dash here, not a hyphen.
• "Students, hobbyists, and families have all taken part and since 2008 alone" not of encyclopedic interest.
• Don't mix date formats in the references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Nintendo DSi

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like editors to identify additional areas of concern that I may have missed. Similar to what Laser brain brought up.

Thanks, « ₣M₣ » 09:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a full/real review, but do note that:

• The automated reviewer did find some things - the need for more links, abbreviations, etc
• Checklinks also finds some problems, including at least one dead link

Allens (talk | contribs) 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "in 2008 and 2009 in Japan, North America, PAL territories, and other regions" slightly confusing, could you be more specific where and when it launched, e.g. 2008 in Japan and 2009 in... (or whatever).
• "launched in 2009 and 2010 in the aforementioned regions" same again.
• "Development of the DSi began in late 2006, and it was unveiled ..." the "it" here could refer to the development not the DSi so I'd rephrase slightly.
• PC World on Wikipedia is referred to as PCWorld.
• You don't really cover the "software library" in the lead, it should be mentioned so the lead is a good summary of the whole article.
• "Nintendo also improved its audio " not keen on this sentence at all. What was improved? Do you mean the quality of the audio was improved? The volume? And would re-emphasise "the handheld" in the first part of this sentence, not the second.
• Removing the GBA slot... in the lead this is "to ensure durability" but in the body it's "to improve portability without sacrificing durability", not quite the same.
• "The DSi's original design ... design..." a bit repetitive.
• "...unit "neat" and "simple". " these quotes need reference.
• "was meant to " prefer "was intended to"
• "Development of a large DS Lite model in 2007 eventually became the DSi XL " not sure "eventually became" perhaps "eventually led to"
• "(ニンテンドーDSi LL, Nintendō DSi LL?))." seems to have a spare ).
• "jump-started the DSi XL project " I'm not sure I know what you mean by "jump-started" here.
• "By the end of the month, it sold 535,000 units" lost track of what "it" is here.
• "i am 8-bit" is called "iam8bit" in our article.
• " to get a DSi " a bit sloppy, "to purchase" or "to buy".
• Not sure I see a requirement to link "news leak".
• Who are M2 research and Billy Pigeon, and why should I care what they say?
• "589 ten thousand" etc. really odd way of saying 5.89 million.
• "16.88 of the 27.11 million " either use a percentage or you should add "million" after 16.88.
• "14.66 of the 17.52 million " ditto.
• You have .74 inches but 0.3 megapixels. My preference would be to consistently use a zero before the decimal point.
• "The DSi's main and sub-printed circuit boards." no full stop required.
• "The camera's resolution is " (singular) followed by "However, their resolution are considerably " (plural).
• "in rapid session," what does that mean?
• "and a greater overall size" why not just "and is larger than"?
• "cost restraints " constraints?
• No need to relink "viewing angle".
• LovePlus+ is just called LovePlus on Wikipedia.
• "the Wii's Photo Channel, and" no need to relink Wii here.
• "Guitar Hero: On Tour series" add "series" into the link, our article is Guitar Hero: On Tour series.
• "As of June 2011..." well it's April 2012, so can we update this?
• "The Nintendo DSi with its larger XL model." no full stop required.
• "lower than that of mobile phones" very general statement. Surely not "all" mobile phones?
• No reason to link "developers" at this late stage.
• "who did not purchase previous DS models" -> "who had not purchased a previous DS model".

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A review! :o Thanks for the input. « ₣M₣ » 17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sorry it's taken so long for the community to give you something to work with! All the best, feel free to ping me if anything needs further explanation. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Tomislav Vlasic

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm unsure if the sources are reliable and if the article is up to snuff with Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks, Oct13 (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments - not sure what you're trying to achieve, e.g. GA, but will review with that (sort of) in mind:

• Four dab links, "visionaries", "cardinals", "association", "manipulation".
• What does OFM mean?
• Is there a suitable infobox you could use e.g. {{Infobox person}}?
• The lead is a little short, it should adequately summarise the whole article.
• Anything about his life before entering the priesthood?
• "he sent her to Germany and " try to refrain from linking common words and major geographical regions (in this case, Germany doesn't need to be linked).
• "a personal friend of his" of whom? the landlord of Vlasic?
• Medjugorje section needs references.
• "Vlašić left Vitina in 1987 to go to northern Italy with German laywoman Agnes Heupel, to found, with the help of the visionary Marija Pavlovic,[4] a mixed-sex association inspired by the apparitions of Medjugorje, with the name Kraljice mira, potpuno smo tvoji. Po Mariji k Isusu ("Queen of Peace, we are all yours: to Jesus through Mary")." a very long sentence!! Split it up a bit.
• "In 2009, the Congregation laicized Vlašić at his own request and forbade him to make any public statements on religious matters." needs ref and "forbade him from making any public statements" would sound better to me.
• "a video[6] about Central Nucleus," move the ref to after the comma.
• All online references should have a publisher, preferably an accessdate and publication date.
• Could probably find another category as a person from Yugoslavia.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Herne Hill railway station

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have been working on this article about a South London railway station for the past few months. It recently became a good article and I've expanded it considerably since then. I've already had plenty of constructive feedback from the UK Railways project, but I think it's time for some fresh eyes. Could anyone with an interest in the history of London or the railways chip in? Thanks, Tommy20000 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• " 100m " I think WP:UNIT seems to suggest a non-breaking space should be inserted between the value and the unit. And consider a conversion to Imperial here too.
• Apply this to all other units in the article.
• Not entirely convinced you need all those years of "entry and exit" stats in the infobox, if it was me, I'd probably just have the most recent one.
• "The station also has a turnback siding (requiring the driver to change from one end of the train to the other) on its eastern side, adjacent to Milkwood Road." is this referenced anywhere?
• "to wealthy families - John Ruskin " en-dash needed, not spaced hyphen.
• "Up and Down" any reason why that's capitalised?
• "On 6 October, " reinforce year.
• Image caption with SECR appears before the explanation of what SECR means.
• "(one penny per journey)" would link "penny" here appropriately.
• "£320,000 and £310,000 respectively" that sounds massive in the late-19th century, can you "inflate" it to today's money?
• It appears that the Contemporary Review should be The Contemporary Review.
• "late night" should be hyphenated, no?
• "Crossovers and track curves omitted for clarity" needs full stop.
• Avoid squashing text between images.
• "...: Modernisation" - expect the M to be an m.
• "The signal box as seen in an early 20th century postcard of Herne Hill." not a complete sentence so no need for a full stop.
• " 6 trains per hour (tph)" six.
• "2tph" -> "2 tph".
• "1988 to present" section, two single-sentence paras at the end look a little odd.
• "A map showing..." no need for full stop.
• " 20 yards" need some consistency here, you previously wikilinked sq ft and converted it, suggest you do the same here, and be consistent throughout.
• "Another fatal collision..." the previous collision wasn't fatal.
• Our own article on Route utilisation strategy doesn't have a many capital letters as the link here.
• "8-car" -> "eight-car".
• Victoria Line -> Victoria line.
• "The station is operated by Southeastern [train operating company]]. The off-peak service as of December 2011 is:" missing a [
• Refs should avoid SHOUTING.
• Online refs should preferably have access dates
• PDFs ref'd should have format=pdf
• Use spaced en-dash rather than spaced hyphen (per WP:DASH) in ref titles.
• And ref 98 (for instance) should be pp. rather than p. and use an en-dash rather than a hyphen in the range.
• Category "DfT..." there's no explanation in the article what DfT mean. Perhaps that category needs to be renamed?
• Nor is C2 station mentioned anywhere.....

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've made all of these changes except for the format=pdf (this just adds 'pdf' to the start of the reference; is that what it's supposed to do?) and the DfT/C2 category name change (which is perhaps best left to the guys at the UK Railways Project). I don't think there's any need to mention the station's C2 categorisation in the article as its only purpose is indicating the station gets a certain amount of traffic a year. I'll add in access dates for the online sources tomorrow morning.Tommy20000 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The pdf thing helps those with WP:ACCESS issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the entry/exit stats: these are a normal feature of UK railway station articles. When necessary, we show the five most recent, for the purposes of year-by-year comparison.

I see that SECR has now been removed from that image caption. This presents a new problem: the map shows lines of several colours, primarily green and pink, which when the map is sufficiently enlarged, are seen to mean "London, Brighton & South Coast" and "South Eastern & Chatham"; but at that point in the narrative, the term "South Eastern & Chatham" has not yet been introduced either. The reason that I put the text SECR(LCDR) in pink; LB&SCR in green. in the caption was to show that the LCDR lines, which had been discussed, were the pink ones.

I've given a better link for penny since this is pre-decimal currency.

Regarding inflation: there are standard formulae for this, see for example James Cudworth (engineer)#Coal-burning firebox or the last paragraph of NBR 224 and 420 Classes#History.

Regarding DfT and C2: these are both are explained by the link at the top of Category:DfT Category C2 stations. Almost all National Rail stations in England and Wales belong to one or another of these eight categories; to omit Herne Hill would mean a gap in the categorisation. BTW it doesn't indicate traffic, but the facilities provided. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well C2/Dft isn't explained in the article, so it's odd to see it in the cats. Inflation, yes, I'm very well aware of standard formula, my suggestion was to include it in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added five years of entry stats (so only one year has been dropped from the original) and used the standard formula for calculating inflation. With regards to the image, I thought a good solution would be to expand the description of the image rather than include the names of the operators in the caption as you can't see any of the detail in the thumbnail anyway.Tommy20000 (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

All PDFs are now properly tagged and all online sources have an access date of today (I checked they were all still active).Tommy20000 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Organizational commitment

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we have been assigned as a group to improve the quality of this wikipedia page. Any suggestions about how to make our edits better would be much appreciated. We are all new to this and are a little unsure if what we are doing is always correct. We are open to any and all suggestions and constructive criticism for our page.

Thanks, Cmchildress (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)cmchildressCmchildress (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid all the overcapitalisation. "Organizational Behavior" mid-sentence is not a pair of proper nouns, so shouldn't be capitalised. Check throughout.
• "future research.” [1] " two things here, first put the ref directly after the punctuation (i.e. no space) and second, use " rather than ” per WP:PUNC.
• "by Kanter (1968)[citation needed])." fix, and the other ones.
• "Affective Commitment" overcapitalised.
• If you use "AC" as an abbreviation, put (AC) after the first use of it in prose.
• "found a correlation of 0.73 between" I think you need to explain this kind of thing in more detail.
• "Cmchildress (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)cmchildressCmchildress (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)" remove your own signature from the page!
• Refs 1-3 are the same, so use <ref name=blah>....</ref> for the first one then <ref name=blah/> for the subsequent refs.
• Use an en-dash per WP:DASH in the refs for page ranges, year ranges etc.
• Formatting issues on the last three references.
• You have a red-linked category, usually these aren't a good idea unless you're going to populate the new category with several more articles.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Performance appraisal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am completing this Wikipedia article as a project for a graduate course at Ball State University, and I would like to produce a commendable piece of work. Also, it is my intention to present my work and research at a meeting with my peers and professors in mid-April. I would very much appreciate any advice, suggestions, constructive criticisms, etc. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Jlael303 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead could be a touch longer, two paragraphs completely summarising the article.
• Avoid all the overcapitalisation throughout, e.g. "Applications of Performance Appraisal Results" -> "Applications of performance appraisal results".
• "discussion [1] " avoid spaces before refs. Ideally place refs directly after punctuation.
• "weaknesses, etc. [2][4]." don't put punctuation after refs either.
• "Performance Management " no need to capitalise Management.
• "administration[7][5]." make it "administration.[5][7]"
• "Other potential benefits include" if you insist on having a list, use a bullet-pointed one by using an asterisk at the start of each line.
• “At the -> use straight punctuation marks, i.e. "
• Some whitespace at the beginning and end of the article.
• Online ref needs publisher, publication date, author, access date etc where possible.
• Page ranges needs en-dash, not hypen per WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Discipline Global Mobile

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

• Music fans and business-ethicists may enjoy reading about the music company of Robert Fripp (King Crimson).
• I want to improve the article to attain Featured Article status.
• The article was improved by the successful Good-Article nomination, with the improved article then receiving high praise (at my talk page).
• The article is short, and a peer-review should not be taxing.

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there a real necessity to abbreviate King Crimson? Do the band use that abbreviation?
• " in compact discs" usually "on compact discs" or "in compact disc format".
• Every sentence in the lead contains DGM. Perhaps you could shake it up a little with the odd "The company..." or similar?
• "by Martin (1997)" this is very odd to me, who is Martin (1997)? I know it links to a ref, but that's an odd thing to say in prose.
• (pictured, immediate right) - I've never seen this in articles before, I don't think it's necessary either.
• I see no real good reason for the subsections 1.1, 3.1 and 4.1, the content of those sections could easily be merged into 1, 3 and 4.
• I wouldn't include King Crimson in the links to the subsections, just the "in 1974" and "in 1981" would work better for me.
• (pictured, top of page) same comment as before.
• "which remain visible at the DGM site." what does that mean? Physically? On the website? Do you mean they're displayed prominently at the workplace?
• "These aims include" colon would be good after "include".
• "DGM's aims were called "exemplary" by Martin (1997), " same comment as before.
• (pictured), not needed.
• "logo's designer,[2][16] Steve Ball.[9][11][17][18]" does that sentence really need 6 cites?
• "above the prevailing rate." surely there is no "prevailing rate" in the music industry? Isn't it all done on a case-by-case basis?
• Peter Hamill has two m's.
• Guitar Craft or Guitar-Craft?
• "according to Atton (2004, p. 153).[14]" isn't that the point of [14] so you don't have to write "according to ..."?
• "wrote Atton (2001, p. 43)." ditto.
• "April–May 1980" I seem to recall that should be a spaced en-dash. Check WP:DASH.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Replies

Thanks again The Rambling Man, for your great effort and very good suggestions.

I reply to your concerns:

• Is there a real necessity to abbreviate King Crimson? Do the band use that abbreviation?

  I should see what Sid Smith, Eric Tamm, and our King Crimson article use.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• " in compact discs" usually "on compact discs" or "in compact disc format".

  True! :)

• Every sentence in the lead contains DGM. Perhaps you could shake it up a little with the odd "The company..." or similar?

  Hmmm.... :)

Addressed topics

"by Martin (1997)" this is very odd to me, who is Martin (1997)? I know it links to a ref, but that's an odd thing to say in prose. DONE! I cite sources in text when their statements are especially strong, and may be questioned by a reader. Footnotes suffice, I think. (pictured, immediate right) - I've never seen this in articles before, I don't think it's necessary either. REMOVED! I see no real good reason for the subsections 1.1, 3.1 and 4.1, the content of those sections could easily be merged into 1, 3 and 4. DONE I wouldn't include King Crimson in the links to the subsections, just the "in 1974" and "in 1981" would work better for me. DONE, also rewriting terrible prose. (pictured, top of page) same comment as before. "which remain visible at the DGM site." what does that mean? Physically? On the website? Do you mean they're displayed prominently at the workplace? REMOVED as OR and inessential.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC) "These aims include" colon would be good after "include". REWROTE "DGM's aims were called "exemplary" by Martin (1997), " same comment as before. DONE! (Same reply. Also Martin's book is Marxist, so his "exemplary" deserved an in-text attribution.) (pictured), not needed. REMOVED! "logo's designer,[2][16] Steve Ball.[9][11][17][18]" does that sentence really need 6 cites? DONE! I joined citations where possible. For this fact, The KC/DGM material, Ball, and Fripp should be reliable sources for the proposition that Ball owns the design. Hegarty and the other H's book credits him with the design. Some sources are used elsewhere, so could not be combined.

• "above the prevailing rate." surely there is no "prevailing rate" in the music industry? Isn't it all done on a case-by-case basis?

  The prevailing rate depends upon one's position in music, I suppose. I shall try to clarify this.

resolved concerns

Peter Hamill has two m's. FIXED! Guitar Craft or Guitar-Craft? I should have considered hyphenation when GC is used as an adjective, in which case concatenating three nouns seems Teutonic. I tend to be a hyphenation maximalist, and again I usually capitulate to my readers' wishes, when answering to editors. "according to Atton (2004, p. 153).[14]" isn't that the point of [14] so you don't have to write "according to ..."? "wrote Atton (2001, p. 43)." ditto. DONE "April–May 1980" I seem to recall that should be a spaced en-dash. Check WP:DASH. DONE! I checked and happily learned that my usage of the en-dash was recommended. WP:DASH gives these examples of correct en-dash usage: "1–17 September" and "February–October 2009".

I shall write more later.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Ezra Pound

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it could do with another set of eyes before nominating at FAC. It's a long page, so huge thanks in advance to the person who does the review! In the meantime, I'll be working on tidying references and other issues I'm aware need to be done, but any feedback before FAC will be helpful.

Thanks so much, Truthkeeper (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• "Pound was responsible for the publication in 1915 of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", and for the serialization from 1918 of Joyce's Ulysses." – the prepositional phrase "in 1915" would do better as an adjective, hence: "Pound was responsible for the 1915 publication of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", and for the serialization from 1918 of Joyce's Ulysses."
• "The Wadsworths married into the Westons of New York, and Harding Weston and Mary Parker produced Isabel Weston, Pound's mother." – is there a better word than 'produced'? Also, 'and' is repetitive.
• "It also includes his translation of the eighth-century Old English poem "The Seafarer", not a literal translation, but a personal interpretation intended for readers with no Old English, a poem in its own right." – with no Old English what? Knowledge?
• "He began to call Imagisme "Amygism," and in July 1914 declared it dead, asking only that the term be preserved, although Lowell eventually Anglicized it." – what a wonderful use of the subjunctive. Delicious.

Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 17:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eisfbnore! I've temporarily moved the page into a sandbox to work on refs and so as not to get out of sync will address these a little later. I particularly like the comment about the subjunctive! Truthkeeper (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

These have been fixed. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

While you are working on references:

• Citation missing for Nadel (2007). There are two possibilities in Dorothy Shakespear and a comment next to the ref definition saying "check this edition vs. the 1999 ed".
• Short form ref consistency: please choose either "Nadel (2007), 18" or "Tytell 1987, pp. 337–339." or whatever style but not a mixture.

Happy editing. --Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for pointing that out. I intend to go with "Nadel (2007), 18", and need to check against the editions I have at hand. Will be a bit of work, but worthwhile. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I don't know a lot about Pound, but I'd like to read the article and offer a few pointers on style, clarity etc. I had a long association with what was once the Regent Street Polytechnic, now the University of Westminster; I think it's hilarious that the University's WP article lists Pound as a "former faculty member", on the strength of the few night classes he gave! Detailed comments shortly, probably in dribs and drabs since it's a long article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(PS) You might in the meantime deal with the two disambiguation links identified by the tool. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much Brian for taking this on. It is a large page and I'll be working my way through slowly myself, so no rush at all! Dabs done. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Later

Here are a few points that jumped out during a quick skim. I will provide more detailed comments later:-

• The first mention of Pound in sections or paragraphs should not be in the form of a pronoun. There are multiple examples of this. You will need to vary some of the prose constructions to avoid repeatedly beginning paragraphs with "Pound..."
• Numbered or bullet-pointed lists of points should be avoided in the prose (see Imagism section)
• In a couple of instances, paragraphs end with uncited statements

Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian for pointing these out. The prose will probably get a workover once the page is fully established and for sure we'll weed out the repetitive uses of his name. The bulleted list is tricky and I've put it up for discussion on the talk page. Citing and sourcing efforts continue. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Kirkcaldy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i need a bit of help. Since the failed nomination for FA back in July of last year, a partial copy-edit of the article has been completed. This is of the first three sections, consisting of history, governance and geography. I have been advised by another user that other sections such as economy, culture and landmarks require this too, as well as giving me suggestions on these three sections. I took this advice and both the economy and landmarks sections have been cut back. Although i would still like to add statistical details for the town such as localised GDP on the economy section, i believe the info is not avaliable. Other than that, i am still aiming for FA.

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Begin Noleander comments

• Italic disambig hatnotes at top: Combine the top two into one hatnote. Maybe even try to get all 3 into one.
• Lead seems to be missing some links, such as Adam Smith College... try to add more.
• Wording: "However, the burgh .." - It is almost always a bad idea to start a sentence with "However", especially at the start of a paragraph. Re-word, or merge with prior paragraph.
• Missing word? "The town the advantage of its east .." - missing something there.
• "only twelve ships in its harbour, six of which were owned by townsfolk." - who owned the other ships?
• "The centre of medieval Kirkcaldy may have been located at the corner of Kirk Wynd and the High Street." - May help readers if you say "Historians are not certain where the centre ..., but some have speculated ..." or similar.
• Arithmetic: "18.8% were married couples living together, 35.5% were one-person households, 7.9% were co-habiting couples and 10.1% were lone parents." - that does not add up to 100%
• " Other important economic sectors in Kirkcaldy's economy.." - should remove redundant "economic".
• Wording: "Kirkcaldy's town centre, which serves a large catchment area of around 130,000 residents ..." - I've never seen catchment used in that sense before; double check to make sure it is okay (it may be fine)
• Wording: "However, these plans are in serious doubt, following news ..." - the phrase "serious doubt" doesnt sound very encyclopedic; too colloquial.
• Clarify: " play in the Scottish Football League First Division ..." - readers would benefit if you said "played in the second-highest Scottish FL, the ..."; they may get misled since "First" implies it is the topmost league
• Define terms: "The oldest church in Kirkcaldy is the Category B listed ..." - Since you use Category A/B/C several times, you should define it so readers can understand. E.g. "The UK historic sites committee has designated the church as a Category B .." (I'm just making that up .. you get the idea).
• Wording: "The first grammar school was Kirkcaldy Burgh School ..." - First in the world? in Scotland? In town?
• Wording: "Adam Smith College who have..." - Probably better as Adam Smith College which has ..."
• Less puffery: "Kirkcaldy is the birthplace of many notable people such as the .." - Try "Kirkcaldy is the birthplace of the .."
• Wording: "such as a swimming pool, the ice rink, and .." - should be "an ice rink"
• Define: " with flagstones covering small burns running ..." - I hate to sound like an ignorant Yank, but what is a burn? Define (or link to Burn (landform)) for the reader.
• Link: "traffic along Kirkcaldy's High Street, ..." - Since "High street" is used several times in the article as a generic noun, you should probably link to High street so non-UK readers can get the definition.
• The article contains a few erroneous external links. Use this tool: dead link finder to see them.
• Wording: "A new £15 million leisure centre to replace Kirkcaldy Swimming Pool is to be built on the site of the existing ..." - better to say "is being built", or "is planned to be built" or " is under construction with a planned completion date .."
• Explain source: "Taylor and Márkus ..." - it is okay to name a source like that, but you should indicate to the reader why they are an authority that is worth naming. Something like "Scottish historians Taylor and Markus have analyzed ..." etc.
• Final note: It looks like a fine article, with some great pictures. I see you already nominated it once for FA, and it was not promoted. You appear to have fixed all the citing/sourcing issues; so the key (and hardest) task is the prose/grammar/flow. That is not my strong suit. I'd recommend that you implement the suggestions above (at least the ones you agree with :-) then get one more editor who is a great copy-editor to make one more pass; then go to FAC. To get a copy-editor: either post it again here on PR (after waiting 14 days); or look for a volunteer from the Guild of Copy Editors. Good luck!

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Call of Duty 2

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it recently became a good article and am wondering if there's a chance it could become a featured article soon after a few more edits.

Thanks, SCB '92 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• "published by Activision, but was published by Konami in the Japanese market." reads slightly odd to me, perhaps "published by Konami in Japan and Activision in the rest of the world"?
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Australia" or was it Australasia?
• "Other versions were made for..." would prefer "were released on other platforms, including..."
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Don't think we need to link grenade, but wouldn't fall on my sword to unlink it.
• "to go off" -> "to explode" or "to detonate".
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "There was some controversy in advertisement" -> "There was some controversy over the game's advertisement"
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The Pointe du Hoc D-Day mission in the singleplayer campaign. American LCVP landing crafts with US Rangers." why not "The Pointe du Hoc D-Day mission in the single player campaign depicting American LCVP landing crafts with US Rangers"?
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "the role of several Allied protagonists" roles?
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "character's heartbeat will become loud" will increase in volume? noticeably?
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a decent gaming article for "checkpoint"?
• "like explosions from grenades or shells" -> "such as explosions..."
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The maps include Normandy..." you should explain what the multiplayer mode offers before talking about what maps are on offs.r
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "for PC" earlier on this was for "Microsoft Windows". Be consistent.
  •  Done added "PCs" after "Microsoft Windows" in the lead-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "There's also the" avoid contractions.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "made a Battle Chatter System," you've said this once already.
  • removed-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "a more non-linear battlefield" then two paras later "was going to be less linear"... repetitive. Revisit the Development section and check it flows well and isn't repetitive.
  • removed-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "to see what's happening" avoid contractions.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• " in E3 2005" since you only link E3, suggest you say " in E3 in 2005"
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "now little icons" small icons.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "dead when they're not" avoid contractions.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Put FPS in parentheses after "first person shooter" in the lead because you have FPS in a quote but some people may not understand that.
  •  Done-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "By January 2008, the game had sold 2 million copies.[46]" any update on total sales since it's now April 2012?
• Make sure ref titles comply with WP:DASH which means replace spaced hyphens with en-dashes.
• Is it really a Category:Electronic sports games?
  • removed-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the peer review-SCB '92 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Ralph Neville

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FA and would greatly appreciate help with prose, comprehensiveness, and accessibility to the general reader. Any and all comments are welcome and greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: For some reason, before I started this I thought I was going to review an article about Warwick the Kingmaker. Ah, well! (they were probably obscurely related in some fashion). Here are my offerings:-

As far as I know, they were only distantly related, if that. Nothing I've got gives Ralph's parents, and just now I noticed that Young actually states in one of the family trees that Ralph's father is utterly unknown. Adding that into the mix now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Image caption: "Ralph Neville was buried..." Unless he's been moved, shouldn't that be "is"?

  My source says "was buried" and I'm not inclined to change that, since it doesn't say he still IS there. A lot of these folks got moved around and lost... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe I read the wrong books, but I have only ever seen "Great Seal" capitalised.

  Fixed, although I suspect I'll have someone come along and uncapitalize it sooner or later. There seems to be a concerted effort to put everything but people's names in lowercase lately... have you noted the recent trend towards "battle of Hastings" ? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  I have, and I hate it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "of the brothers, at least Ralph was illegitimate." Could be phrased better. Personally I wouldn't add this information on to the end of a sentence, I'd begin the section: "Neville, who was illegitimate, had at least three brothers..." And then, later: Neville was also related..."

  Went with your suggestions, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Having described him as "Neville" in the first paragraph, he becomes "Ralph" in the second and third paragraphs. To avoid confusion with brothers it may be better, in this section, to use "Ralph" consistently, in this s ection at least.

  I've standardized... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Are "Hugh de Neville" (1st para) and "Hugh Neville" (2nd para) one and the same?

  Yes, fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Ralph's activities for years after 1207 are not known". Needs "immediately" inserted before "after"

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "By" rather than "on" 14 April 1214

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Some rephrasing advised in final sentence to avoid recurrence of "the king".

  Try this? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal service and Bishop of Chichester

• A couple of useful facts worth inserting at the start of this section would be the date that Henry III became king, and the fact that he was nine years old.

  I added regnal dates to the body text, and added an explanatory footnote on the exact coronation date and Henry's age. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I got completely entangled in the pubctuation and sub-clauses of the following sentence, and I can't work out what it means."Neville was also vice-chancellor of England, and with the retirement of Richard Marsh, the chancellor, to Marsh's see of Durham to handle ecclesiastical affairs after his election as bishop in 1217, Neville in fact, if not in name, held the office of chancellor itself."

  I've tried to sort that out... see if it works. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Another example of too much being attempted in one sentence is: "In May and June 1219, when instability threatened the royal government, Neville was ordered by Pandulf, the papal legate, to remain in London with the great seal while a council was held at Gloucester which resulted in royal government being controlled by Hubert de Burgh the Justiciar, Pandulf, and Peter des Roches, the Bishop of Winchester." More digestible bitesizes needed.

  Broken up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Chancellor

• I think, in the idiom, that appointments are "made" rather than "done".

  Oops, yeah. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• When did the royal minority end? You are vague about this in the previous section (perhaps April 1223, perhaps December, maybe not until later). But now it appears that Neville's appointment in May 1226 was still within the royal minority. Clarification necessary.

  I"m vague because the process was vague - there were stages in the takeover of government by Henry - and they all are rather vague. (It could be argued that Henry III never really "grew up"... he always seems to have sloughed off a portion of royal government onto others...) We're hampered a bit by the lack of any comprehensive scholarly biography of Henry III here. I've added an explanatory footnote, that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• What's the distinction between a department of state and a department of government?

  None. The distinction is between an actual department of government and a department of the royal household here. I've edited a bit to be a bit more clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "splitting off the liberate rolls from the letters close in 1226 and revived the keeping of the charter rolls in 1227." "Splitting" and "revived" are inconsistent.

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "However, Neville also employed clerics..." Pronoun preferable, and "also" unrequired.

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suggest a general blitz on "also". I count 12 in the article, many redundant or avoidable

  Whacked on a few. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "...an agreement that tried to resolve..." Agreements are not active, they are the results of actions, so "an agreement that would resolve"

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "in the end the agreement did not end..." (repetition)

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• State to what office William de Raley was elected

  Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Confusion: de Raley's election was quashed, and Neville was selected in his place. Then: "However, this election to Winchester was quashed in 1239". To what election does this refer? Neville's selection?

  Hopefully clarified now... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Triple "ands" in the sentence beginning: "Valence was the uncle of..."

  Broke up a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Try and be clear as to whether there is a distiction between the "great seal" and the "seal" in the latter parts of this section

  HOpefully a bit better... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• "although the regent appears to have had some responsibility..." - perhaps name the regent in question

  The actual source used here doesn't name the regent, so I've put this in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Death and writings

• I believe it's OK to use the ordinals in a date range, thus "between 1st and 4th February". I think "between 1 and 4 February" would be fine, but the extra "February" is somewhat heavy-footed.

  I just removed the first February - every time I try to use ordinals, I get whacked on the knuckles. I'm tired of dealing with the whole MOS crowd - they drive me nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence needs reconstructing: "Besides promoting the career of his brother William,[5] one of Neville's clerks, Silvester de Everdon, served the bishop in the chancery until the bishop left the chancellorship, and then continued in the chancery until 1246, when he was selected as Bishop of Carlisle." At present it conflates two quite separate things - Neville's promotion of his brother's career, and Silvester de Everdon's unrelated activities.

  See if what I just changed it to works better.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing more. Excellent scholarship; prose needs a little tweaking and primping to reach the usual high standard. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the votes of the Manchester jury

• I'm not terribly happy about using Ralph's surname but pretty much everywhere else using Christian names for the other parties, as in "Hugh and Neville subsequently worked together ...", particularly as Neville could quite easily be a Christian name as well.

• I've tried to make it a bit less annoying to you... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "When the king returned to England after 1214, Neville remained in royal service until at least May 1216, although without custody of the Great Seal." I can't quite parse that. What has the king returning To England ("when the king returned to England") got to do with Nevill remaining in royal service until 1216? Could this be recast as "After the king returned to England ..."?

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal service and Bishop of Chichester

• "Neville was keeper of the royal seal under the new king, Henry III (r. 1216–1272)[a] from about 6 November 1218." As we haven't been told that King John died in 1216, this seems a little out of the blue. In other words, why was there a new king?

• Added a small bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "One of the first acts subsequently sealed ...". Harking back to the capitalisation issue you raised earlier, I always prefer "Act" when talking about a law, to distinguish it from an "act" such calling someone a cunt.

• Ah, but it wasn't a "law" - changed "acts" to "documents" Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "... Neville was responsible for all the duties of the chancellorship and most of the power of that office". I'm unclear what distinction you're trying to tease out here between "duties" and "power".

• Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In May and June 1219, when instability threatened the royal government, Neville was ordered by Pandulf, the papal legate, to remain in London with the Great Seal". So he was ordered twice, once in May and then again in June?

• Nope - but would "In May-June 1219... " be correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The council resulted in royal government being controlled by Hubert de Burgh the Justiciar ...". What does "government being controlled by" mean in this context? Weren't Hubert and his mates effectively the government. Was there another government they were controlling?

• Theoretically, the government in this period WAS the king. It was very unusual that a non-royal was in control of the governmental functions - that's what's meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "... but was then elected as bishop of Chichester on about 1 November 1222". Any particular reason why you've chosen to link "bishop" (uncapitalised) here?

• I did not. I'm sure this was some well meaning idiot "helping" me by linking totally unnecessary things. Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• "This effectively meant the end of the royal minority, although this did not effectively come about until December 1223 and even then was still limited by the fact that the king had not yet officially been declared of age, so that the ban on non-time limited grants remained in force." Can't quite my head round that. Apart from the rather ugly "effectively ... effectively", was Henry declared of age in December 1223?

• He was declared of age for a few actions, but not totally declared of age then. It's sort of like they said "he's of age for driving but he can't vote" yet. I warned Brian above that it was complicated... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Job satisfaction

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article is part of an IO psychology class were we are renovating this article for a good level.

Thanks, Tbalbertson (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs quite a bit more work before it would be anywhere near ready for WP:GAN; here are some suggestions for improvement. Mostly these involve better adherance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the whole happy worker hypothesis seems to be only in the lead, for one example.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but none of the theories or models listed in the article are explicilty mentioned in the lead.
• If at all possible, one or more free images should be in the article
• Wikipedia articles are to be based on published reliable sources and not on original research. Statements like this one in the lead "Logic would dictate that the most satisfied (“happy”) workers should be the best performers and vice versa." seem like original research without a reference or more explanation / development in the body of the article
• The biggest issue this article has is a lack of references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref, but there are whole paragraphs and sections with no references at all.
• For example the whole History section does not have a single inline ref (footnote). I do note that it mentions some books / work, but these should be cited as references.
• There are a fair number of what are sometimes called weasel words / weasel statements in the article - for example Some argue that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, a motivation theory, laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. or Edwin A. Locke’s Range of Affect Theory (1976) is arguably the most famous job satisfaction model. say who argues this (and cite it), or even Another well-known job satisfaction theory is the Dispositional Theory. Cite this - who says it is well-known?
• The refs that are there seem good - {{cite journal}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Section titles need to follow WP:HEAD better - watch capitalization. Another requirement is that the section headers avoid repeating the name of the article if at all possible. So "Models of Job Satisfaction" could just be "Models" (the reader already knows the article is about Job satisfaction) or "Factors that Influence Job Satisfaction" needs to be changed too.
• In general the article reads more like a college essay than a Wikipedia article. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some FAs on Psychology topics at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Philosophy_and_psychology that may be useful models.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Tichborne Case

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A legal case that transfixed Victorian Britain and had repercussions beyond its basis issue of was he or wasn't he. The legal decision, and the general opinion of historian and commentators is that he wasn't, but there is just enough doubt to keep open the possibility that he might have been. If none of that makes sense, please read the article., and many thanks for any comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede:

• "otherwise known" This doesn't convey much to the reader, I'm afraid. I recognize the careful word choices you've made in the lede. But this one leaves a body wondering what was meant.

Travels

• "well informed by letters of his doings" I would write "letter", but perhaps this is a Britishism.
• "were he alive and present, Roger would have become the eleventh baronet." Were he known to have been alive in Oz, he still would have become the eleventh;

Claimant appears

• The reader may be curious as to how Lady Tichborne had so much money. Dower rights?

• Those old family estates were full of entails and provisions for relicts of deceased baronets; and Lady T, although illegitimate, was a member of a noble French family. So although the sources don't discuss her finances, it's a pretty safe bet she was well heeled. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Support and opposition

• "Furthermore" Tone down slightly to "Additionally", I would.

• "enquiries were in Wapping" Were made?
• Was the Claimant actually bankrupt, or just broke (insolvent, perhaps)?

• Annoyingly, the sources just say he was "bankrupt", without specifying any legal processes or indeed in what name he was declared bankrupt. But I think most readers will understand that he was broke, and the word "insolvent" is perhaps les familiar.

Orton

• "Orton's existence independent from that of the Claimant, " A bit unclear.
• "despite repeated attempts to find him." I'm not sure you mean "him" Also some clarification
• "rapidly lost face value" Only if the ink ran. Perhaps "quickly traded at a considerable discount". As an aside, I'm reminded of the Phileas Fogg Bonds in the Verne work.
• "the civil case" I don't see any prior mention of the civil case in the body, though you did mention the Claimant undergoing some declarations. I should either drop in a mention earlier or else perhaps make it "the civil case the Claimant had followed to establish his identity".

Civil case

• "ejection" Surely ejectment? At least a pipe ...
• I would not write out "versus",
• I would make it clearer who Lushington was, and who the anti-Tichborne barristers represented. I imagine the younger brother leased to Lushington, and of course if the younger brother had no title ...
• Suggest a convert template with the acreage.
• " the current Solicitor General " Perhaps "then the Solicitor General"

Appeal to the public

• " in the forthcoming perjury trial" I'd delete.
• "the civil hearing" civil trial, or first trial, key word is trial.
• " in pursuit of legal justice" Perhaps "when seeking justice in the courts".
• "notorious and controversial" considerable overlap here, perhaps choose one?
• "of conspiracy to pervert justice." A supposed example of perversion might be helpful. It's too legalistic as it stands, I think.

Criminal case

• Again, I would shorten versus to v I am guessing that you are avoiding abbreviations in headings, I think this would be an exception.

"Legal forces" I'm bothered by this, but I don't have a better.

• Why is the one-word quote "monster" needed?

• I suppose because "slanderer" and "perjuror" were intended as factual descriptions, and "monster" was figurative. But I have removed the quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• " could not give evidence or receive cross-examination" How about "was not allowed to take the stand". or "was not allowed to testify"

Appraisal

• "in Australia; Orton kills Roger, and assumes his identity."Maybe "in Australia, with Orton killing Roger and assuming his identity."
• "these stories" These theories?

The article is "Tichborne case". The PR is under "Tichborne Case". Just saying.

I enjoyed the notes very much. Very well done as usual. Long stretches with nothing to say did not mean I did not look!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review. Mostly I've followed your recommendations (or come close), otherwise I've briefly commented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Shall read critically tomorrow, but at first read-through for typos etc I find "Kenealy" and "Keneally" and similarly "Stonyhurst" and "Stoneyhurst". More tomorrow. I think I'm going to enjoy this. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• I struggled with the family history section, and resorted to sketching a family tree to keep up with who was who. I'd be happy to run up a jpg version for your consideration if you agree that such a thing might clarify matters for the reader as mere prose cannot. Later: see User:Tim riley/sandbox6#Family history

• Chart adopted with grateful thanks (see your talkpage). If you want to vary it please feel free, but I think it does the job as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I missed it, there is no mention of what happened to the baronetcy and the estate after Alfred's death (and the Claimant's failure). It's not central to the matter, but perhaps a footnote would be of interest.

• I will add a little to the final section. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

These apart I have only a few comments:

• Travels and disappearance
  • "financial recklessness rapidly brought the estates to near-bankruptcy" – not all that near, presumably, if it was worth the Claimant's while to try to get hold of them and if Lady Tichborne could settle £1,000 a year on him at the drop of a hat. Later: I see you mention the residual worth of the estate in the Civil case section below, but all the same a brief word or two here would put "near-bankruptcy" into perspective.

• • It's an excellent point, and one that has iritated me, since neither of the main sources are helpful in clarifying what "bankruptcy" means in this context. Woodruff says Alfred owed £40,000, a large sum but only a small fraction of the total worth of the properties. I imagine that the bulk of the estate was tied up in family trusts, of which Alfred was the main beneficiary in his lifetime, and that he created a personal cashflow problem rather than actually bankrupting the estate - though he did give up living at Tichborne Park. I have slightly altered the text, but can't really do much more, since this would involve guesswork or OR. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Recognition in France
  • "The Claimant then disclosed" – to me, "disclosed" has at least a suggestion that what is disclosed is true. The OED doesn't agree with me on this, but I just mention it. Perhaps "confided"?
• Orton
  • "born 20 March 1834 in Wapping" – "born on 20 March …"?
• Financial problems
  • English "advisers" and American "advisors" in successive paras
• Judges and counsel
  • Inconsistency of piping of "Sir" between Cockburn (piped) and Mellor and Lush (not piped). I strongly prefer the former: I find the latter looks messy and breaks the flow of the sentence.
• Summing-up, verdict and sentence
  • I'd like a bit more on the grounds on which Kenealy was disbarred. Surely if his behaviour in court overstepped the mark all that outrageously he would have been done for contempt of court then and there? Or doesn't that apply to counsel in a case?

• • I am a little reluctant to expand on Kenealy's behaviour, having mentioned his confrontational style, his clashes with the Bench, his character assassinations of witnesses and his conspiracy theorising. He certainly was given much leeway by the judges; it was his peers on the Oxford Circuit and Gray's Inn that chopped him down. The Lord Chancellor's action was more or less an afterthought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Popular movement
  • Loud applause for your "Bernard Shaw" rather than "George Bernard Shaw"; I've fought this good fight on and off for ages. But you've Georged him in the Bibliography section.
• Appraisal
  • "with Orton killing Roger and assumes his" – "and assuming his…"?
• Notes
  • Footnote 5 introduces stones as well as pounds and kilos in a slightly inconsistent way. (I'd prefer stones throughout, but I'm an Ancient Briton who doesn't do kilos and can't divide by 14 in his head.)

That's my lot. Let me know about the family tree. No obligation to buy, as shops of my youth used to assure us. – Tim riley (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this review, with many worthwhile points and the diagram for good measure. As always, no comment means I've followed your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Fascinating and extremely well-done. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here are a few more suggestions. I wonder if DNA tests on the Claimant's remains might still be possible; I found non-RS blogs mentioning this idea but nothing RS. Don't know if such tests would be legal, feasible, or conclusive.

(McWilliam, who published in 2007, doesn't raise the DNA possibility, nor have I seen it discussed elsewhere in a reliable source. Apart from possible legal obstacles, a practical obstacle might be that the Claimant was buried in a pauper's grave along with many others, over a hundred years ago; is it likely that his remains could now be identified? I don't think anything can more be usefully said at this point, though the npossibility of some forensic breakthrough can't altogether be ruled out, at which point the article can be updated. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "a butcher's son from Wapping" - Link Wapping?

Family history

• "when Henriette had passed her twentieth birthday" - Digits: 20th?

• "on condition that he changed his name" - I would use "change" rather than "changed". Conditional rather than straight past tense, I suppose.

• "In 1849 he sat the British army entrance examinations" - Should that be "sat for" rather than plain "sat"?

• In British idiom we normally "sit examinations" rather than "sit for". Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Travel and disappearance

• "while Roger travelled on to in Peru where" - Either "to" or "in" but not both. Probably "to".

• Not sure if it's worth pointing out these minor digit thingies: "Roger spent ten months in South America... " "if he was alive, Roger became the eleventh baronet." Might be 10 and 11, depending on how you feel about utter consistency, a hobgoblin of proofreaders.

Orton

• "A former sweetheart of Orton's" - Maybe just "Orton". The language seems to be evolving to make the "of" and the possessive a married pair, or maybe not.

Civil case

• "The estates included, apart from Tichborne Park's 2,290 acres (930 ha), manors, lands and farms in Hampshire, and considerable properties in London and elsewhere, which together produced an annual income of over £20,000,[37] equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms." - I had to figure this one out. Maybe em dashes would help: "The estates included—apart from Tichborne Park's 2,290 acres (930 ha)—manors, lands and farms in Hampshire, and considerable properties in London and elsewhere, which together produced an annual income of over £20,000, equivalent to several millions in 21st century terms."

• I have found a rewording that avoids mdashes but I think makes things clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidence and cross-examination

• "Anthony Biddulph explained that he had accepted the Claimant only after spending much time in his company." - You might remind us here that Biddulph was a cousin.

Claimant's release

• "after serving ten years" - Digits?

That's all I have. Best of luck with this. Finetooth (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Except as noted I have made the fixes you suggest. Thank you for your helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments as you know I checked the images already and read the article then. I have some comments, and will leave the two most important now, with other quibbles to follow on a careful re-reading.

• The lead should have some idea of the years of the two trials - it has the year of Keneally's election and the Claimant's release from prison, but not the years of the trials themselves.
• This ref from a RS [4] mentions a "genital malformation" which both Roger Tichborne and the claimant had (and which I imagine had the effect of making the claimant's claim much more believable - hard to fake a genital malformation). I did not see this mentioned in the article, though I have not re-read the whole thing carefully. I think it ought to be mentioned as it helped me understand why anyone might believe the Claimant was Tichborne.

• Your source rather skates over the facts. While there is no doubt that the Claimant had this genital malformation, whether Roger Tichborne did is not supported by hard evidence. Kenealy's attempts to establish this through circumstantial and hearsay evidence failed to convince the court. I have, however, added a brief appropriate sentence. (If it had been established conclusively that RT did have the malformation, there could have been little doubt that the Claimant was genuine). Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wasn't Lady Tichborne (Roger's mother) a relation too? A distant cousin, Anthony John Wright Biddulph, was the only relation who accepted the Claimant as genuine;[37] however, as long as Lady Tichborne was alive and maintaining her support, the Claimant's position remained strong.[16]
• Katherine Doughty or Kathleen? (both are used)

• I think I had Kathleen Ferrier on my mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Looking into the images I found that many photos of the Claimant and other involved parties were widely sold and collected at the time. There were even figurines made of some of the parties - I do not hink this has to be a large part of the article, but a sentence or two could probably be added.

• Sentence added in the Popular movement section. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting article, and please let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. Apart from my responses, the minor fixes you suggest have been made. I woild like to have this at FAC later this week, when I have sorted out some (unrelated) issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I would welcome your final comment on the lead image, which unfortunately carries a visible moiré effect. This could be an FAC issue. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not see the moiré effect that much, but I can ask at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab if the image can be cleaned up. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are what two different image experts said at the Graphics Lab - I closed it diff Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Graphist opinion(s):I'm a little unclear about what you want done to this. I don't actually see a moiré pattern in the image, just a grid overlay which appears to be there to show how various facial features match in all three images and thus is an integral and necessary part of the image. Is that what is being referred to? If so, I don't really see that anything needs to be done to the image. Centpacrr (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly he's talking about jpg artifacts. At any rate, I touched up a few spots and dirty edges. – JBarta (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Belenggu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA class and would like feedback as to prose and comprehensiveness.

Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quick note re sourcing and comprehensiveness: reading the article I felt as though it's not fully developed, which is a requirement for a book FA. Have a look at The Sun Also Rises or True at First Light as examples. Not only is it important to pull out plot elements, themes and the like, but also to put the work in a literary and social context. I've done a quick google book search and found these, which you may or may not be able to see (hopefully you can!). Because g-book pages disappear after first or second viewing, I tend to make notes right away. Let me know if you can't view and I'll make notes for you.

• Christie
• Brakel

Lead

• Mentions Freud's psychoanalyis - but that's a huge topic. Can that be qualified at all?

Background

• I think this could do with a "Background" section to set the context (see comments above). From the little I've read it was written as a reaction or commentary about modern westernization versus more traditional values - a concept that is discussed in sources and should be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, any relevant biographical information regarding Pane should be mentioned in the background section as well for comprehensiveness. What, for example, inspired him to write this book?

• I'll try and do that this evening.

• Alright, I've added a background section and several further sources from jstor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to begin with the background section, maybe? Truthkeeper (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate gives plot first, but seeing as both yours and Maria's FAs start with a bit of background I have no issue with that. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but I usually move sections around and don't adhere exactly to WP:NOVSTY. Re the background, more below:

• "The first modern Indonesian novels, published by the state-owned publisher of the Dutch East Indies Balai Pustaka" > needs some sort of date for context. The early 20th century? The 1930s? Later?

• Done.

• "tended to show intergenerational conflict and conflict between traditional (adat) and modern culture" > try recasting this such that the novel isn't the subject but the writer who wrote the work is the subject and responsible for showing the general theme. Also, "tended to show" is a bit awkward.

• How's this?

• Yes, better. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• "This national awakening, which was also realised through political actions" > confusing to me because I don't know when we are in time; another reason to set up the para with a date/time period

• Done above)

• "This national awakening, which was also realised through political actions, was followed in July 1933 with the establishment of the literary magazine Poedjangga Baroe (New Writer); the magazine, which Belenggu's writer Armijn Pane helped found, was the first magazine written mainly in Indonesian and with exclusively Indonesian editors. > too long, needs to be split

Tried to split and trim.

Plot and characters

• I've mentioned this recently in a talk page review: I'm not crazy about separate character sections, though we still seem to have that as a suggested format at WP:NOVSTY. In my view it's best to wrap the characters into the plot and/or analysis sections - but it's up to you.

• As there is also critical commentary on the characters, I decided that a separate section would be more logical.

• Your call. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
• I've been thinking about this: there is a fair bit of analysis in the character section that I missed on the first read - I tend to skim through them, which is one reason I'm not big on those sections - that maybe should be in the themes section. Just something to keep in mind - if I were reviewing for FAC, I'd suggest restructuring a little, because, in my view, the information about modern vs., tradition, though germane to the characters, really seems to be a central theme to the novel. Just something to tuck in the back of your mind. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Rereading the section, I'm not quite sure how to cast it in the themes section. The discussion of the characters includes motives, writing, and reception, which are important to the characters. Perhaps an example? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Analysis

• Again briefly touches on Freud's psychoanalysis but nothing in the article to this point shows psychoanalytical themes - unless it's the internal dialogue. I think this idea either needs more development if the sources support it; otherwise it should be downplayed and maybe taken out of the lead.

• I'll take yet another look at the source.

Style

• "Another way in which he writes differently than earlier writers is by limiting his use of the Dutch language; earlier writers such as Abdul Muis and Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana used the language of the dominant colonial power to illustrate the intellectualism of the main characters" > a little unclear here. He writes in Indonesian or Dutch. And earlier (how much earlier, decades?) novels were written in Dutch? Needs a bit of clarification

• Tried to clarify

Prose

• A bit choppy in places. I'll try to copyedit, and will return with examples. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. That's usually my biggest weakness.

• "The resulting novel, written to represent humanity's stream of consciousness" > needs to be re-cast I think - humanity doesn't have a stream of consciousness but maybe thinks that way?

• Changed to "a"

• "Tham Seong Chee, a political scientist from Singapore, views her as a weak-willed character, unwilling to act without outside intervention and even then unable to work out her issues with Tono." > needs some clarification - who provides the "outside intervention"? Also, "unable to work out her issues with Tono" sounds a bit too informal - but it's hard to walk the line between informal and too formal

• Changed.

• kroncong > italics?

• Sure, why not... I was worried of over-italicising. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Belenggu was the first Indonesian psychological novel > needs clarification. Why? In what way? It's not quite developed well enough to be clear to the reader. Perhaps moving to the themes section might work, instead.

• Referenced instead, as that is a notable aspect of the work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for taking this up, I'll try and get a background section prepared after work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

General comment

• The two sources I linked at the top of the page (and maybe you can't see them) suggest that the novel shows a conflict between modernization and traditional values, with one of the female characters representative of the modern and the other representative of the traditional. I think that may be implied in the article but it's not made explicit. To be comprehensive, if that's what current scholarship discusses, should probably be made explicit and developed fully. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Added another sentence. I don't see it as being very explicit in the Christie and Balfas sources, although it is mentioned in the Taum source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's explicit now on a second read and maybe with some of the tweaking. I am concerned that all the sources are either foreign language or snippet view (unviewable) but I scanned Sutherland briefly. She has a diacritic for his name? Has that changed since the 1960s? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• When Sutherland was writing in 1968, Indonesia used the Soewandi Spelling System; Siregar also used the diacritic. Sources released after the spelling reform in 1972, like Teeuw, don't have the diacritic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• As for foreign language/offline sources, if I were limited to online English sources I'd end up with a plot and about 500 characters of discussion... The English sources should all be online though. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, I understand that, I meant in terms of spot-checks, which I believe are still being done at FAC. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I know. Chrisye took forever for the spotcheck... thankfully Noleander was up to it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Bloody Thursday (2011)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it to be a Good article (or even Featured). The article is a bit long, but interesting. It covers the events of the forth day of Bahrain Arab spring uprising. User:Malleus Fatuorum and few others helped me with copy-editing, which should make the review easier.

Thanks, Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments (well, if Malleus has cast his eyes over this, there's unlikely to be much I can add, perhaps some of the technical things? Who knows. Here goes....)

• In the infobox, Tear Gas -> Tear gas.
• Infobox, "Non-specified number of plain-clothed officiers from the NSA, Criminal Investigations Department and BDF Intelligence." no need for the full stop.
• "other elements of the opposition have named it the Thursday Massacre. (Arabic: مجزرة الخميس‎)." could use a ref.
• I guess Arabic names have variations on the way they're transliterated into English but Mohammed Bouazizi seems to have an article here with just Mohamed...
• "pp68–9" normally expect "pp. 68–9" but that's just a style comment.
• "were said to have been" I think it's important to say by whom this was said. Seems to be something British press are nervous about, stating numbers etc...
• Is it just "Pearl Roundabout" or "the Pearl Roundabout"? I read it both ways here and wondered if you should be consistent.
• "(pp69,229)" at least add a space after the comma.
• "Ministry of interior" for accuracy, the "interior" should be "Interior".
• Picky one, but "Bahrain City Center" is usually BritEng, so Centre.
• " that one couldn't see surroundings," avoid contractions, and this sounds like it's a personal statement rather than an encyclopaedic article.
• "Nazeha Saeed, Radio Monte Carlo [20]" remove the space before the citation.
• Al-Wasat should be in italics.
• "Despite their showing identification cards," -> "Despite showing their identification cards,"
• "As a result, the latter told doctors he resigned before he left the hospital and denied his resignation." this sentence is a little odd for me...
• "Mohamed Ramadan, a paramedic [29]" same comment about the ref placement.
• "paramedics didn't find any casualties" avoid contractions.
• "Police attacked the first paramedics and doctors who reached Pearl Roundabout." I'm not sure that's a good caption for the image I'm looking at.
• Avoid squashing text between images.
• "injuries.[3](p173) Blood bank in " perhaps "The blood bank" or "Blood banks..."
• "hospital.[34]Protesters " space needed.
• "only shortly after he had" remove "only".
• "During the raid riot " comma after raid.
• "Despite telling them he is a physician[21] police handcuffed him" "he _was_"... and a comma after physician.
• "p14-5" vs "pp14–15" consistent formatting is essential.
• "2 weeks after his injury" -> two weeks.
• "3:00 a.m." vs "at 6 am" vs "8:30 am" consistency needed throughout.
• In the Deaths section, why the use of italics? No need.
• "He had 3 sons" three.
• "pp230-1" en-dash. Check all page ranges.
• "Abdul Jalil Khalil, Al Wefaq [54]" no space before ref. Check all others.
• "on the national T.V" -> "on national television".
• "U.S. Secretary of State [63][15]" order the refs (and remove the space).
• "And canceled later.[70]" is that a sentence?! Merge it with the previous.
• In the Media reports section, make sure that works like The New York Times are depicted correctly and in italics.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Lewisville, Texas

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've made substantial changes to this page over time, and have taken some (but not all) of the advice from past reviews into mind. That said, I could use a bit more specific advice than "that's not enough" or "that's too much". I especially need help with details on what should be included in the lead section, as WP:LEAD is rather vague. Any suggestions on sections to add would also be useful.

Thanks, Runfellow (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• For an article of this length, I would expect a larger lead, three or four sizeable paragraphs. It should adequately summarise the article, so you could aim to have one or two sentences covering each major section of the article.
• "Council-Manager" should be "Council–manager"
• " in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex" you have three links here, which is confusing since the last one is the link for all three together.
• Also no need to capitalise metroplex.
• "It incorporated in 1925, making it one of the oldest incorporated..." repetitive.
• "As of 2010,..." it's 2012... any update?
• Does MOS:FLAG allow those flag icons in an infobox?
• ""Oh! Susanna"[3]) " not sure about that ref placement, would think it better outside the closing parenthesis.
• "Missouri-Kansas-Texas" needs en-dashes.
• "(minus leaders Bonnie and Clyde)" minus is an odd phrase to use here, perhaps "without"?
• "Garza-Little Elm" en-dash.
• "Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport" ->"Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport"
• "36.398 square miles" a little overly precise for my taste. Check others.
• Is the table of temperatures compliant with MOS:DTT which would make it accessible to screen-readers? This involves row and col scopes.
• "662 acres..." previously you've converted units from Imperial to metric, suggest you're consistent throughout. Similar comment applies to the Proposed park system section.
• "Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex " en-dash and no M for metroplex needed.
• " In March 2012, the city's park board began reviewing the new park plan, which addresses the next ten years of park development in the city." unreferenced.
• MCL and public library captions are incomplete sentences so don't need a full stop.
• I see no good reason to have the 2012 Lewisville City Council results in a table, it looks quite out of place.
• The populations table, same MOS:DTT comment, also, to make it look nicer, you could add "Sources:" before the three sources.
• "from 1977-2007" replace the hyphen with "to" or if you insist, it'll need to be an en-dash per WP:DASH.
• What does "Roads" section mean? Are these the sum total of all roads in Lewisville? I'm not clear.
• Our article on JPMorgan Chase doesn't have a space after the JP.
• Refs with page ranges need to use pp. not p. and should have an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• Refs for Dallas Morning News should be The Dallas Morning News.
• Year ranges in the refs need en-dashes as well as the page ranges.
• "Press Releases" -> "Press releases"
• The "Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex" category should be renamed appropriately in accordance with our article. Or vice-versa. Either way one of them isn't correct.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Nolan Godfrey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…It may be suitable, if peer editors agree so, for a higher grade and listing in the groups it is part of.

Thanks, Andythomas2011Andrew Thomas 07:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Not sure this is an "arts" PR, but anyway...
• All references need to be reformatted to avoid bare URLs, they need titles, publication dates, etc.
• Avoid links like the one you have for "MTV's Teen Wolf " in the middle of prose.
• Avoid # to mean "number" in prose.
• "UMass Amherst" use the full title.
• " 9-3 " use en-dash per WP:DASH, see many other issues on the article.
• "Semi-final" why is "Semi" capitalised?
• " (see Table 1.0 below)." what?!
• "through his company, FaceOff Club. US Lacrosse has invited him to be a featured speaker at their 2011 National Convention in Baltimore and he returned again to speak in 2012.[23] Godfrey's business pursuits extend also to Claddagh Lacrosse and Southern Combat Lacrosse." again, too many links here which aren't in-line refs.
• Statistics section, are the tables compliant with MOS:DTT so that screen-readers can read the information?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Blackford County Courthouse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article (Blackford County Courthouse) for peer review because I have upgraded its footnotes with the goal of achieving Good Article or Featured Article status—depending on the thoughts of the reviewers.

Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• " Blackford County courthouse" or " Blackford County Courthouse"? be consistent throughout.
  • I will change all to "Blackford County Courthouse" to be consistent with another Wikipedia article, Hudson County Courthouse. TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "One of the more magnificent buildings in the region..." borderline POV.
  • I will see if I can find a quote as a replacement. In the Significance section, one quote already says “its size and architecture dominate”. TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed—Dropped "magnificent" and added a quote. TwoScars (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "that eventually became named " for some reason this jars me, maybe "that was eventually named..."?
  • Will work on that. Although the community was called Hartford, it was not official. Eventually, it became officially named Hartford, and was later changed to Hartford City. TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to "The small cluster of log cabins called Hartford....", and added a note that explains Hartford becoming Hartford City. TwoScars (talk)
• "was not organized " I'm not sure I know what this means (I'm Brit so that may explain my ignorance?)
  • Will work on that too. Although the county was created by state government, no county government officials were appointed or elected. It took over a year (and more effort by state officials) before governing officials were in place. TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to "no county government was organized until..." TwoScars (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Historic Marker on south lawn of Blackford County courthouse." no capital M required, nor a full stop.
  • Both fixed TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Total proposed ..." why not "The total proposed..."?
  • Changed to "The proposed cost...." TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Total cost ..." ditto.
  • Changed to "The total cost...." TwoScars (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The area began a period of growth ..." odd sounding, maybe "The area experienced a period of growth"?
  • Changed to "The area experienced a period of economic growth...." TwoScars (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Commemorative plaque inside Blackford County courthouse." no full stop required.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Later in October" I don't think you need "Later" but if you insist, I think you need a comma after it.
  • Dropped "Later", and edited text in that sentence. TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "with gas included" what does that mean?
  • Changed to "with gas heat included" TwoScars (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "a 165 foot " I would expect this to be hyphenated.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "The western side of the Blackford County courthouse." no need for the full stop. Check all other captions which are incomplete sentences - they don't need full stops either.
  • All captions fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think you need to link "window".
  • Removed link to window. Hoped to find a link to "fan window", but could not find one. TwoScars (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "(See south side photo herein.)" not required.
  • Removed TwoScars (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "A clock can " A clock or The clock?
  • Change to "A clock face can ". The tower really contains a single clock mechanism with four clock faces. One clock face cannot appear from all four sides. TwoScars (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Again, "(See photo herein.)" x2 no need.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Headings - a lot of capitals in here, does "Memorial" really need capitalising in the heading when it's not capitalised in the text?
  • Removed capitalizations of memorial and monument in headings and captions. TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Blackford Lodge #106 " don't use # to mean number in prose.
  • Fixed in prose, left in footnote and reference TwoScars (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 55 needs to be formatted per usual for online links.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Second external link needs an en-dash rather than a hyphen per WP:DASH.
  • Fixed TwoScars (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your help, TwoScars (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    

---

Futurama

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to FA status. I know the article is not yet perfect, but it is (in my opinion) in a much better shape than when previously reviewed as a GA/FA candidate. As it is a large article, I'd like to know what specific areas are worth focusing on.

Thanks, Dorsal Axe 11:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade51 comments -- I think the article has a long way to go before it can be nominated for a WP:FAC. Some areas, such as 'Setting' and 'Themes' are well-written but a lack of citations in certain areas and prose problems lets it down. I've only skim read and below are the main concerns/ideas:

• For inspiration, I suggest taking a look at other WP:FAC's related to the topic. The obvious, of course being The Simpsons.
• Ask yourself this: does WP:LEAD provide a summary of the show? Does "In March 2011, it was announced that Futurama has been renewed for a seventh season, consisting of at least 26 episodes, scheduled to air in 2012 and 2013", really need to be included in the lead?
• Would be nice if someone could find a picture of David Herman.
• Under 'Opening sequence', "This was first trialled in the opening sequence for "Mars University", however it was realised", should it be 'realized' because it's an American program → American English?
• Under 'Cancellation and revival': "Groening and Cohen wanted Futurama to be shown at 8:30", 8:30 am? pm?
• Under 'setting' why is New New York italicised in the second sentence, but not in the first. I know it's to stress the passive voice but WP:CONSISTENCY
• Crossbred does not need to be hyphenated.
• "In the French dubbing of the show, German is used as the extinct language instead.", source for that?
• 'International broadcast' could have some prose above the table, providing a summary of Futurama in other countries. Needs to be fully sourced where applicable. There is an extra column in the table I think.
• "Journalist/critic Frank Lovece" → Journalist and critic Frank Lovece...
• Is there a series summary table, like The_Simpsons#Broadcast? Perhaps you could follow that layout.
• Likewise, is there a page for awards and nominations? Instead of listing all in this article, it could be summarized.
• With references, be consistent with the date format; is it 15-04-2012 or 15 April 2012?
• Is Ref 74 a reliable source?
• Ref 77 is a YouTube link and therefore can't be considered a reliable source. There could be a copyright problem; see WP:YT for more information.
• For Ref 99, the work is 'BBC Cult' and the publisher is 'BBC'. I notice it was published in 2002, not 2001.
• Refs 120, 121 and 122 look like barelinks.
• Two dablinks need fixing.
• Three dead links. – Lemonade51 (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

Nintendo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's almost to good article in my opinion, but there are a few minor problems in the article that I would like to get an opinion on.

Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nowhere near in becoming a good article:

• "New ventures" subsection has paragraphs with no citations
• "Electronic era" subsection has a paragraph with no citations
• "Handheld console history" subsection has a paragraph with no citations
• there's a {citation needed} template in the "Offices and locations", "Emulation", and "License guidelines" subsections
• the "Emulation" subsection has a template identifying issues where:
  • It needs additional citations for verification.
  • It may contain original research.
  • It may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources.
• There are also many one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article that should be merged with the previous or next paragraph.

So there's a lot of work needed to be done-SCB '92 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Outer space

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being listed for peer review because I think it is in need of some independent input to find out what is required to bring it up to a GA rating or better. The page is now mostly cited and I think it is in decent condition. However, the subject is broad so please suggest any appropriate additions. The article includes information on space travel, but only in a summary style as the topic is covered more broadly elsewhere. Please could you check it for style issues, grammatical flaws, and obvious factual errors?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't overlink "Kelvin" in the lead.
• "that air had weight " weight or mass?
• "brother in law" should be hyphenated.
• "In 1640, he demonstrated " and "In 1650, German scientist ..." come before "In the 15th century...", seems a little odd.
  • The last represented a change of theme, so it needed to jump back in history a little. I modified it slightly to communicate this.
• " Michelson-Morley experiment" should be an en-dash, not a hyphen.
• "Not to scale" in the image caption should be followed by a full stop.
• Andromeda galaxy -> Galaxy.
• Describe what IUPAC is before you use the abbreviation.
• Is it "universe" or "Universe"?
• Don't overlink photon.
• Suggest you link eV (since you link Pa, K etc).
• "spacesuit" caption needs a full stop.
• Is it "space suit" or "spacesuit"?
• SpaceShipOne caption needs a full stop.
• Don't think you need to link "Density" in the "Boundary" section.
• Is the second of those three boundary definitions really a "scientific" one?
• "kilometres. ... kilometers " is this article written in Brit Eng or US Eng?
• "This treaty covers " just "It covers..." would be better for me.
• "As of January 1, 2008 the " it's now April 2012, any updates?
• You link USSR, USA and UK but not Brazil, Zaire etc. which is a little odd to me given the latter are far more unusual than the former.
• " (See circular motion.) " yuck, if you want a footnote, make it a footnote, if you can't find a more elegant way of linking that article into the prose.
• "orbit" is not linked the first time here.
• More "kilometres " here.
• "about 1.5 million km" you've used "kilometre" all the way up to this point in this section...
• Is it " low-Earth orbit" or " low earth orbit"?
• And you link it twice.
• And you kind of introduce the concept the second time round... consider reordering.
• Are they "Van Allen radiation belts" or "Van Allen Belts"?
• I didn't realise that pc was an abbreivation of parsec, perhaps you could include that (pc)...
• A lot of the see also's may already be linked in the main article so they can go.
• Don't mix date formats in the refs, pick one and stick with it.
  • If you are referring to the access dates, these are allowed to be in YYYY-MM-DD format per MOS:DATEUNIFY.
• Ref 26 - "g/cm^3" can't we use a superscript here rather than ^?
• First external link "Intergalactic Space, Natural History, Feb 1998" is there anything particular about this particular webpage that couldn't just be incorporated as an in-line reference?
  • It isn't needed as a reference.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've implemented nearly all of your suggestions. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Sacred Cod of Massachusetts

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking at finaly pushing it to GA status, maybe even FA eventually.

Thanks, Found5dollar (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Fascinating, will try to do a review within the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I look forward to it.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: Great subject for an article, one of those wonderfully weird articles. I'll make some copyedits as I read through, hopefully they'll be inoffensive. Looks fairly close to GA quality at this point, but needs a little polishing up.

Lead

• Might want to note when the first cod originated.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Given the size of the article, I'd suggest a two paragraph lead.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

• "Cod has a long history in Massachusetts and is entwined with many of the states early events and people. Cod is abundant..." Try to avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word like this.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Fishing for the Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, was the key industry for much of coastal Massachusetts." When was this the case? Might want to add a date range.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "However, today, because of advances in fishing since the Industrial Revolution, the Atlantic Cod is now considered a Vulnerable species and is in danger of becoming commercially extinct." Try to avoid saying "today" & "now", best to put "as of 19XX" or "since 19XX".

• Done --Found5dollar (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Instead of saying "X can be seen in Y", I'd suggest "Y demonstrates X".

• Done --Found5dollar (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• My first impression is that you might be a bit heavy on background here.

• Yeah. I see what you are saying. I'm trying to pare it down to 2 paragraphs, one about the history of the fish in Massachusetts, the other about Cod as a symbol in New England

Description

• "In 1894 the Sacred Cod was painted by Walter M. Brackett in a lifelike style." Was it painted before then?

• honestly I can't tell. The sources just say it was painted. No idea if it was raw wood before or if it was painted over. I am just going to leave this sentence as is because of that.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• "John Welch, from Green lane in West Boston was the carver" I'm not sure we need his home address here :)

• haha i was just trying to get across that he really is a nobody, but i see your point. --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "which seems an unlikey age to carve a nearly 5 foot long fish." So you're saying that he likely carved the second Sacred Cod?

• that is what i was saying and i made it more explicit.--Found5dollar (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

History

• (forgot to do this section earlier)
• "It has been suggested that this cod was a gift from Judge Samuel Sewall, best known as the judge who presided over the Salem witch trials, but nowhere in his estate is this gift mentioned." Who suggested this?

• The committee of the House where most of my old info comes from. i have included it in the prose.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "This cod hung in the building until a fire in 1747.[14] Along with the cod, this fire destroyed records, books and paintings owned by the state, and private business who used the cellars of the building as storage lost large amounts of wines and other liquors." This could probably be combined into one sentence.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1776, the Declaration of Independence was read from the balcony of the Old State House. Afterwards, the crowd that had assembled to listen, tore down and burned the lion and the unicorn as an act in defiance of British rule." Again, could easily make this one sentence.

  done --Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Consider adding a topic sentence to the second paragraph of this section, I was confused where you were going with it until the end.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Try to tie more sentences explicitly to the cod. One way would be to take "The new Massachusetts State House, designed by Charles Bulfinch, was completed on January 11, 1798." and combine it with the next, and possibly remove the bit about Bulfinch.

• I am down to 3 sentences not explicitly stating the cod.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of this sentence reads well. But again, watch the space before references here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• done

Cod-napping

• I think the first paragraph here could be tightened up a bit, try to think of ways to say the same thing in less sentences.

• OK. worked on it a bit... think i will try tightening up the prose across the whole article later.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Might want to note that the crimson and the lampoon are Harvard student papers. Also, remember to italicize the names of publications.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Probably shouldn't link common terms, like "wire cutters" or "ultimatum".

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• "The theft was considered a major one" By whom?
• "Two days after the Sacred Cod was stolen, the Harvard University Police Department received an anonymous phone call informing them on how to get the Sacred Cod back. This led to the Harvard University Police following a car without a license plate in West Roxbury." Might want to explain more, did the call tell them where to find the car in Roxbury?
• "two men, dressed in collared shirts with the collars turned up and hats pulled down, jumped out of the car" Not sure we need the details of their wardrobe :)
• This section was riveting, a really engrossing read.

Other State House symbols

• Might want to switch the order of these two paragraphs.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Generally, try to be careful about consistency with the serial comma and commas after date expressions (i.e. "In 1948, X happened" vs. "In 1948 X happened") Also, I recommend the prose exercises at User:Tony1. Try to make sure that references immediately follow punctuation X happened.<ref name=X/> instead of X happened. <ref name=X/>. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• fixed the references using a script. I have never seen those exercise... ill try them out. --Found5dollar (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I am home sick from work today (stupid flu) so i might try to get some of your suggestions done later. Thank you again for reviewing this.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Ugh, the flu is terrible, I had a bad case earlier this year. Let me know if you have any questions/want another read through. Like I said, it's not that far from good article standards. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm fighting my way through it, the aching joints is the worst part. Hopefully I can polish the article up so that a GA review will go smoothly. I'll let you know when I finish responding to your comments as another quick read through by a different person always helps.--Found5dollar (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• One more thing for now, I haven't looked at the references in detail, but make sure to use and endash instead of a hyphen for page ranges. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Round two

Lead

• Looks pretty good, I'd suggest you add a sentence mentioning the importance of the cod industry to the state though.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Background

• "In the early history of the United States, cod was the one of the first goods used for trade with dried cod being traded for precious metals with Europe and for rum and molasses from the West Indies." I'd suggest breaking this up with some punctuation, maybe a semicolon.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a contradiction here: "The fish is abundant in the waters surrounding Massachusetts," then later in the paragraph "the Atlantic Cod's conservation status was changed to Vulnerable species in 1996".

• changed the tense to "was abundant" to fix that. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have lingering doubts about the relevance of much of the second paragraph, but perhaps you should get a second opinion.

• removed one thing, but I think it is important to state that cod has been used over and over again throughout Massachusetts as a symbol. --Found5dollar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Description

• "From its inception the fish has symbolized the importance of the fishing industry to Massachusetts." I'd put this earlier in the section.

• done --Found5dollar (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• " News articles sometimes state that the fish is turned to face whichever political party in power,[13] but nowhere in the official history of the symbol is this tradition ever recorded.[14]" There's quite the time difference between the refs cited in 13 and 14, might want to note that.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

History

• "although according to a Massachusetts House of Representatives report published in 1895 nowhere in his estate is this gift mentioned." This reads kinda wordy to me, can you think of a good way to rephrase?

• highly pruned.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "During the same time period that the carving was being recreated" Again, kind of a wordy way of saying it, maybe "While" instead of "During the same time period".

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't recall if I mentioned it before, but careful about commas "In 1776, the Declaration of Independence..." vs "In 1894 the Sacred Cod".

• fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd combine the third and fourth paragraphs in this section.

• combined--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "It hung in the House chambers only being taken down twice due to renovations of the room, " Need some more punctuation here.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "three man committee" need a hyphen here.

• done--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cod-napping

• You switch between Harvard Lampoon, The Lampoon and Lampoon here (ditto for Crimson).

• Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Lampoon staff raided The Crimson's offices and eventually ended up kidnapping J.M. Boyd" This made me laugh, such wacky hijinks from those Harvard students :)

• I know! its a great detail. --Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "They hid the cod in a flower box that they had brought and left the State House with it." Not sure if you can do anything here, but wasn't the cod five feet long? I'm confused as to how they smuggled it out without raising alarm.

• I found a few things about people finding it suspicious in hindsight, but apparently no one thought anything of them walking through the halls with such a giant box. Things would be very different if it happened today.--Found5dollar (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, did poor Mr. Boyd ever get released?

• flushed out his story line--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The cod was not wrapped in the municipal flag as threatened." Source?

• sourced--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Post Cod-napping

• "Herter passed the request along to the Massachusetts State Senate, where another fish emblem is displayed." I don't follow, what's the significance of this?

• it is a reference to the Holy Mackeral, which is in their chandler and is metal.--Found5dollar (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

References

• I'd suggest using templates, but again, just my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  

---

YMCA Camp Fitch on Lake Erie

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to polish this article's contents. The article has reached the point where the information has been relatively stable since I first created it. I would eventually like to make the article of "Feature Article" quality, but I know it still has a ways to go. Any help for suggestions would be most appreciated.

Thanks, Cpkondas (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments initially I think a peer review is a good idea, and then set your sights on good article nominations.

• Lead is too short, per WP:LEAD. I'd expect two shortish paragraphs that completely summarise the article. Right now it reads more like an advert for the camp rather than a summary of the whole page.
• Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop and what does "Tent Picture" mean?
• Link YMCA in the lead.
• "copperheads" is a dab link.
• Serious lack of in-line references. This is not crucial at GA but essential at FA.
• Try to avoid squashing text between two images.
• Captions don't tend to need "Photo of..." or whatever, that's normally self-evident.
• 9-11, 12-14... not nice in prose, but if you insist on using this approach, use an en-dash per WP:DASH to separate the numbers.
• "The Cabent" per WP:HEAD we normally avoid "The....".
• "A Modern Cabent (Summer 2003)" seems to me to be no reason to capitalise modern or cabent.
• "Specialty camps" section is a little over-the-top for me. You must strive to avoid making it sound like an advert for the camp, which right now, it does. An encyclopaedic article wouldn't go into all that minutia.
• Three refs but seven external links?! As I said before, you need many more in-line references from reliable (3rd party) sources.
• There is a Category:YMCA Summer Camps category which is more refined than simply "YMCA" if you felt it more appropriate?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Thank you for all of the comments. I especially agree with your comment on the specialty camps and lack of references. I have begun work on clearing up those issues and then begin work on revising the page's lead and overall advert vibe that some of the article sections seem to portray.

Cpkondas (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

---