Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/August 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to have some comments on the general quality of the article, hoping to soon make it FA. Your help is much appreciated.

Thanks, Davo88 (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have started to read this interesting article, but due to other commitments it may take me a few days to finish and comment on it. In the meantime, you could usefully tackle the several disambiguation links that need fixing in the article; you'll find them the toolbox, upper left on this page. Back soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First instalment: I have read down to the beginning of the First Crusade section:-

  • Lead:
    • The first sentence is bedecked with alternative names (some incorrect or in Classical Armenian script), and is so convoluted as to be virtually impossible to follow. If all this information needs to be given, it should be offered in bite-size quantities rather than in a single, overblown sentence with so many subclauses and sub-subclauses.
    • "It was located in Cilicia..." From the article's title I'd say that was a given. Perhaps rephrase the beginning of the sentence: "Cilicia is the region..." etc
    • Second paragraph: The words "of Cilicia" are unnecesary in the opening phrase.
    • The abbreviation "ca." is Latin and should be italcised. Strictly speaking it should not be followed by a full stop, as "a" is the last letter of the abbreviated word.
    • "...at various times held the thrones of..." needs a "had", thus: "had held the thrones of..."
    • Third paragraph: "kingdom" has become lower case - need to be consistent
    • General point: I haven't read the whole article yet, but the lead section seems unduly brief. Remember, it is supposed to be a summary of the whole article.
  • Early Armenian migrations
    • Tigranes subsection: Overuse of the pronoun "his", not always clear that you mean Tigranes.
    • The final sentence of this subsection is confusing: "From the time of his conquests, some Armenian settlements are thought to have remained in the region of Cilicia." Does this mean that there are present-day Armenian settlements in Cilicia which are believed to have existed continuously from the time of Tigranes' conquests? If so, the point needs to be made much more clearly. **Where is Ecbatana? Don't force your readers to use a link to find this out.
    • Mass Armenian migration subsection: First, it's a big time jump from Tigranes in the 1st century BC to the 6th century AD, and a connecting sentence, perhaps referring to the Byzantine conquest, would be appropriate. Secondly, you say "Armenian families relocated to Byzantine territories" without saying where they relocated from, why they did this.
    • As a matter of style, you should avoid using paragraphs of one or two short sentences.
    • The rest of this section I found difficult to understand, partly because the people mentioned are unfamiliar to me and I kept having to use links to find out who they were. This made raeading a disjointed and frustrating experience.
  • The Rubenid dynasty ("Rubenian" in lead; should you be consistent?)
    • The emergence of Cilician Armenia: There is a non-neutral element in statements such as "however, the king fell victim to Byzantine treachery..." This may be how the sources report it, but an encyclopedia needs to have a more detached tone. You could, for example, omit the phrase and simply say "Instead of negotiating peace, however, the king was forced to cede his Armenian lands and live in exile."
    • "Soon after this assassination, Ruben organized a band of Armenian troops and revolted against the Byzantine Empire in 1080." A better phrasing would be: "In 1080, soon after this assasination, Ruben organized a band of Armenian troops and revolted against the Byzantine Empire."
    • The sentence that follows is clumsily worded and seems redundant; maybe delete?
    • The paragraph beginning "By Ruben's death in 1095..." is very difficult to follow. For example, only by using the links do I find that "Prince Rouben I" is the same person as "Ruben". A lot of this paragraphs seems to consist of dispensible information about other princes and principalities, and takes the focus right away from Cilicia. I was pretty well lost by the end of it.

I'll be contiuing, and will post again shortly. Meanwhile, perhaps you will address the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please, could you leave the strikeouts of my comments to me? Mark points you think are addressed by "Done". Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for doing the peer review! I very much appreciate it. --Davo88 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing: I have gone through a couple more sections, comments below. I will try an d finish this weekend when I might have a bit more time:-

  • First Crusade
    • Section titles should not include definite or indefinite articles, hence "First Crusade"
    • Explain/link "Frankish Crusaders"
    • "Constantine saw this as a one-time opportunity..." To what is "this" referring?
    • "With their help, they secured Cilicia from the Byzantines and Turks" Much confusion; to what, respectively, do "their" and "they" refer?
    • "partly allied, partly rivals" would be better phrased :"part allies, part rivals"
    • The rest of this section has nothing to do with the First Crusade, which is the section's title. Either change the setion title (e.g. "First Crudade and aftermath"), or put this later material into a section of its own.
    • A lot of the history which follows - T'oros I seizing the stronghold of Anazarba, the attack by the Seljuk Sultan of Iconium, etc, is hard to follow because you don't give any dates. I personally believe there is too much detail here, and that you should reduce this material to a few broad sentences. Otherwise you will risk losing your readers.
  • Principality becomes a kingdom
    • Point made earlier about "the" in section title
    • "King Levon I started his reign as Prince Levon II in 1187" Who is he, and what is his relationship to the people previously mentioned?
    • "pope Clement III" requires a capital
    • What is a "catholicos"?
    • Pronoun problem: I've mentioned this before, but it is sometimes hard to work out who is being written about. In the sentence "Thanks to the support given to him by the Holy Roman Emperors (Frederick Barbarossa, and his son, Henry VI), he elevated the princedom's status to a kingdom." In this, the first "him" is the pope, "his" refers to Barbarossa, "he" is the pope again. This could be tweaked to "Thanks to the support given to him by the Holy Roman Emperors (Frederick Barbarossa and his son Henry VI), the pope elevated the princedom's status to a kingdom." But this problems recurs in the article, and you need to watch for similar instances.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the rest of the review

  • The Het'umid dynasty:
    • "The apparent unification in marriage of the two main dynasties of Cilicia, the Rubenid and the Het'umid dynasties, ended a century of dynastic and territorial rivalry and brought the latter to the forefront of political dominance in Cilician Armenia." In this sentence, to what is "the latter" intended to refer? As constructed it is referring to "territorial rivalry", and I don't think that's the intention.
    • Curious use of the term "diploma". You need to explain its meaning in this context
    • "...and was promised to free from taxation the Armenian churches..." Clumsy, ungramattical. Try: "...and was promised the freedom from taxation of..." etc
    • "Originally, they were a cavalry corps..." To whom or what does "they" refer here?
    • "The Armenians were also prohibited from rebuilding their defensive fortifications, required to pay annual tribute of one million dirhams, and forced them to trade with the Mamluks, thereby circumventing the trade embargo imposed by the Pope." Ungrammatical.
  • Decline with the Lusignan dynasty:
    • There needs to be an explanation somewhere in the article of what is meant by "the Latin cause"
    • I'm a bit puzzled by the use of the phrase "Despite this" later in the section. It doesn't seem appropriate - despite what?
  • Dispersion of the Armenian population of Cilicia: I believe that this section is too long and over-detailed. The article is about the Armenian kingdom, not a general history of Cilicia. I think that the aftrnath of the kingdom could be dealt with in a couple of short paragraphs, and I'd omit the more recent history.
  • Cilician Armenian society:
    • First sentence could be expressed more neatly: "heterogeneous demographically" is an awful mouthful.
    • Expressions such as "it is worth noting" should be avoided, as they detract from the neutral, encyclopdic tone. Likewise, "in fact".
    • Are you sure about the use of the term "Unitarian" in the final section? The term has a rather specific meaning in the Christian church, see Unitarianism.

That's it. I would point out that the prose faults I have picked up are examples, rather than representing a complete list of the fixes needed. I would strongly advise that you arrange for full copyedit, to bring the prose quality up to scratch. I regret that I won't be able to spend any more time on the article, though I will watch its further progress with interest. The subject-matter is very absorbing. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I made some additions to the Early Armenian migrations section (which was signed with my IP address). If you get the time, please take a look. -- Davo88 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is very informative with lots of references. So it should be rated as Featured article.

Thanks, CoercorashTalkContr. 09:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is quite well-written and reasonably clear to a reader who comes to it with little background knowledge. I think it's close to ready for FAC. Here are a few suggestions, mostly based on guidelines in the Manual of Style.

Overlinking

  • I'd recommend unlinking any common English words so that the remaining links stand out as important. In the last paragraph of the lead, for example, I would not link "military", "police", or "law enforcement agencies" because most readers of English already know what they mean. I would link "United States" no more than once in the entire article.

Design detail

  • "The dial in the "S" position – weapon safe, "1" – semi-automatic fire, "A" – fully automatic fire. - This is not a complete sentence; I'm not sure what's missing.

Captions

  • "FN P90 LV/LIR with empty magazine." - This caption, consisting solely of a sentence fragment, does not take a terminal period. Ditto for any captions that have no complete sentences in them.

Ammunition

  • "improving controllability" - Maybe just "control" rather than "controllability"?
  • "a maximum range of 1800 m (5905 ft)" - Comma separators in numbers of four digits or more?
  • "However, some are skeptical of the bullet's terminal performance, and it is a subject of debate among civilian shooters in the United States." - What part of the performance do they doubt? What is the debate about? Why is the debate only taking place in the United States?
  • "5.7x28mm projectiles are statistically safer than others" - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. You could stick a "The" in front of this sentence to solve the problem.

Feeding

  • The direct external link from within the main text to the patent database is a no-no per WP:MOS#External links. Instead, this should be converted to an inline citation.

Sights and accessories

Variants

  • I'd consider merging the first three subsections in order to eliminate three subheads. Lots of short subsections create a choppy look, and the paragraph breaks are probably sufficient to prevent confusion. The remaining subhead would visually separate the first three types from the sporting types.
  • "The PS90 USG is also available with either olive-drab or black furniture." - I'm not sure what "furniture" refers to here. Would another phrase or word be better for making this clear to a general reader?

Users

  • Spell out as well as abbreviate SWAT on first use?

External images

See also

  • I would not list anything here that is already linked to in the main text.

References

  • Book citations need the place of publication as well as the publisher. WorldCat is a good place to hunt for missing bibliographic details.
  • To pass FAC, the citation date formatting needs to be internally consistent. You can use m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not a mixture.
  • Single pages are abbreviated with "p." and multiple pages with "pp.".
  • Newspaper names like La Prensa should appear in italics.

Other

  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that six of the citation urls are dead and that several others are possibly dead, that the article has two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets, and that the images lack alt text. Even if alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images, is not required at the moment at FAC, it's a good idea to add it. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Harbingers (Atmosfear series)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I like to get other editors view of how I can improve the article and I was hoping someone could do some copy-editing on the article. Thanks, :) Gerry (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: It's difficult to write a verifiable encyclopedia article about a game that might not have many reliable sources to draw on. (Please see WP:V and WP:RS for extended definitions of verifiable and reliable as related to Wikipedia). The result might be an article largely without sources but occasionally supported by sources that are not necessarily reliable. That pretty well describes this article.

  • The article is largely unsourced. Some sections—Gameplay, Video, and Characters—have no inline citations to sources, and the other sections have almost none. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every claim that is apt to be questioned, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every paragraph except for the lead. Personal research can't substitute for reliable sources. (Please see WP:NOR).
  • The few sources provided include Flying Bark (an player forum) and Marrow Productions, (apparently another forum), and a customer review posted at Amazon.com. None of these is a reliable source per WP:RS. Each simply presents the personal opinions of individuals. To be reliable, a source should be vetted by editors and have a reputation for neutrality and reliability. Most newspapers, magazines, and books published by reputable firms would qualify, for example. BoardGameGeek, which is your other source, might qualify; I'm not sure what kinds of internal editorial controls it has.
  • You are wise to seek a copyedit, but PR isn't the place to seek one. I would suggest holding off on the hunt for a copyeditor until after you have solved the sourcing problem, assuming it can be solved.
  • To get ideas about how to proceed and about how other editors have solved similar problems, you might look at the video-gaming articles that have become featured. They can be found at WP:FA#Video gaming. Note the organization and sourcing for some of them, Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow for example.

I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Finetooth, for the review and the links, both gave me good ideas on how to improve this article. Gerry (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a lot of work on the article, and I believe I address most of your comments. Please let me know if you got more ideas on how to improve the article. d'oh! talk 08:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments. Taking another look, I can see that you've worked hard on the article and improved it significantly. I would still recommend a thorough copyedit to correct small grammatical errors, such as "If the players does not become a Harbinger" in the lead. You might be able to find a copyeditor at WP:PRV#General copyediting. It would also help to include in the the lead at least a brief mention of the "Layout", "Development" and other later sections. To do this effectively, you might need to shorten the parts of the existing lead that summarize the upper text sections; some of the material there now looks like copy-and-paste from the main text rather than a brief summary. The other thing I'm wondering about is where the "own work" images of the game came from. They don't seem to be photos that you took with a camera. If they are screen captures, they would probably have to be licensed as "fair use", but you probably could use no more than one. Hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will in list help from the copyeditors, thanks for the link. I have shorten the lead and added a mention of the sections I missed out. Also I am very flattered with your last comment, out the six images, four of them are photos I took my self with my game board. The pizza box I found on commons and the last image in the video section is copyrighted but it is marked as one and should be inline with WP:NFCC. Thanks again for your help, if you have anymore comments please let me know. :) d'oh! talk 04:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Giro d'Italia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to get it to FA. I think it could probably pass GA right now, and I'll go there next, but it's definitely a bit wet behind the ears right now and could use some new eyes looking at it.

Thanks, Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to drive-by poster: I have already done so. Whenever I list an article or two or three at PR or GAN, I always take that same number (if not more) myself. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is not a "drive-by post". It is an attempt to get more editors involved in the review process, and appears on all new PR nominations when the backlog reaches a certain level. I am sorry that you have taken offence; I assure you that your review efforts are appreciated, and hope that you will continue to help the PR process. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was in a bit of bitchy mood, and it seemed really imp[ersonal. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

General

  • Make sure there are non-breaking spaces ( ) between a number and its unit. (22 teams, 20 minutes, 21 stages, etc.)
    • Will do.
  • What is a "peloton"?
    • The largest group of cyclists in the race. Suppose a link to peloton will help?
  • I note you indicated the footnote with [N 1]. When having to use a footnote, as opposed to a reference, I'll use letters (A, B, C...) instead of numbers to avoid any confusion between the two, but this a personal preference so there is no obilgation for you to actually listen to me ;-)

Intro

  • "a return to the original colour scheme for the three minor classifications that reflected the colours of the Italian flag, the points' competition leader was indicated by a red jersey"
    • I'd include what the green and white jerseys were used for.
      • I don't think this is actually lead-worthy. It was put there when there was very little information present on the race, a year or so ago at this time.
  • "The overall very turbulent in the first week,"

Teams

  • Was there ever a reason given for not inviting the Dutch teams?
    • There's just a lot of top-level teams in the sport this year. Even Team RadioShack, Lance Armstrong's team, didn't get invites to every race they wanted. It wasn't so much a decision to exclude the Dutch teams as it was that they were probably #23 and #24 on the list of 22 teams to get invites, since the top 14 couldn't be changed. There's a new agreement for 2011 that the top 17 teams in the 2010 UCI World Ranking will get the guaranteed slots next year, meaning this very easily could pop up again. Race organizers usually like to include local teams (hence Androni-Giocattoli, Acqua e Sapone, Colnago) first anyway.

Route and stages

  • "...the following classifications by race organizers Gazzetta dello Sport: four time trials (three individual and one team, seven flat stages, five mixed stages, and six mountain stages.[39]"
    • There is a missing right parentheses ) that is needed in the sentence, possibly after "one team".
      • Good catch.
  • "...which figured into end in mass sprints,"
    • Unsure of what it is being said here.
      • Stages in which the majority of the field is together and the cycling sprinters attempt to get the stage win. These contrast with the mountain stages, where climbing specialists finish ahead, often crossing the line one or two at a time (hence "mass" sprint).

Don't usually follow / read / review cycling-related topics, but this was interesting and a refreshing change. I agree with you on that this could easily be a GA.

Eeexcellent :)

This would normally be the part where I'd use the PR reviewer's rethoric and ask you to "consider reviewing an article in the backlog" but as seeing how you have already done so... Thanks for reviewing and keep up the good work! ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 15:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Niagara. Past experience tells me I'm unlikely to get more than one review, and I think the article is ready for GAN anyway, so I'm closing this. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I received commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2 on images that I will need help understanding how to address so that I can renominate this article at FAC. Because of the extensive image issues, I am posting this review at both WP:PR and WP:PPR where image experts can also provide feedback on what I need to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment  Resolved File:Crown_Fountain_Spouting.jpg is a copyright violation and TonyTheTiger knows very well it is, per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Crown Fountain. — raekyT 15:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I move this file to WP and claim fair use? Alternatively, should I swap it out for File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG which would mean that there is one less image being used under a fair use rationale although there would be redundancy? Finally, is it possible to file a valid fair use claim for this subject within this article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Crown_Fountain_Spouting.jpg is better than File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG, so I would support replacing it with it. I also think there is possibly enough justification for it's use on Millennium Park since that is the park the structure is in. Yes you should upload it to WP, and request File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG be deleted, make the necessary fair-use claims on the image page and place it in Crown Fountain and Millennium Park, is my opinion. As suggested below, if I'm wrong on it being able to be used on Millennium Park, then one of the images that doesn't show the face picture on it would be acceptable as well. — raekyT 10:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the image in both articles with File:Crown Fountain spouting.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:20070621 Crown Fountain Water.JPG will automatically get deleted as a FU not in use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should of known that that image had no justification for Fountain, which is vastly already over illustrated with images. I removed it from there. — raekyT 22:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the image was next to text discussing it, but I do not object. I assume you consider this issue resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I even see resolved now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
  •  Resolved File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg - Not low resolution, no specific rationale, GFDL/CC license is inappropriate (misleading) - an image cannot be freely licensed if it's a derivative of an unfree work.
    • There's not much we can do for this one. An image of Cloud Gate isn't possible in this article, sadly.
    • As I applied the original rationale to this image back in 2006 I'd like to know how to deal situations like this one correctly. In my edits I tried to make it clear that the sculpture is copyrighted and its representation in this image is non-free; however, the photographer does still have some rights over the image and he/she has indicated that they are prepared to license those rights using GFDL/CC. This is important if anyone did want to try to clear the image for re-use as they would have to consider the rights of both the sculptor and the photographer.—Jeremy (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question, when a photographer takes a photo of a copyrighted 3d work, they're essentially breaking copyright law, they do not have legal rights to use that image the same as any of their other images. Therefore a non-free copyright tag must be used here to indicate the photo and/or contents of the photo are copyrighted and can't be freely used. On wikipedia we require, generally, a non-free work to have been previously published, but a freely licensed image of a copyrighted 3d work is differently and we treat the whole work as copyrighted and non-free here. Non-free licensed trump it in that case. — raekyT 23:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed it from Anish Kapoor, per non-free media policies it shouldn't be used there since a link to the work's page is sufficient with a text description of the work. It's use in Millennium Park is questionable, but stronger then Anish Kapoor. I'd be more tempted to tempt the copyright hounds with it in Millennium Park than Anish Kapoor where it's clearly against rules. Same questionable copyright is for Crown Fountain image too, it MAY not be possible to use both of these images, I would probably solicit someone FAR more knowledgeable (and ideally fair) on fair-use images to verify that. — raekyT 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I am closing this PR per TonyTheTiger's request on my talk page - glad to see all the issues are resolved. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is perhaps slightly unusual for peer review, but this article is a current featured article (of which I am [or was] one of the primary editors). Listing here because I want to bring it back up to current standards if it doesn't meet them. It does have some issues/concerns which I'll try to summarize here:

  1. Biggest issue is the points raised years ago at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Microsoft/archive1 that unfortunately mostly went unnoticed about reliable sourcing. To summarize, there are a lot of places where Microsoft itself is used as the source in history, and another site that perhaps may or may not meet current RS standards. Also mentioned were specific pages in books needed - I noticed there is a template for that now. Keep in mind years ago all this was perfectably acceptable, things have just changed over time - I mainly would like some pointers as to how to fix it, in addition to the problems themselves.
  2. Another one is what to do with the history section itself - it's been the sticking point for a lot of people. Years ago, the result was to create a seperate article for the company history, summarize it, and then also refer to Windows' history as well. Also, it's recently been raised again - any comments on what to do here?
  3. There's a section on environmental impact that is still quite large that wasn't there years ago. I've de-listified it and condensed it massively already, but I still feel it's too long, and probably should be part of corporate culture.
  4. In general I feel some sections such as diversity could be condensed and summarized a bit more, but I'd like some feedback on this.
  5. Does the lead need to summarize just a bit more about the company culture and environment section, and how does it fare in general? I know lead requirements tend to change a lot over time.
  6. Finally, any other commments, especially concerning changes in the manual of style (MOS) and FA criteria would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance, and happy wiking :). RN 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, did a lot of massive reworking in some parts - trimmed out the product divisions to the bare essentials, trimmed a little trivia out of history, cleaned up the enviroment section and moved it into corporate. Anyway, feedback welcome. Also down to 28-29 kB in readable prose size according to automated scripts, as well as semi-automated ref cleanup. 08:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. I agree that the refs for this should be much be better and have some other suggestions for improvement. I also apologize for the delay - I had a review started and lost it. I am looking at this as if it were at FAC now.

  • I looked on Amazon.com and there are many books on Microsoft and its history listed there. I think that the article should use more book sources and should rely less on Microsoft itself (though some use of primary sources may be unavoidable). If this were at FAC I think the lack of use of modern book sources would be a real issue.
  • I also agree that page numbers for books should be included - I only saw two books used (but I may have missed some) in the current article
  • I think the history section is decent as is, though I have some suggestions there (see below). This follows WP:Summary style and I would leave it in at about its current length or slightly longer.
  • Not sure about making this shorter
  • I was a bit surprised that this article was as short as it is - I think if thematically it makes sense to combione things, then do it. But just to save space, no.
  • I think the lead could be a bit longer - per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • There are places in the History section where there could be a bit more context provided for the reader. For example in After the demonstration in March 1975, MITS agreed to distribute [Gates'] Altair BASIC. I would add Gates' to be a bit clearer.
  • Or the abbreviation OS is not explained prior to its use in Due to various factors, such as MS-DOS's available software selection, Microsoft eventually became the leading PC OS vendor.[5][6] I think OEM needs to be spelled out too, as well as "APIs".
  • I think the article could use images of Bill Gates, and perhaps Steve Ballmer. I seems odd that co-founder Paul Allen is mentioned only in the infobox
  • Watch tenses = why are there both past and present tenses in Microsoft Office 2007, released at the same time, features a "Ribbon" user interface which is a significant departure from its predecessors. (Why not all past?)
  • I think the Product divisions section could use more refs - two of the paragraphs have no refs at all (I think a primary source would be OK here, by the way)
  • This sentence seems a bit antiquated In April 2004 Microsoft launched a community site for developers and users, titled Channel9, which provides many modern features such as a wiki and an Internet forum.[47] "many modern features"?
  • Eating dogfood sentence has a direct quote and needs a ref at the end per the MOS.
  • The Culture section seems a bit of a hodge podge - could there be more of a narrative thread?
  • The caption "Photo of Microsoft's RedWest campus." is pretty weak and does not explain what RedWest is.
  • Awkward The company makes use of alternative forms of transit, including created one of the worlds largest private bus systems (the "Connector") as well as encouraging employees and others to use regional public mass transit via subsidising fares. And is it the the "Connector" or "Suttle Connect"?
  • Spell out LEED, HOV, TCO
  • I really do not know what this means In 2004, Microsoft commissioned research firms that found that Windows Server 2003 TCO was lower than Linux due to its ease of use, resulting in less work and lower staff costs.[72]
  • I was a bit surprised that there was not more on Microsoft's sort of decline in the recent past - Apple is now bigger in terms of market capitalization (heard this on the radio this morning - NPR). Or how Microsoft was at the forefront in the 1990s with lots of software, but has not done as well with things lately (Google, or Zune vs iPod, etc.).

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 ><>°° 04:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for the helpful comments. Just to answer a couple questions,
  • Microsoft hasn't really declined (well, I mention they are stagnent in the stock/corporate section), Apple has just got bigger in (sort of) a seperate area and recently passed them in stock value only. I even wrote a paragraph it (sourced and everything), but later moved it to the talk page as it was a bit nascent to put in yet. You are right in general in regard to thier non-software business though... thanks for the idea
  • I read several of those history books on Microsoft.... they were really bad; failed to give specific dates, contained glaring inaccuracies, and in general a lot only go up to 1993. I have yet to a find decent general book on the subject for the history section, so I rewrote it using Microsoft mostly for uncontroversial dates I can't find a WP:RS for and WP:RS online news reports for the rest. Also, keep in mind around half those books are self-published, which is 1000x worse then using Microsoft itself according to wikipedia rules. Too bad, because some of the self-published ones are really good. Really the best sources are these are the old magazines like BYTE that are unfortunately hard to get at; I'm in a metro area now so I might finally be able to find them at the local library though. Currently, I don't think the article is that bad on sources though (I was rewriting it during the peer review). [IE I removed or replaced all the years-old book references that failed to mention page numbers].
  • If a self-published book is by a noted expert in the field, then it may be a RS. I use self-published books on lumber railroad history in Pennsylvania - since the history museum in the author's county is named for him, and the books are cited by other authors, they meet WP:RS Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to the article sie, it was over double the size before I worked on it yet again. The new size is mostly the result of a lot of massive text condension, especially in the history section. You're definately right about paul allen though, not sure what happened with that.
  • Technically, it meets WP:LEAD and doesn't meet the suggestion for 4 paragraphs as its currently under 22,000 characters in readable prose. However, I'll take another look at it to see if I missed anything.
  • I used the 10-K form as a general ref for product divisions, that's why it's worded so carefully; it's mentioned in the references section :).

Again, thanks for the comments, I'll see what I can do. You can also see the "major" stuff removed on the end of talk page and reasons why (mostly obvious). RN 05:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:NocturneNoir

Well, since I'm here, I might as well.

  • History begins right out of the blue. Despite their desire to sell a BASIC interpreter, Paul Allen and Bill Gates concluded it was not possible until the Intel 8080 microprocessor launched in 1974; they called several companies, none were interested until the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics. has absolutely zero context, even when the lead is looked at.
    • On that note, the entire first paragraph has thoroughly lost me.
  • Placement of images with regard to headings seems haphazard.

More later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good point about the context. Could you elaborate on the images? Are the captions are a problem - the placement was actually carefully considered - although perhaps for all resolutions, although "Culture" is really a work in progress ATM. You don't have to respond, I'll reconsider them regardless. RN 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, the pictures look fine on this computer. I was having an issue with the "1985–1994: Windows and Office" section header; it was sitting smack dab between two images, which looked mighty off to me. I'll see if I can snap a screenshot tomorrow to show you. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first paragraph rewrote - looks a lot better to me, got rid of a lot of the jargon and tried to explain the early early days a bit. Still hard to follow?
Anyway, basically all that's left at this point is:
  1. Complete rewrite of Culture section using some sources I'm compiling.
  2. Mention Microsoft's profits basically coming Windows and Office still and its uncertain future as a paragraph in history (this is a MAYBY, it will mentioned in some form in the upcoming business culture section as they are rather linked) Ryan Norton 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vikos-Aoos National Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like some input from other editors prior to considering nominating it for A or even FA class. Any improvements or suggestions on stylistic issues or content would be greatly appreciated.Alexikoua (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geographic measurements are always hard to get right. I am a bit puzzled by this: "walls that range from 450 m (1,476 ft) to 1,600 m (5,249 ft) deep, and a width from 400 m (1,312 ft) to some meters at its narrowest part". I don't think the heights and widths are in correspondence in the way that the reader will assume here. AFAIK (I don't have access to the Guinness Book itself), the Vikos Gorge seems to be listed for its depth of 900 m and width of 1100 m. A depth of 450 m and width of only a few metres would obviously be a lot more impressive, but I don't think that's realistic. And if there are walls of 1600 m anywhere then obviously the gorge must be much wider than 400 m there. I guess it may be best to rely on a specific, high-quality source for such measurements and stick very close to it.
  • "The [Vikos] gorge, with a northwest-southeast direction" – I thought the water flows the other way round, towards Albania. I don't have good map, but on Google maps it looks as if the Voidomatis joins the Aoos below Konitsa, after crossing the E90 road.
  • I think these panorama photos give an excellent impression of the Vikos Gorge and could perhaps be linked from its separate article (which needs work, obviously). Generally the supporting articles for related topics seem to be in a relatively poor state. E.g. Monastery of Saint Paraskevi links to the disambiguation page Monodendri, and is linked itself from Monodendri, Achaea (wrong), but not from Monodendri (Ioannina) (where it is only mentioned). (I may fix this later, but I am leaving this for the moment for lack of time and to demonstrate the problem.) Hans Adler 10:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the measurements. Perhaps the editor meant to say that the lowest point is 450 m above sea level, which could be correct. Mentioning the depth of 900 m and width of 1100 m is probably more clear, though I'm not sure if they're accurate. - Onno Zweers (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the river flows north. I've seen many rafters being washed away in that direction ;-) - Onno Zweers (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most impressive article. Comprehensive, well-written and interesting. If I had not already visited the place, it would make me want to! I have made various tweaks & copyedits, including a move to conform the title with the name I found in most English-language sources. I will also assess it as A-class for WPGR. Constantine ✍ 11:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight for This Love

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently recieved GA status. I think it is in excellent condition passing all examples of project based criteria from WP:NSONGS. Care has been used to ensure that only the most reliable of sources are used. I think its good enough for FA but thought I should try peer review first as this was my first GA and it will be my second attempt at FA (I already nominated another article for FA and I'm waiting to hear back so its quite nerve-wracking). It would be good if people could review and just state whether there is anything major missing or if the prose could be improved etc.

Thanks, Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: The article has plenty of information in it, and has obviously been well researched.

  • Prose: I have only carried out a detailed prose check on the lead, and there is rather a lot in this short section that needs attention. This makes me feel that the whole article needs to be copyedited by an experienced prose reviewer. These people are not easy to find, but you could try editors who have some history of getting song articles through FAC. Here are my detailed lead points.
    • "...released in British Isles" What is meant by "British Isles"? Do you mean the United Kingdom? Needs a "the", anyway.
    • "...as lead single from the project..." What "project"?
    • "..."and later in 2010 for Europe through Universal Music." Clumsy, and why "for" Europe?
    • "mid-tempo" needs explanation. The song is described as "up-tempo" in the main body of the article, and that term isn't explained either.
    • "...the American songwriting team" → "an American songwriting team"
    • "demoed" isn't a real word. Either rephrase or find an alternative word.
    • I actually can't understand the sentence "Initially demoed with male vocals, Cole cited an instant connection to the song which has a noticeable synthy production", which also has faulty grammar.
    • "different to" → "different from"
    • ""Fight for This Love" divided music critics whilst some noted that the song was very much her style not all were positive about the vocals." Needs punctuating, and preferably the word "whilst" should be replaced by "while".
    • "...when Cole's marriage to footballer Ashley Cole broke down." → "...was breaking down."
    • Third paragraph: punctuation and words missing. Comma required after "X Factor" (which should be written as "The X Factor"); the word "in" should be inserted before Norway; comma required after Denmark.
  • Article structure: the "Background and composition" section is very brief, while the "Promotion" section seems rather long and perhaps overdetailed. It is followed by a "Music video" section; no mention was made of the video in the lead, which is supposd to summarise all parts of the article. It also seems very odd to have the video section before the critical reception of the single. Incidentally, you should not include unexplained star ratings in the Critical reception section.
  • Why is detailed recording information given for the "Didn't I" song, which is not the subject of the article?

That's all, really. As I am unable to watch my peer reviews, please contact my talkpage if you have issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for doing this. One thing that always surprises me is prose issues but when reading the article I immediately understood what you meant. So I've been through and virtually made all of the changes you've suggested. The only thing I left was the promotion section because in comparison to 4 Minutes (an FA) by Madonna, the section is not that much longer than the one for Madonna's single. This is especially true considering that this is Cole's debut release and there level of promotion was extensive. It cannot be called Live Performances like the Madonna article because it was not always performed live. If you get chance it would be good if you could take a second look? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hayao Miyazaki

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve this article to GA and eventually FA. Would like to know what needs to be cleaned up and how.

Thanks, 陣内Jinnai 00:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 4meter4 I have seen only three Miyazaki films and would not consider myself highly familiar with his work or his person. I am a great admirer of Spirited Away. Given my limited familiarity with the subject, my comments are related more to style, organization, and general fixes as opposed to content. While there are some wonderful things about this article, in my opinion much work still needs to be done before its submission for either GA or FA review. In particular, this article needs more citations for verification and a considerable amount of re-structuring. I hope the following is helpful to you.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
  • Many English speakers may be uncertain how to pronounce "Hayao Miyazaki". I personally would add a Template:IPA that would explain how to say his name correctly.
  • The lead section should consist of three (no more and no less) fully developed paragraphs which give a general overview of the article's content. There are currently too many paragraphs; many of which are short and could be merged together.
  • The lead should not contain any citations. All content in the lead should be stated somewhere in tbe article's body where it can be properly cited. If it's not in the body it shouldn't be in the lead.
  • The film Titanic should be italicized consistantly.
  • Just a personal preference: I would begin the article with a simple statement of occupation: "Hayao Miyazaki is a Japanese anime director, animator, and manga artist." This should be followed by a sentence which establishes his importance. A possible sentence would be "Through a career that has spanned nearly five decades, Miyazaki has attained international acclaim as a maker of animated feature films." From here you could list some of his awards and honours, but I would avoid dedicating more than a sentence or two to this. More details about his accolaides should be contained in an "Awards and honours" section and not in the lead.
  • The lead should contain an overview of his entire career. Perhaps you could begin a second paragraph with the following: "Miyazaki began his career as an animator at Toei Animation in 1963. He first obtained wide recognition in his own nation with... In 1985 he co-founded Studio Gibli with... With that studio he rose to international success... etc.
  • The third and final paragraph could discuss his work. I like what the lead currently says about the themes. It should further summarize other sections on his work from the body like the "Creation process and animation style" section, etc.
    • Okay. I cleaned up the lead somewhat. The refs I still have to find a place for so that's temparary (don't want to hide as this is a living bio). However I'm having a hard time figuring out where to place the last paragraph which talks about the thematic elements of his films.陣内Jinnai 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Body
  • The body of this article is poorly structured. "Personal life" is a far too broad of a heading to be of any real use to either the editor or the reader. Anytime I see that heading in any article, it raises a red flag in my mind. For one, it suggests a separation between the subject as a person and the subject as an artist, politician, athlete, or whatever career they may have. This is always a false separation. A person's career is always influenced by their personal life, and vise versa. To talk about one as separate from the other is the antithesis of a good biography. Serious scholars and biographers disect the personal lives of their subjects and attempt to draw connections/insights between person and career. It is much easier to do this if Miyazaki's personal and career details are related together in chronological order so we know what is happening in his "person life" while he's creating certain works.
  • The "Films" section is also not well constructed. Firstly, it is largely unreferenced and needs citations for verification. Second, in a section labeled films I would expect to find a critical analysis/apprecitation of his work as a whole. This happens to only a small extent here, although it happens to some extent in other sections further down with varying degrees of success. Hopefully some books have been published which have in-depth discussions of Miyazaki's artistry which can help verify the content. If not, newspaper reviews would be a good place to start. Some of the content in this section is really a chronological account of his career (i.e. what he created in what years and where). That kind of content should really be included in an earlier section detailing his career.
  • I would suggest the following structure for the body:
  • Give personal life and career details in the following three sections. Avoid giving detailed analysis of the films in these sections but indicate the importance/impact of such works in relation to the big picture of his life/career.
  • Early life and education:1941-1963
  • Early career:1963-1984
  • Studio Ghibli:1985-present
  • These should be followed by the following:
  • Works. This section should give a critical analysis/appriciation of his overall work as an artist. It should avoid giving detailed plot synopses. While some analysis of individual works is necessary, remember the goal here is to give a picture of the artist and his work as a whole. The really detailed stuff should not be in this article but in the articles on the individual films, manga novels, etc. Sub-sections here could follow what's already in the article "Films", "Manga", "Creation process and animation style", etc.
  • Awards and honours This could be a bulleted list or, if you prefer, prose. I would delete the ugly award succession boxes at the bottom. If you have time, create some templates instead.
  • Filmography This is good. No complaints here.

Well that is all. Hope this is helpful and good luck!4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great start to a biography on a important person in the anime and manga field. :) Aside from needing more citations, and the style of those citations being cleaned up (page numbers for Helen McCarthy's book, consistent use/disuse of citation templates), I noticed that there were many fair use pictures that seemed to be decorative rather than illustrative, so I've removed them. Also, a better summary style would be helpful between the daughter article Styles and themes of Hayao Miyazaki and Hayao Miyazaki. --Malkinann (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upstairs, Downstairs episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Upstairs, Downstairs is a highly acclaimed television drama series and therefore warrants a good episode list page. Since its a British series I have attempted to use UK English as opposed to my usual US English. Any helpful suggestions on how to improve this article will be greatly appreciated. I'm hoping to elevate this article to FL status.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First opinion This already looks like an excellent list article, to the point where I can't think of too many things which could be improved on before nominating for FL. However, as I have no real experience in the featured list area it would perhaps be best to wait for another editor's opinion for a fuller review. Failing that, my two-penny's worth would be:

  • "Acclaimed as one of the most successful dramatic series in television history". To me, at least, it wasn't immediately obvious that this is a quote from Steve Runyon at the Museum of Broadcast Communication, and as a result I initially thought the sentence perhaps sounded slightly peacocky. I don't doubt that it was (and still is) a very successful series, but wonder whether that comment ought to be in quotation marks? To a certain extent, the awards listed in the same paragraph speak for themselves about its critical acclaim.
    • First off, thanks for the suggestions. I delayed addressing them for several days due to some personal situations that prevented me from concentrating on the Wiki articles. I've removed the "successful dramatic series" part and let the awards speak for the series' quality.
  • The title screen at File:Upstairs Downstairs.png is quite big for a fairuse image, and I would suggest it would be advisable to reduce it to half the size if it's going to be nominated. I'd also reccommend that the rationale could be tightened up a little to say exactly why it's justified on this particular article.
  • I've reduced the size of the picture.
  • A personal preference for me would be the incorporation of mini plot summaries to assist in identifying the episodes. Oddly, this doesn't appear to be a Featured List requirement, so don't feel that this is something that must be done, but for me, it's often the most important aspect of a list of episodes. I mainly use these lists when I want to find out what the title of an episode is by what happens in it, etc.
    • As I see it, television episodes can be listed in three tiers: 1) A list containing the episodes for the entire run of the shows; 2) a more in-depth look by listing episodes for one particular season; and 3) one article for each individual episode. Number two should have a brief synopsis for the episodes while number one can have them or not. I imagine that the number of episodes should determine how to list them. In the case of two episode lists that I did—Gunsmoke (20 seasons/635 episodes) and M*A*S*H (11 seasons/251 episodes)‐ the number of their episodes makes the lists exceptionally long, so I think listing just the titles is sufficient. For a series that had a briefer run a plot synopsis could be included.
      In the case of ‘’Upstairs, Downstairs’’ we could probably go either way, since there is really no rule or guide to follow. Right now I’d like to keep the list as it is (i.e. with just the titles) and perhaps later on make pages for each of the five seasons (or five series, as the British apparently say).

Apologies for not being able to come up with any extra comments, but good luck with nominating for featured list. Bob talk 18:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree having summaries for each episode would make the article enormously long, so it's probably a sensible compromise. All the other tweaks look good to me. Bob talk 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Looks good. I really like the series, and I'm glad you've done the list. Here are a few suggestions:

Lead

  • Should Upstairs, Downstairs be bolded as well as italicized?
    • No, I think the basic guide line here is to use bold the main article and no bold in a “satellite” article, such as this one.
  • "Rachel Gurney and Nicola Pagett both left the series after the second series." - Maybe "show" to replace the first instance of "series" in this sentence to avoid repetition.
    • I originally had “second season” but it was changed by someone else. I now have “left the show after …”
  • I'm not sure you need to spell out ITV (or briefly explain what it is) or PBS, but I'd think about doing that if it doesn't mess up the prose flow. I feel more strongly about BAFTA, which I think should be spelled out and abbreviated on first use.
    • They are no longer spelled out as someone else changed them. As for what the abbreviations for ITV, PBS, and BAFTA mean … well, readers can always follow the link.

Table of contents

  • I try to avoid using the same words over and over in my heads and subheads. The word "series" leaps out in this table of contents. I'm not sure what the fix would be, but perhaps "Overview" instead of "Series overview" and then perhaps "Episodes by series", then "One (1971–72)" and so on. Just a suggestion.
    • “Series overview” is now changed to just “Overview” . “Series One”, Series Two”, etc. seems appropriate.

Overlinking

  • I see a bit of overlinking. For example, I don't think you need to link "Emmy for the Outstanding Continuing Performance by a Supporting Actress" more than once or Jean Marsh in the lead and again three or so times in the main text.
    • I’ve taken out all but the first links for each person or award.

Series One

  • "For this series the series won the BAFTA for Best Drama Series." - The word "series" is repeated three times in this short sentence. Better would be "This set of episodes won the BAFTA for the Best Drama Series."
    • Changed to: “For this series the show won the BAFTA for Best Drama.”
  • "due to industrial action at the ITV companies" - "Industrial action" might not be clear to all readers. I assume this means a workers' strike. If so, would it be good to add what kind of strike and why it would shut down colour filming but not black-and-white?
    • Changed to: “The first six episodes were made in black and white due to a strike at the the ITV companies.”
  • "was subsequently junked" - "Junked" is slang and might not make sense to all readers. Perhaps "discarded"?
    • Changed to: “was subsequently destroyed.”

External links

  • A book is not an external link. A possible solution would be to eliminate the subheads in this section, to create a "Further reading" section, and to move the book to "Further reading".
    • Book at web site are now listed as references
  • The book data should include the place of publication. WorldCat probably has it.
    • Added.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just responding to your second request. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. I don't remember seeing anything especially controversial in this list. I'd be happy to respond to specific questions, though. Finetooth (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger's Apprentice

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get this article up to GA. I know it's not there yet, but I am not sure what more to add into the article.

Thanks, Derild4921☼ 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, and I find it interesting. The "Plot", "Setting", and "Characters" sections combined may be a bit too long given the thinness of the rest of the material. You might remedy this by expanding the lower sections if possible and reducing the "Plot" section somewhat. It might be possible to find more material about Flanagan or the books off-line, perhaps in published collections about recent children's literature. Here are other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

  • "So far, nine books have been released in Australia and New Zealand, with other countries including the United States and United Kingdom following behind." - Two problems: (1) Rather than "so far", which is non-specific, I'd recommend using "As of 2010" or something equivalent; (2) Rather than saying two countries are following the other two, I'd say something like "Through 2010, nine books have been released in four countries: Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom." Or if this means that nine have been released in the first two countries and fewer in the other two, it would be better to specify the number(s) in the other two.
  • "The story takes place in a fictional medieval world based off European medieval times." - "Based on" rather than "based off"?
  • "The series has been sold in 16 countries around the world and has sold over 2 million copies." - Rather than repeating "sold" twice, perhaps recast as "Series sales have totaled more than 2 million copies among 16 countries"?
  • "There was also a five day camp at BookPeople where 75 kids were chosen from 1,300 entries to learned Ranger skills." - This seems out-of-place. In the first place, most readers will be unfamiliar with BookPeople and will be surprised to learn that it is in Texas and not Australia. I would consider changing this to say "A five-day Ranger camp at BookPeople, a book store in Austin, Texas, in the U.S., helped promote the book" and leaving the statistics for the main text.

Plot

  • "Will was an apprentice throughout the books... ". - I'd recommend sticking with present tense in the plot summary. I'd change this to "Will is... " to match "The first four books tell the story... " of the second sentence. In the second half of the second sentence, I'd change "told" to "tells". And so on. Generally, the plot summary already uses present as its main tense, but I'd make the other verbs conform to this pattern. Past tense and other tenses are fine in the plot summary when they refer to times other than the present in the story itself; e.g. something like "the orc ate the horses, which had been resting before the start of the battle".
  • "when they arrive they realize Wargals, orc-like monsters" - Wikilink orc?
  • "Such a bridge could assault the King's army straight from behind and destroy the King's forces." - A bridge can't assault anything. Suggestion: "Such a bridge might allow attack and destruction of the King's army from the rear." Or something like that.
  • "a drug that gives a person warmth, but destroys their mind" - To avoid the awkwardness of the singular "a person" matched with the plural "their mind", perhaps "a drug that gives a person warmth, but destroys the mind"?
  • "At the end Will is given his Silver Oakleaf symbolizing him becoming a full Ranger." - Suggestion: "At the end Will is promoted to full Ranger and is awarded a Silver Oakleaf."

Will's first mission

  • "Will takes on his first mission as a full Ranger throughout the books of The Sorcerer in the North and The Siege of Macindaw." - The Manual of Style generally advises against extremely short sections or paragraphs. I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the one below it.
  • "As a full Ranger at last, Will is assigned to a fief of his own at." - Doesn't make sense as written. Also, wikilink fief?

Setting

  • I don't think you need to link the novel titles more than once in the main text. Since The Ruins of Gorlan and the others have already been linked in the earlier sections, I think you could delete the duplicate links.

Publishing history and origins

  • I think you need to identify the publisher(s) of Flanagan's books here and, if possible, explain how he made the connection with the publisher(s). Does he have an agent? Did he find a publisher easily, or was it difficult? Were any of the short stories published separately, in Australian magazines perhaps?

Inspiration

  • "because Flanagan was inspired by "English and European culture and history" - Direct quotations need an in-line citation placed right after the quote or the punctuation immediately following the quote.
  • "After reading the first book, he realized he had the same two boy-one girl relationship in the books." - Maybe "After reading the first Potter book, Flanagan realized that his story involved a similar relationship between two boys and one girl." Or something like that.

Themes

  • "because Flanagan was inspired by "English and European culture and history" - Needs a citation.

Camp

  • "BookPeople, which also created Camp Half-Blood from Percy Jackson & the Olympians, created a Ranger’s Apprentice Corps Training Camp based on the books." - I think you need to say where BookPeople is geographically and, if possible, explain why a Texas company rather than an Australian company would do something like this.
  • The short quotation in this section is not long enough for a blockquote, per WP:MOSQUOTE, and it should not be in italics. I'd suggest embedding it in the main text in ordinary type.
  • "There are also plans for another camp in the following summer." - When was the first camp held?

Critical reception

  • ""filled with rich detail and plenty of edge-of-your-seat thrills" - Needs a source.
  • ""the pace is a good balance between character development and action, and the rivalry between Horace and Will is developed in a satisfactory way." - Needs a source.
  • "The first book was also the Longlisted for the Ottakar's Book Prize for 2006–2007" - This looks a little odd. Is that really the title of the prize? I mean is "Longlisted" part of the title, or is that a description?

References

  • The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. I'd suggest changing all the nonconforming dates to the same as the main text; i.e., 1 July 2010 (d-m-y).
  • The Manual of Style says to use Wikipedia house style in the citations rather than the house style of the source. In practice, this means using title case instead of all caps. Thus in citation 1, "THE RANGER'S APPRENTICE" should be changed to "The Ranger's Apprentice". Ditto for the all-caps parts of citations 5 and 8.
  • Newspaper names like Washington Post should appear in italics.
  • Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of these are known or can be found. For example, citation 6 should include the author: Wood, Sarah A. Most of the citations look incomplete.

Other

  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles to see how other editors have handled similar material. You will find a list of FA articles about novels at WP:FA#Literature and theatre. See for example Lad, A Dog.
  • I found and fixed many small errors such as the lack of italics for book titles. It would be good to proofread the whole article again after any further changes to the text. I doubt that I caught everything.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise.

WrestleMania

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I've putting this article up for Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Nascarking (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not allowed to be on GAN and under a peer review at the same time. This should probably be removed from the GAN list.--WillC 23:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the article from GAN. It isn't near ready anyway. Here are a list of improvements that need to be made:

  • Add sources wherever there is a citation needed tag.
  • Entire sections of text don't have a single inline citation.
  • The celebrity involvement section needs to be written in WP:SUMMARY style with a link to the main article List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania.
  • Web sources need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
  • The history section needs some rewriting. It isn't fluid at all. It's more of "This happened this year. The next year, this happened."
  • There's also a lot of personal opinion in the article. For example: "The match is considered to be one of the best matches in the history of the event." According to whom?

That's a start at least. Nikki♥311 02:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Champions

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to work out any problems before a potential FLC nomination. I've successfully nominated lists at FLC before, but this is the first time I've created a list from scratch. Comments on the prose in the lead are particularly welcome, but any feedback would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Giants2008: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

  • why isn't score sortable?
  • "Years won" this sort after the first year won, which might not be clear per the title of the column.
  • What is "Triple overtime"?
  • "The team's result was later vacated by the NCAA because of a rules violation" reads porely
  • Nothing much to write about. I would consider closing the PR if I where you.
  • The scores are sortable now (at least by winner's score).
  • I'm not sure what can be done about this. Similar champion lists use varying titles for such a column, and this one seems as reasonable as any. Also, if it was sorted by number of titles won, it would be redundant since the Wins column already sorts that way.

HOMR

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it can become a GA article

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be using Category:FA-Class The Simpsons articles as a guide for this review --Senra (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methodology. I examined all 21 Category:FA-class The Simpsons articles. I rejected 11 as not comparable. I was left with ten episode articles which had been promoted FA-class between March 2007 and October 2009. I then sorted them by date, with the newest promoted article first. I compared your article with those ten, giving more weight to more recently promoted articles. I am not qualified to judge this for FA-class. As I am not a nerd fan of the Simpsons, I thought this method might be the fairest way to review the article

Lead: we leave this till last but one thing caught my eye

  • "...the ninth episode of The Simpsons’ twelfth season..." and "...and the last episode produced for the eleventh season." and "...This is also the last episode in the BABF (season 11) production line,..." needs explaining in the body or removing from the lead

Size this article is 8.5 KB. The mean size of the 10 FA-class Simpsons' episode articles I examined is 11.5 KB. The smallest, Homer's Enemy (promoted May 2007) is 8,740 B and the largest is Lisa the Vegetarian (promoted August 2009) with 14 KB.

Structure the article seems to follow the average structure of the articles I compared it with, though three also have a Theme and a Merchandising section. I am not sure if such sections are appropriate for this article, so perhaps this is just an observation.

Guest stars I guess there were none

Plot generally a good read. Three comments

  • I do not think you should be wikilinking "Sick, Twisted, F***ed-Up Animation Festival" to Spike & Mike's wikipedia article? Potential WP:NPOV. Might be better to be explicit and say that it is a parody of
  • "... the doctors find a crayon lodged ..." and later "... head before, Dr. Hibbert feebly ..." begs the question was Dr. Hibbert one of the earlier Doctors and who are "The scientists opt to have ..."?
  • There are few few long sentences such as the 77 word "With Homer's newly ..., much to Flanders' disappointment.", and the 84 word final sentence of the plot. They are readable, but only just. You should probably break them up a little or use more ";"'s

Production, Cultural references, Reception in comparison to the other articles I read, I found these sections in your article a little light on detail

References you have 12 references. The mean number of references in the 10 articles I looked at is 25. The least number of references was 15 in Homer's Enemy (promoted May 2007) and the most with 41 was Lisa the Vegetarian (promoted August 2009)

I think this is the first time I have read a Simpsons episode on Wikipedia. I enjoyed the read. Well done. I hope you found the review useful. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Consider reviewing one article from the peer-review backlog (near the top of the Peer review page) which is how I found this article.

--Senra (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Sudamericana winners

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because myself and other contributors would like to make this a featured list. We (the contributors) feel that this list is a good candidate for FL status, but outsider eyes and opinions would be beneficial. Any comments that would help it achieve that goal would be great.

Thanks, Digirami (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandman888 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The non-free image gotta go. Criteria 8 clearly, WP:FUC, states "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
  • references shd include: author(s), date, abbrevation spelled out in full. See List of FC Barcelona seasons for an example of rsssf refs.
  • refs shd be after punctuations.
  • lead needs expanding and a copyedit for FL.

Finetooth comments: I agree with Sandman's suggestions above. Here are a few more ideas:

Lead

  • I would spell out CONCACAF or explain its meaning on first use in the lead.
  • I would consider adding the names of the home cities to the team names in the lead. Outsiders are not likely to know that San Lorenzo is from Buenos Aires, for example.
  • Possibilities for expanding the lead: Would it be useful to list the 39 teams? Are the CONCACAF teams something other than the 39? If so, should they be listed too? On what basis are the teams invited to play in the tournament? How many teams participate in the tournament each year? Do the tournaments including any awards for outstanding individual play?

Key

  • "Finals decided on goal aggregate" - Should "goal aggregate" be linked or briefly explained? Does it mean the total number of goals scored by a particular team throughout the tournament?
  • "Each link is the relevant Copa Libertadores article for that year" - Since a link isn't an article, perhaps "Each link connects to the relevant Copa Libertadores article for that year"?

References

  • Wikipedia converts the all-caps parts of titles in sources to title case to conform to its own house style. Thus, SOUTH AMERICAN COMPETITIONS in citation 1 should be changed to "South American Competitions".
  • Citations to web sites should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access, if all of those are known or can be found. For example, citation 1 should include the author (Torre, Raúl) and the publication date, August 12, 2009. Another example would be citation 7, which is missing the author's name (Falanga, Nicolás). You should check each citation for missing data; I did not check them all.

Images

  • Although the fair-use claim for the logo is doubtful, the article would be better with images, preferably from the tournaments but perhaps generic team photos or even photos of star players or cheering fans or something else.

Other

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I don't think it must be ready for good article status yet. I have done a clean up and added some more info. Another copyediting is probably needed. I would like to get this article on GA status soon, I have worked lots on it! Every single source is trustworthy IMO, as a person living in the area I could prove what do they say, but there's no original research :P Please, help me with this! All the opinions and suggestions are really welcome!

Thanks, Diego Grez let's talk 20:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments from —fetch·comms
  • endashes on the "Important dates" section
  • get a good copyedit from the WP:GCE or something. There's a backlog elimination drive this month; do it now and you'll probably get it done within a week or two.
  • expand the lede a bit?

—fetch·comms 00:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a request to the Guild of Copyeditors for the second time. For the "Important dates" section, I think the table is preferrable.I misunderstood the suggestion. I based it on Rancagua, that is a GA article on es.wp. And the lead, I would like to expand it a bit, ideas are welcome. Diego Grez let's talk 03:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from C628 (talk)
  • "They also built homes along the dock on what is now Ortúzar Avenue. Later, large land owners included Pedro Pavez Polanco and Hacienda of San Antonio de Petrel. These large land-holding families constructed historic homes and buildings over the years" and "He regularized the city plan in 1894. Subsequently, Pichilemu became the historic capital of the province called Cardenal Caro which is named after the first Chilean Catholic Church Cardinal" and "It operated until 1932, when the Viña del Mar Casino was opened. After its closure, it became a hotel, which was in business until the 1980s" and "Villa Los Navegantes (English: Village The Navigators) is a village of Pichilemu, approximately 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) in size, which was founded in 1997. After five years of construction, approximately 30 houses were built. It has a small sports court where residents can play football, basketball and tennis" and most of the education section are unreferenced. C628 (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments from sonia♫♪
  • "In the Cáhuil Lagoon, an embarkation type known as caballito de mar, made with totora that was recollected nearby the Laguna del Perro, was used until the mid-XX century. In addition to the caballito de mar was used another embarkation also made with totora, similar to the wolf's leather balsa" needs to be clarified. I'm in the middle of a copyedit, but I can't figure out exactly what you mean there.
     Done explained better
  • The Demographics section is a little bland, is there any less number-based information to add? Maybe there is a way to make it a little more interesting.
    Don't know. Demography is boring by default :D --Diego Grez what's up? 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I finish the copyedit, I'll come back with more suggestions; overall, looks fine, though it could maybe be better organised in places. sonia♫♪ 12:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)

Moved from Pichilemu's copyedit request at the Guild of Copyeditors

Phew. I've copy-edited general grammar and structure mistakes; however, because you say you aspire to move the article to GA, I'd like to recommend a few "style" tips:

  • Try to cut down on foreign terms. Although some terms are necessary due to their nature, others – like parroquia – already have an English meaning, and therefore is useless (in my point of view) to list the Spanish term in conjunction.
  • I know, most of the time, in what direction you are trying to go when you list facts, but they seem to be a little scattered across paragraphs. Try to keep facts for a specific subject relevant to what is around it, and don't change the subject too abruptly.
  • Reminder: commas are required before the "and" if it enumerates more than one noun (e.g.: trees, grass, and flowers).

I don't think this is GA-worthy yet; there is still a bit of work to be done. But I hope this helps you get closer! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 05:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90377 Sedna

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done some expanding in preparation for an FA nom and was wondering if there was anything I missed.

Thanks, Serendipodous 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RJH comments—Here are a few observations that I hope will be helpful if you take this forward for FAC:

  • Several places in the first paragraph of the lede contain transitory information, which may become outdated. For example, other, more distant dwarf planet candidates may yet be discovered. Likewise, somebody is likely to object to "It is currently...". I'd recommend using an {{As of}} template, or clarifying it somehow.
  • "...led to much speculation as to its origin" is passive. You might instead say something to the effect that the origin remains uncertain. You could also remove the "in fact" from a subsequent sentence as additive.
  • The statement that, "However, Sedna never comes close enough to Neptune to be affected by its gravity," is untrue. It is always effected by the gravity of Neptune. This needs to be changed to something regarding the degree of perturbation from the object's orbit. Even small perturbations can add up, under certain circumstances.
  • Please clarify the first mention of IAU, rather than subsequently listing the full name and linking it there.
  • "Inuit" should be wikilinked.
  • "The name was, however,..." 'However' should be at the start of the sentence.
  • "Sedna's 200-year perihelion period" Could you explain perihelion "period" here?
  • "Sedna's precise orbital period is not yet known..." As of?
  • "It is now generally believed..." {{Says who}}
  • The "common model of the surface" values don't add up to 100%. I get a total of 59%.
  • "Amateur astronomers using advanced software and long exposures have been able to detect Sedna." This seems a trivial mention, and the listed cite has a broken link. Have they made any discoveries beyond simple detection, or does this have some other applicability?
  • In the origin section, could the text explain whether the disruptive collision of a larger body has been ruled out as a cause?
  • The names in the references section are formatted inconsistently. I see mixtures of semi-colon and comma separators, instances where it is "last, first", "first last" and mixtures of the two. Any "et al." should use italics.
  • The Elliot et al. (2006) needs a doi or bibcode.
  • Some of the external links could be trimmed, as could some of the redundant "See also" links.
  • Addition: It might not hurt to include a "fun fact" about how the Sun would appear if viewed from Sedna. Several old news stories mention that the Sun would appear like a bright star, rather than a disk. Probably could compare the brightness to that of the Moon and give an angular size comparison of some sort.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A few things that would make this article more polished:

  • is there any better image available?
    • Sadly, our knowledge of Sedna in 2010 is kind of like are knowledge of Pluto was in the mid 1970's. commons:Category:Sedna doesn't seem to have any exciting ones that do not mislead the reader into thinking we know more about Sedna than we really do. ie: a lot of website still show Sedna with a large moon, and we now know that Sedna does not have a large spherical moon. LightBuckets has a decent image that is basically as good as the discovery image, but it is for "non-profit use only". -- Kheider (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • try to find a picture of the goddess after which it was named
  • "Sedna will overtake Eris as the farthest now-known spheroid orbiting the Sun in 2114": spheroid is a vague term for anybody that is not used to the astronomical jargon; either link it or explain what is the limit for having an object defined as a spheroid (is there a differentiation btw spheroid and minor planet?); also "presently-known" might be better than "now-known"
  • in the exploration section I would add an OR-ish type of information that I think would still be valuable to the article: take the best-case-scenario (i.e. perihelion in 2075) and try to estimate when would a spaceship (with the current technology, say New Horizons) have to be launched to intercept the spheroid. A rough estimation tells me it should be on the order of 25 years. This way readers would have a better grasp on the difficulties in studying such an object. Also, how long would a signal take to travel from Sedna to Earth?
  • "observed no such object orbiting the planetoid": what is the confidence interval (i.e. estimated upper limit on the diameter of this planetoid)
  • "New measurements from the MMT " change to "Newer" since 2005 is not really new anymore
  • "Observations from Chile ": be specific: what observatory(es)?
  • "lthough Sedna's 200-year perihelion period may allow its surface temperature to rise above the 35.6 K (−237.4°C or −395.3°F) boundary required for nitrogen to shift from solid to gas,[19] its deep red spectrum, indicative of high concentrations of organic material, and weak methane absorption bands suggest that, unlike similar large objects like Triton or Pluto, Sedna never forms an atmosphere": this is quite confusing: never is an overly-strong choice of word; if you mention N2 sublimation, then explicitly state that it would mean that the surface does not contain N2 (this is q bit weird though; does anybody explain the lack of N2?). Why is weak absorption of CH4 indicative of an atmospehre? Try to explain a bit.
    • I guess this paragraph is a bit confusing because it it unnecessarly succint
  • there are two 1-sentence para's in the characteristics section. try to merge them somehow
  • ah, what is the confidence interval for the perihelion and aphelion? in other words is the 975AU more like 800-1200 for a 95% CI or much tighter?
  • "The distinction is made formally, using the orbital elements (see Tisserand's parameter)." this should be explanded/explained.

18.74.1.238 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan v. Itasca County

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see if I can improve it to GA then FA. It is a landmark case in Native American law.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 02:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short comment: Judging by the length of the scroll thumb it might be a bit short. Can it be expanded a little? By the way, I'll really appreciate if you could review manufacturing in Hong Kong. Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 04:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article, and given the growth of gambling on reservations, it seems like a fairly important one too - thanks for you work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to eventually taking this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.

  • The article is fairly short - while length is not a criterion for either GA or FA, GA requires broad coverage (see WP:WIAGA) and FA requires comprehensive coverage {see WP:WIAFA). I think this needs some more content to meet those criteria.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding content would also help to provide context to the reader, which is always a good thing. Here are some things that seem to me to be missing or not present in enough detail:
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the Background section, but think it might be helpful to add a few sentences on the status of Native American tribes in the US and their reservations.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also nothing on the arguments presented before the court, not even the date. Since there is a link to audio of the arguments, and I assume a transcript is available somewhere, it seems like this should be in there. I know when I listen to NPR there are often stories on arguments before the court, was there any such press coverage of this case at the time?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article also needs to be clearer on when and where all of this took place - the final decision was in 1976, but when the did the tax incident take place and when was the Minnesota Supreme court case?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also put details like the amount of the bill in the background, and make it clearer that the mobile home was at least physically in Itasca County.
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are things in the article that do not seem to follow the WP:MOS - it may be these follow some sort of Law article MOS, but I think all external links in the text should be converted to inline citations - for example the links to the laws in (67 Stat. 588, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. § 1360)
✗ Not done See Wikipedia:SCOTUS#Project for more info on MOS issues for SCOTUS cases. Cases that are cited are to be cited with either {{ussc}} or {{cite court}} which produces an external link to either Justica or Findlaw for the US Supreme Court cases. In the refs, the Blue Book citation style is to be used. See here for examples of Blue Book citations. GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations also seem to me to be less than complete (though again they may fine for legal refs). For example if something is online, the publisher and access date should be given.
✗ Not done Per above. Any librarian can direct a reader to the right resource, especially at a law library. For the SCOTUS cases, the cite (xxx U.S. xxx) will bring up the case in Google - lower courts are very seldom on-line, and if they are, it is a pay service like LoisLaw, or a subscription service like WestLaw or Lexis. In either case, the cite will locate the article. For the law reviews and journals, the same applies - very few are available for free. GregJackP Boomer! 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or why is the case name in bold in current ref 2 Bryan v. Itasca County, 228 N.W.2d 249 and is this really enough information for someone to find this information if they wanted to?
 Done Template problem - I'll put it in manually. GregJackP Boomer! 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already mentioned news reports for the arguments, but what was the news coverage like when it was first decided? Did articles at the time foresee the long term effects or was that a more gradual development?
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another FA criterion is a professional level of English - the prose is good in most spots, but there are places that are rough - one example Since Minnesota's interpretation meets none of these tests, Brennan stated that the court would not do so, and reversed their decision. The middle phrase does not seem to follow from the first: "Brennan stated that the court would not do so" - do what? The preceding phrase is about not meeting tests. This was unclear (although I still undertood what it was trying to mean)
 Done GregJackP Boomer! 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ><>°° 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. I would rename the General information section as "Background". I would move the last ref in the section to the end of the sentence (after the period). I would add the dates of the arguments before SCOTUS and the announcement of the decision. When you take it to GAN or FAC, I would mention that this follows the Law MOS. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thank you for the review. GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kareena Kapoor

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Kareena Kapoor is an Indian actress who appears in Bollywood films. In July 2008, the article reached a GA status, and subsequently went on to have an unsuccessful FAC. Since then, I have been working on the article in my sandbox for the past several months. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, before taking it to FAC again, I believe the article would benefit with a broader perspective and more comments from editors. I would like to know what your opinion of the article is and if there are any suggestions on improving it further.

Thanks, -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One little note - I can't see the great necessity for all the publishing details in references. For instance - The Times of India. (The Times Group). I think The Times of India is enough here. Shahid • Talk2me 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of this. Well-known and obvious publishers like The Times Group, The Hindu Group for sources like The Times of India/Indiatimes and The Hindu have been removed. On the other hand, I have left the publishers for some sources like Essel Group for Zee News, etc. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs):

  • File:Kapoor (Chameli).jpg and File:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg - I could perhaps be convinced of the value of having a single non-free image to convey the way in which Kapoor is presented/portrayed in her work, but the current rationales do not sufficiently articulate such a need (i.e. are weak) and I question the need for two non-free images (NFCC#3A requires minimal use). To take File:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg as an example: how does this screen demonstrate that this was a milestone? A reader won't know that without reading; the image does nothing to convey that knowledge (NFCC#1). How does this screen show a zest for life? If it did, why wouldn't prose also be sufficient to convey such information? How does this screen show that she won an award or the reason therefore? The final rationale point is boilerplate nonsense. What is the significant contribution to understanding of Kapoor? Providing illustration is not, in and of itself, contribution to understanding.
  • File:Globus kareenakapoorsittingontheballsummer08 pic.jpg - Has no rationale for this article (NFCC#10C), has no source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#1OA), does not attribute an author/copyright holder (NFCC#10A) and appears to irreparable fail NFCC#8. What is the significant contribution to our understanding? How does an ad convey any substantive understanding of the clothing? Prose tells us about the line. A free image could depict the line (NFCC#1). Эlcobbola talk 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will take some time. I'll take a look at it and get back to you if I have any questions. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I think this is generally of FA quality. Looking at the past FACs and agreeing with User:Elcobbola's comments above, I would suggest deleting File:Globus kareenakapoorsittingontheballsummer08 pic.jpg and either File:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg or File:Kapoor (Chameli).jpg. You might be able to make a convincing case for one fair-use image but not three. In addition, here are a few suggestions for slight improvement to the generally well-done prose:

Infobox

  • "(2007–present)" - I generally recommend changing date ranges like this to an open-ended form, "2007– ", rather than saying "present" because "present" will always appear to be correct and updated even if it isn't. This is a subtle difference but worthwhile, I think. When her career ends, someone is likely to notice the missing end date and add it.

Lead

  • "In 2007, Kapoor received her first Filmfare Award for Best Actress for her performance in the Imtiaz Ali directed romantic comedy film, Jab We Met." - To avoid the extended modifier, "the Imtiaz Ali directed romantic comedy" perhaps "In 2007, Kapoor received her first Filmfare Award for Best Actress for her performance in Jab We Met, a romantic comedy directed by Imtiaz Ali." I don't think you need the word "film" in the modifier because "Filmfare" makes it clear that this was a film.
  • "Her off-screen life is the subject of wide media coverage in India, including her relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan." - To get the modifier snug against the thing modified, perhaps: "Her off-screen life, including her relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan, is the subject of wide media coverage in India."
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turning point

  • "In preparation for the role, she visited several of Mumbai's red-light district areas at night, to study the mannerisms of a sex worker and the way they presented themselves." - "A worker" is singular, but "they" is plural. Perhaps the sentence could be tightened a bit as well. Suggestion: "To prepare for the role, she visited several of Mumbai's red-light districts at night to study the dress and mannerisms of sex workers."
  • "The film unfolds the journey of six individuals in three chapters, and are linked by a car accident that brings them together." - Suggestion: "The film, consisting of three chapters, tells the story of six individuals linked by a car accident."
  • "In 2005, she starred as the protagonist in the Dharmesh Darshan directed drama Bewafaa." - To avoid the long compound modifier, I'd probably use "In 2005, she starred as the protagonist in Bewafaa, a drama directed by Dharmesh Darshan."
  • "According to Filmfare" - Since the quote is at least four lines long on my computer screen, I'd consider using a blockquote per WP:MOSQUOTE.
  • "Following Omkara, she stopped acting for a short period of time... ". - Tighten by deleting "period of"?
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian work

  • "donated her half-share of five million rupees from her winnings on Kaun Banega Crorepati" - Since the other rupee figures have been converted to dollars, perhaps this one should be converted also.
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clothing line

  • "Nadkarni further noted, "We are looking at a pan India presence across 70 cities over the next five years. Kareena's wide appeal would go a long way in establishing Globus as a versatile, vibrant and expressive fashion brand". On being appointed by Globus, Kapoor commented, "I am delighted to be the face of Globus. I love the trendy hip fashion from Globus, which is as good as anywhere in the world. I look forward to spreading this new language of fashion across the nation". - I'd be inclined to delete these quotes because they read like ads for Globus. No essential information would be lost if you simply went from "chain decided to appoint a different brand ambassador for their new business ventures" to "After Kapoor began to represent them... ". Also, should you say "its new business ventures" rather than "their new business ventures"? It depends on whether "chain" is considered singular or plural; I would say that it's singular.
  • "when she was roped in as the brand ambassador" - "Roped in" is slang. Would "when she was hired as the brand ambassador" be better?
  • "Kapoor expressed her desire of tying up with an international design house" - "Tying up" is also slang. Perhaps "working"?
Done. I've completely removed Nadkarni's quote as I agree with the points you have made. However, it wouldn't hurt to have Kapoor's quote on the article. I've shortened the quote to avoid making it sound like "ads for Globus", and left it as "I am delighted to be the face of Globus [...] I look forward to spreading this new language of fashion across the nation." -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the media

  • "While a section of the press have described her as friendly and extremely close to her family... ". - This could merely be a difference between British English and American English, but "a section" looks singular to me and therefore would take the verb "has" rather than "have".
  • "In 2006, she walked the ramp" - Should "walked the ramp" be briefly explained? Readers might not know what ramp this means. Is it to be taken literally, or is it a metaphor?
Done. I made a small change in the third paragraph's last two sentences. This is the new version: "In 2006, she was chosen to model and walk the runway for Manish Malhotra's fashion display at the Fashion Week 2006, along with actors Shahid Kapoor and Urmila Matondkar. Three years later, Kapoor once again walked the runway for Malhotra's bridal collection titled Destination Wedding during the 2009 India Couture Week." - Instead of using the word "ramp", I used the word "runway". -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise.

Thank you Finetooth for taking some time to comment on the article. I appreciate it. :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skopje

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want the article to be chosen for FA on the main page on Wikipedia, but still has some fixes that should be done. For ex. it has some broken links, too many pictures and etc.

Thanks, Tomica1111 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • This article could greatly benefit from a copyedit. See WP:PR/V or WP:COPYEDITORS to contact an editor who would be willing to do one.
  • More inline citations are needed. Generally, every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a citation.
  • Measurement conversions are needed, using {{Convert}} is recommended. For consistenency, the conversions should be either imperial→metric or metric→imperial.
  • Generally image galleries are discouraged, as a category on Commons is the best place for excess, relevant images.
  • Goes easy on the panoramas, I usually only use one in an article. I prefer the one used directly before the "History" section; using {{Panorama}} on it would be a good idea as well.
  • "It was known in the Roman period under the name Scupi."
    • There are instances of both "Scupi" and "Skupi". For consistenency it should be one or the other, also are the italics occiasonally used on "Scupi" needed.
  • The "Government" section needs to be expanded. Any details on the national government?
  • I'd take that table of churches, choose the most notable ones, and convert it into prose; maybe even work it into a paragraph describing which religions are practiced in Skopje and put in the "Demographics" section.
  • Who serves the Skopje Central Railway Station? What destinations?

I can provide more comments / suggestions if you wish, but these are the most obvious issues and / or most problematic and should probably be taken care of first. With some work, this could become featured, but not quite yet. See Category:FA-Class WikiProject Cities articles for a examples of what a featured city article looks like. Consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how I found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baraminology

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has not had a recent successful peer review

Thanks, Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I closed the last peer review for this article because it had major cleanup banners. It still has a help need from an expert banner, but the neutrality disputed tag is gone, so I will review it. Thanks for your work on this interesting article - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The disambig links tool in the tool box at upper right here finds one circular link - Baramin just links back to this page and so should not be linked here at all. It is an entry on Wiktionary - that would be an acceptable link wikt:baramin, piped like this baramin
  • The external links checker also finds that several of the links are very small - I checked one and it was a redirect as the web page had moved. Please check and fix those.
  • I also note that some of the references do not give sufficient information. For example, ref 1 needs publisher and accessdate at least (and date if given), and ref 5 is just a bare link - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase .
  • The direct quotation from the Bible needs a ref (if nothing else to tell the reader which translation is being used).
  • I realize because it is a pseudoscience it will be harder to get relaible sources, but please make sure that the sources used do meet WP:RS. Have any books on or including baraminology been published, for example?
  • For sciences describing mainstream science, I would use mainstream sources such as textbooks and journal articles. I do not think http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ is the most rigorous source for current views on evolution.
  • I think the article could be expanded a bit - for example, it seems that it would be good to give the Hebrew for the word "created" (as is done earlier for "kind") in The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew.
  • This sentence (The word "baramin", which is a compound of the Hebrew words for created and kind, is unintelligible in Hebrew.) also needs a ref.
  • Spell out abbreviations like YEC on first use
  • The one image, File:Creationist orchard.gif, unfortunatley appears to be a copyvio cropped from this image
  • I wonder if it would make sense to combine the History and Interpretations of Biblical kinds sections some how. I think it owuld be good to know who came up with the words baramin / baraminology right in the Interpretations of Biblical kinds section, and it might flow better that way too
  • The article is fairly short and I am not sure what else to say about it. A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - not sure what would be a good model here, but there are several WP:FAs at Category:FA-Class Rational Skepticism articles which might be useful models

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 ><>°° 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft II

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it. Thanks, Philcha (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say a bunch of stuff, but found out it's already been said... in the GA review by no less then five seperate people. For example, you really should follow the style of articles of the same style (reception after plot etc.). Other comments:
  • Any reason for not using Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness in the lead? In fact, it makes the lead awkward just by not doing so because you have to explain the "main game."
  • I think a lot of the last paragraph in the lead is kind of pointless, as it talks a bit too about other games. At the least you could condense and tidy it up and maybe even put in the first paragraph so readers can get some early context.
  • If you are going to FAC, they might knock it for over-use of the game manual as a source; personally it find it ok. Just something to keep in mind.
  • Predecessor and sequels section is almost unneeded. Or rather I should ask why is it there, and why is it so long?
  • A bit of pointless repitition, for example in Reception:
"Dark Saga [...] In 1997 Blizzard released Warcraft II: Dark Saga for the consoles Sony PlayStation and SEGA Saturn." -> It's already mentioned in publication, and mentioning release dates in reception is kind of strange.
  • From a structural standpoint there's a lot of really short paragraphs that could use connection. I think this could be a particular sticking point in FAC...
  • Another FAC note: they don't like lists. I think it's ok where it is under user interface, but you turn it into prose (write it out) if you want to be paranoid about FAC.
  • You start out a lot of the initial sentences and sections with "Warcraft II..."; try mixing it up a little more. It can put the reader to sleep. Same deal with the date intros and publication. Yet again in Dark Saga in reception....
Again, just my opinion and I may be wrong sometimes, don't get offended :). RN 06:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RN. I almost missed this, did I miss it in my watchlist? And don't get offended, when I'm reviewing I also admit that I may be wrong sometimes :-P
  • Re the order of sections, I'm trying to help readers to the important points as quickly and clearly. For most readers, I think the priority is whether the game is good and whether readers may like it - which I think means reception. But readers who don't already know the game will not understand the reception without the gameplay, for example: fog of war is an innovation that makes continous scouting necessary; Ogre Mages with Bloodlust are too powerful. I think readers with some knowledge can navigate for themselves.
  • So storyline gets pushed down. WP:WIAGA used a very clearly subset of MOS, and IMO a Project-specific MOS is also limited the same way. IMO the storyline also depends on the gameplay, as it uses but does not define "Orc" and "Knight".
  • The lead says "main game, Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness". The "main game" or whatever I call it is the one that makes the games reputation, while expansions get lower scores - for example Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness scored low 90% from the critics, while Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal got 87% from MobyGames' composite score. If you can think of a better phrase, I'd be happy.
  • I agree about slimming the lead's para about other WCx games, but I'd do that after doing the corresponding in the main text, as I find it the easiest way to comply with WP:LEAD.
  • I've cut the date from the reception of the consoles.
  • The "really short paragraphs" is intentional. Structuring Your Prose - Web Style Guide 3 and much of Jakob Nielsen's writing, e.g. How Users Read on the Web. One of Nielsen's articles explains that, in addition being impatient, users find screens harder that hardcopy, because screen have much lower dot pitch and therefore look grainy. The Chicago MOS, on which WP MOS is based, is designed for hardcopy. Unfortunately the 2 sides had no contact and so there's no progess. List are also recommended, within reason.
  • I have no intention of going for FAC. In addition to the readability points: it's lottery, as a FAC can be sunk by having to few reviewers either/or the wrong type - either some smart **** ("you haven't used source X, which is hard to find") or some who nitpick on MOS points because they know nothing of the content. I know other editors who have given up on FAC.
  • I'll look at initial sentences and sections with "Warcraft II...". But guess - I've seen recommendations that phrasing should be consistent as synomyns tend to readers.
Sorry for being so ... opinionated. You have my full permission to express your feelings about this - and bonus points for jokes. --Philcha (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've slimmed other WCx games.
I'm having trouble with 2 "cite error" messages. The citations are in HTML comments, so "cite error" messages should not be produced. If you have an idea about these, I'd be grateful - but please don't spend time on it. --Philcha (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the last two ref errors... it was because in one change you forgot to comment out two refs that were only used in the old/commented-out version of the second/last paragraph of your first change. In general that ref system is a nightmare though, which is why most new articles just new the use the pure inline system instead placing them all in the referencing section (despite how nice it looks). RN 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thousand thanks! Re placing them all in the referencing section, do you mean list-defined references. I knew it was inefficient, as it adds 1 instance of each ref. Do you mean there are more serious problems? --Philcha (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC we were in the middle of a PR - do you think it could be fun to continue with that? --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, I've removed it. RN 22:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant do we want to do more about the content, structure, prose, etc. of the article? --Philcha (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher (animal)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added and expanded this article extensively but would like someone else to take a look at it. It started out as Start-class but I think it is worthy of at least B-class. I would like to continue improving it until at least Good article quality. One concern I have is some of the prose might need some improvement. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks, Atrian (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Atrian. I'll have a go. I generally use a standard procedure:
  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.
A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.
I may have second thoughts about some of my comments. So could you please wait for my "go ahead" message before responding. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage (Philcha)

[edit]

See the GA criteria

  • As males are twice the size of females, only the dominate males get to breed - in monogamous species the sexes are similiar, or the females may be larger because of the organs needed for conception, pregnancy and birth. Strictly only "as males are twice the size of females, only the dominate males get to breed" is relevant (see GA criteria). You may need another citation.
    Oh, I see section "Behavior" covers part of that. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure (Philcha)

[edit]

Not in GA criteria but my own experience of writing and reviewing articles to GA standard. I recommemd:

  • For Fisher (animal) I'd start with "Etymology" to tell readers that this animal does not eat fish. I'd keep pekan as is the basis for the Latin species name pennanti, but drop the other Native American names as irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then IMO sections that provide information should precede those that use the information. For zoology, that means the animal's anatomy and physiology, which you title "Description".
  • "Behavior"
  • "Range"
  • "Fishers and people"

Once we've agreed on Coverage and Structure, that's the time to look the content sections in detail, including citations and prose. If you disagree of any of my comments, please tell me why - I'm fallible :-P

OK, it's time for you to go ahead. --Philcha (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I think you need a ref for the fact that fishers were locally extinct in Pennsylvania, then reintroduced - see here Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return of Saturn

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because along with The Singles 1992–2003 I am attempting to push it to FA status to maintain the No Doubt albums topic as an FT.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and broad in coverage. I'm not sure whether it is comprehensive or not because I know nothing about this band except what the article tells me. Seven dead urls in the citations will need attention, and I have several other suggestions for improvement, mostly related to prose and Manual of Style issues.

Background

  • "Having toured extensively for two and a half years since the release of Tragic Kingdom, they... " - Since "they" refers to "band" in the previous sentence, would "band members" be better than "they"? The answer depends on whether you think of "band" as singular or plural. "Band" in U.S. English is, I think, singular, and "it" rather than "they" might sound a bit odd.
  • "When scheduling conflicts arose with Beinhorn,[8] the band interviewed several producers and decided on Glen Ballard, who had produced Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill (1995), because of pressure from manager Jimmy Iovine[9] and Ballard's belief in not using heavy production techniques." - A bit too complicated in structure. Suggestion: "When scheduling conflicts arose with Beinhorn,[8] the band members interviewed several producers. They chose Glen Ballard, who had produced Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill (1995), because of pressure from manager Jimmy Iovine[9] and Ballard's preference for avoiding heavy production techniques." Or something like that.
  • "The band was split when singer Gwen Stefani offered to do... " - When I first read this sentence, I thought for a moment that the band had split up over this issue. To avoid this misunderstanding, perhaps "However, when lead singer Gwen Stefani offered to write more songs, drummer Andrew Young... "?
  • "Lead singer Gwen Stefani was confused by her feelings of depression and interest... " - Tighten to "Stefani was confused by her feelings of depression and interest... " since Stefani has already been fully identified? Unlink Stefani here since she is already linked in this section?

Composition

  • "was rewritten and includes rapped vocals over piano and flamenco guitar parts." - Tighten by deleting "parts"? Or at least move "parts" to earlier in the sentence to avoid the fleeting notion of a smashed flamenco guitar; i.e., "rapped vocals over parts for piano and flamenco guitar"?
  • "It was described as a combination of the band's 2 Tone roots with the operatic slapstick of Gilbert and Sullivan." - It might be helpful to include a brief explanation of "2 Tone" for outsiders like me. I clicked through to see what it meant, but it might be better to keep readers focused on the article rather than having to navigate away to understand the sentence. I don't think most readers will have a similar problem with "operatic slapstick of Gilbert and Sullivan" because "operatic slapstick" is a kind of embedded explanation.
  • ""New" was written while the band was touring about the excitement of meeting Rossdale and her infatuation with him." - "Touring about the excitement" isn't quite right. Suggestion: "While the band was touring, Stefani wrote "New", which focused on the excitement of meeting Rossdale and her infatuation with him.

Other

  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find seven dead urls in the citations and one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of the intended target. Perhaps the Internet Archive search engine would be helpful in restoring the dead urls.
  • Could anything be added about the album cover? How was it chosen? Who created it? What do its elements represent? How is it connected to the lyrics, the band's history, or the music? Maybe no reliable sources discuss these things, but if they do, the material would be interesting to read and would help satisfy the "comprehensive" requirement for FAs.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise.

Douglas Herbert

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get feedback and tune-up the newly created article.

Thanks, NMP Dice (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Nevermind. I hadn't properly read the criteria for a peer review. You can ignore this request. NMP Dice (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: having looked at the article, I agree that it does not look a suitable candidate for peer review. Apart from the question of natability, the style of the article is informal and non-encyclopedic. As it is the nominator's stated wish not to proceed, I will close the review. The PR link on the talkpage has been deleted by the nominator; I will resurrect it and close it properly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Loop

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I completed an overhaul of the article. It has previously been through the project's ACR process before the overhaul. I'd like to get some outside feedback, and hopefully someone to give it a copy-editing and polishing. In the overhaul, I re-researched the history of the roadway, and updated it with some current developments. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  1. Are there any non-map sources that can be added to the route description?
  2. "where the street is divided into north and south bound sections each three-lanes wide", shouldn't northbound and southbound be one word?
  3. Is it necessary to have a section of the route description devoted to traffic counts? I remember a discussion at WT:USRD a while ago where traffic counts were said to be needless information in an article.
  4. "MDOT's original beautification project was delayed from 1999 to 2004 so that it could be combined with the city's sewer work. This combination was planned to prevent digging up the same streets 10–15 years after the beautification project.", I'm a little confused with these two sentences. It says the beautification was delayed 5 years and then says about digging the streets for the sewers 10-15 years later. Can these two sentences be clarified?
  5. "with the beautification project on Ottawa and Allegan, Pine and Walnut streets", the comma use seems a little awkward here.
  6. In talking about the speed limit increase, the source mentions the specific increases on the specific streets. Is it possible to mention these in the article?
  7. In the Major intersections table, the sentence "The following table lists the major junctions along the Capitol Loop." is redundant to the section header.
  8. Is it possible for more pictures of the actual road to be added to the article?

From what I see, this is a generally well-written article. Dough4872 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replies:
  1. I added the Greater Lansing Convention and Visitors Bureau guide book to cite the location of the museums. I added a citation to the Michigan Bar Journal to establish that the Hall of Justice is the home of the state supreme court. I can't think of anything else to cite for the sake of adding non-map sources to the section. There are only 4 map sources in use, out of 36 sources, and 1 of them is purely for a date printed above the legend (the ROW map).
  2. In this case, I'd say no. Phrasing it this way avoids the repetition of the "bound" syllable in the two words.
  3. You asked for non-map sources in the RD, and then want me to pull the paragraph that's cited to a non-map source?
  4. Rewording. I don't know how much more I can clarify though. MDOT delayed their project and the city moved up theirs by 10–15 years so that streets would be rebuilt just once, not twice.
  5. In rereading it, the first "and" should have been removed and replaced by a comma.
  6. Why? I think it's a bit of an unnecessary level of detail. Yes, they can be added, but is it needed?
  7. Reworded. In past FACs, I've been asked for that introductory sentence to explain the inclusion criteria for the table. (Why these intersections and not the half dozen or more cross streets?)
  8. I'll see what I can do, but it's a 70-mile drive from here to Lansing for what would be 15 minutes of photographing 2.3 miles of roadway. Ideally though, any photos added to the history section should relate to the content of the history, which would mean photos of the construction (don't have them, probably can't get any out of the newspapers' collections) or a boring photo of a new speed limit sign (and when I was there last week, I don't recall seeing them up yet, but I wasn't looking for them either.) Most of the photos on Flickr or Panoramio are of the State Capitol Building itself and don't show the streets. Is there something specific you'd like to see?

Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these comments, I feel the article looks like it is heading in the right direction and could be considered for FAC soon. Dough4872 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found and added two photos release for upload from Panoramio that show parts of the Capitol Loop. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi, great article. One thing that stands out as being a bit odd is the use or overuse of "trunkline". It seems to be a bit wp:jargon-ish. Coming from Australia, I don't think that I have heard trunkline used in the context of highways before. Perhaps railways and pipelines (maybe?) but not highways. Trunkline is just a redirect to Michigan Highway System, so it appears to be a very localised colloquialism here. I understand the history and the titles of state legislation and the current and historical usage made by the state highway administration, and because of all that technically Capitol Loop is a trunkline. Most readers would know the subject as being a highway. I looked in a sturdy American dictionary (Merriam Webster) for trunkline and found

: a transportation system (as an airline, railroad, or highway) handling long-distance through traffic

Now I can handle that but how is a 3.8 km loop road "handling long-distance through traffic"? For example; would the fragment "The trunkline serves the Capitol Park which was created ...", be better as "The highway serves the Capitol Park which was created ..." or even "The road serves the Capitol Park which was created ..."? This comment may also apply to other short Michigan highways that wouldn't actually handle much "through traffic". I imagine the main reason for the highway or trunkline designation was to allow the state to repair the pot-holes outside their head-office (Capitol building), not that it carries much through traffic, yes?. Reading through user Dough4872's comments above I would add weight to the use of relevant images. The article is about a road. Relevant images will be mostly filled with the road and the road being the main subject. The image of the Capitol building doesn't quite cut it. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, legally all state highways are part of Michigan's "state trunkline highway system", no matter the length. This loop was created to direct traffic into the downtown area and to the Capitol. It's not so that the state repairs potholes in front of the Capitol. The front of the building faces Capitol Avenue, and the back faces Walnut Street, both of which are plain Lansing city streets. In keeping with your comments, I have removed some of the usages, but all can not be removed from the article.
As for the photos, two were added after Dough's comments, which show Allegan Street and Michigan Avenue from top a tower downtown. I won't remove the photo of the State Capitol, after all this is the building for which the highway was named, and the dome of which appears on all of the reassurance markers. Thanks for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Beta (2005)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a good sense of what others think of this article. I've done substantial work on it, bringing it from a start/stub class article to an A-class article with one attempted FAC. Before I make a second attempt to get this article featured, a full review of it would be very much appreciated (especially since it's such a large article being nearly 48kb in total size). I recently resolved the handful of deadlinks and replaced them with working sites. I also found two more images to add to the article, one of which I've had to upload under the "Non-free media use rationale" since there is no other place I can get pictures of damage and it's been almost five years since the storm struck land. For those who take time out of their day to review this, I really appreciate it.

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This appears to be comprehensive and generally well-organized and probably has all the essential ingredients for an FA. However, the prose is a bit loose in places and repetitive in others; the layout needs attention; the fair-use rationale for the wreckage photo is insufficient (in my opinion), and the article could use a few Manual of Style tweaks. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here's a list of specific suggestions for further improvement. None should be really difficult.

Lead

  • The lead should include at least a mention of the Aftermath section and probably the Naming section as well. You could add a short fourth paragraph to summarize this material.
  • "was a compact and intense tropical cyclone that impacted areas" - "Impacted" is a suspicious verb manufactured from a noun. I know it's used fairly commonly, but I think you'd be better off with "affected".
  • "In Honduras and Nicaragua, over 1,000 structures were damaged by the storm, hundreds of which were destroyed." - Move modifier closer to thing modified? Suggestion: "In Honduras and Nicaragua, the storm damaged more than a thousand structures, hundreds of which were destroyed"?
  • "However, a Panamanian vessel rescued the men after drifting in the water for several hours." - Clarify by rearranging? The vessel didn't drift. Suggestion: "However, after they drifted in the water for several hours, a Panamanian vessel rescued them."
  • "Rains in Honduras totaled to 21.82 in (554 mm) and 6.39 in (162 mm) in Nicaragua." -Would "totaled up to" be more clear than "totaled to" since the rainfall would have been different at different places within these countries?

Meteorological History

  • "The wave quickly developed organized convection, indicating that a possible low pressure area had developed along the wave.[2] Continued development... " - Too many repetitions of "develop", I think.
  • "The next day, with continued organization, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) stated that a tropical depression could develop in the following day or two." - Delete "with continued organization"? I don't think you need it, and its placement in the sentence makes it seem to modify the NHC rather than the storm.
  • "Beta was slowly moving towards the north-northwest... " - Tighten by deleting "towards the"?
  • "Deep convection developed near the center of circulation, signifying a developing system." - Tighten by deleting "signifying a developing system"? "Developed" in the first half of the sentence seems sufficient.
  • "With the formation of an eye, the chances of rapid intensification reached 62%, and the storm could possibly become a major hurricane—a hurricane with winds of 111 mph (178 km/h) or higher—before landfall." - Suggestion: "The eye's formation increased the chances of rapid intensification to 62 percent, which meant that the storm might become a major hurricane with winds of 111 mph (178 km/h) or higher before landfall."

Preparations

Honduras

  • "was cancelled on October 30 after Beta turned towards the southeast" - Tighten by deleting "towards the"?

Impact

  • I'd consider removing the subheads in order to solve the layout problems in this section. As it is, File:Beta 27-31oct05 rain.gif displaces an edit button, and the rainfall table and the last image create a text sandwich, at least on my computer screen. Removing the subheads would help solve another problem as well. WP:MOSHEAD says in part, "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise, after editing, the display can arrive at the wrong section (see also below) and the automatic edit summary can be ambiguous." As it is, the article has multiple identical "Honduras" subheads, and so on. This would eliminate one set, and perhaps others could be modified slightly or eliminated to avoid exact repetition.

Nicaragua

  • "Six people were confirmed to have been killed by Beta in Nicaragua, one of which was caused by a heart attack." - "One of which" doesn't modify anything in particular. Suggestion: "Beta killed six people, one of whom died from a heart attack, in Nicaragua."

Honduras

  • "An estimated 60,483 people were affected by the storm in the country." - Suggestion: "An estimated 60,483 people in Honduras were affected by the storm."

Aftermath

  • "A frigate was also deployed to the island, carrying two tons of relief items... " - Metric conversion?

Nicaragua

  • "On November 1, the government of Nicaragua announced that they would assist in the reconstruction and repair of 334 for the Miskito Indians." - 334 what?
  • "5,020 ten-litre water containers" - Imperial conversion?
  • "Another $22,000 was used to supply an aircraft and Bell 204/205 helicopter to assist affected areas." - "A helicopter" or "helicopters"?
  • "The Spanish Government also sent $377,188 in aid and to Nicaragua." - Delete "and" or add something missing?

Naming and records

  • "Upon being named, it was the first time that an Atlantic hurricane season had produced 24 tropical or subtropical cyclones." - It might be good to expand this paragraph a bit to explain why 24 is connected to the letter beta. Readers unfamiliar with the naming conventions won't have any idea why "Beta" was used.

References

  • The newspaper names in the refs should appear in italics. I see several that aren't (La Prensa in citation 56, for example).

Other

  • Overlinking. I wouldn't link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once again on first use in the main text. I particularly notice the repeated linking of places (Nicaragua, Providencia, and others), which I don't think is necessary.
  • The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three dead urls in the citations and show that the images lack alt text. Although alt text may not be required for FA at the moment, it's a good idea to add it. WP:ALT has details.
  • The "purpose" part of the fair-use rationale for the wreckage photo will not pass muster. "Used for illustrative purposes" could be said of any image. What you have to convincingly state is that the image is necessary for a reader's understanding of the material and that whatever is being conveyed by the image could not be conveyed by words alone. I doubt that this is the actual case.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Singles 1992–2003

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because along with Return of Saturn I am attempting to push it to FA status to maintain the No Doubt albums topic as an FT.

Thanks, Tezero (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing..., but I won't be able to post any comments until after I get home from work today. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 15:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that jumped out at me when giving the article the once-over was overlinking. Nellee Hooper is linked six different times. Underneath It All is linked five times. It's My Life (Talk Talk song) has six links (these are not counting the navbox at the bottom). Gwen Stefani is linked four times. Love. Angel. Music. Baby. is linked three times. Rock Steady (album) is linked four times, including in back-to-back paragraphs in the lead. Overlinking is something they hate at FAC, and I'd advise paring these back greatly. Sure, link in the lead and then again in the prose, and maybe a third time for It's My Life (Talk Talk song) in the tracklisting for the album, but four, five, and six times is too many for anything. Concordantly, just use "Hooper" and "Stefani" (and anyone else) after their full names have already been given. An easy way to get a much more formal tone. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You use abbreviations and spell them out later. That's backwards. The album sold moderately well, being certified 2× Platinum by RIAA in the United States and CRIA in Canada, and Platinum by ARIA in Australia. It received mostly positive reviews from music critics, who praised the variety of music genres on the album. should contain the full names of the organizations and then the abbreviations in parentheses, whereas It later became one of the band's biggest hits, being certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association[6] and gold by the Recording Industry Association of America.[7] and The Singles 1992–2003 sold 2.2 million copies in the United States[15] and was certified Gold and Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America on January 16, 2004 and 2× Platinum on July 21, 2004[16], signalling total sales of over half a million, one million and two million copies respectively.[17] In Canada, the album was certified Gold, Platinum and 2× Platinum on June 13, 2005 by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, demonstrating sales of over 50,000; 100,000; and 200,000 copies respectively[18] In Australia, the album was certified Gold in 2003[19] and Platinum in 2004[20] by the Australian Recording Industry Association, signalling sales of over 35,000 and 70,000, respectively.[21] should then just use the abbreviations, or full names if they haven't yet been given. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) (bolded to make the selections from the article text more distinct)[reply]

  • It is the band's final album to date and was released alongside the DVD Rock Steady Live, a video of a concert as part of the band's Rock Steady tour in 2002, and the box set Boom Box, which contained The Singles 1992–2003, Everything in Time, The Videos 1992-2003, and Live in the Tragic Kingdom. Heck of a run-on sentence
  • Is the wiktionary link to hiatus really necessary?
  • It features thirteen of the band's singles from their later three studio albums — Tragic Kingdom, Return of Saturn, and Rock Steady — and the album track emdashes should not be spaced. Use an endash if you want it to be spaced. That may be more suitable anyway with the use of the emdash below in under which she has released two solo albums—Love. Angel. Music. Baby. on November 22, 2004 and The Sweet Escape on December 15, 2006. for which I probably would use a comma, but there's nothing technically wrong with emdashing there
  • Possible overlink issue with greatest hits as well.
  • WP:MOSNUM issues. Spell out numbers less than 10, use numerals for numbers higher.
  • Be consistent in your date format usage as well. Love. Angel. Music. Baby. on November 22, 2004 and The Sweet Escape on December 15, 2006. clashes with Two months later on the 25th of November, the album was released along with the B-side, rarity, and remix collection Everything in Time and box set Boom Box.
  • The only single from The Singles 1992–2003 was a cover of the song "It's My Life", Perhaps, "The only new single" given the album's title?
  • No Doubt had doubts on recording a cover and contemplated writing new material[4], punctuation before citation, and why not just "they" instead of restating the band's name? We would know to whom the pronoun refers, particularly as the previous sentence begins with "the band."
  • Because the band were taking a break I'm aware that this is proper usage in British English, and that there's no seriously compelling reason the article must be in American English, but it stands out as jarring.
  • The link to Christmas music in Ruth Mitchell of the BBC called the album a typical Christmas album does not seem suitable.

That's about all I've got. Good article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 05:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Several dead external links need addressing before this article has a prayer at FA. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fergie discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be fun to nominate it for WP:FL. I worked on it for a couple of days and I think it looks much better now than what it did before. It had 11 citations, and now it has 58. Tell me if there's anything that needs to be improved :)

Thanks, Pancake (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pancake (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose
    • In the first paragraph which defies Fergie's discography, would it be appropriate to include an "as of (date)" clause, as presumably the discography could increase, even though she appears to have given up solo work?
She has stated that she "refuses to go solo" so I don't think it will increase anytime soon. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2006, she revealed she would pursue a solo career as a "side-project", releasing her debut studio album The Dutchess in September 2006". I suggest "announced" rather than "revealed"; the quotes around "side-project" are unnecessary; "and released" rather than "releasing"; the final "2006" is unnecessary.
Done. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest "51st" looks better thsn "fifty-first", and "20th" better than "twentieth"
Done. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the lead single "London Bridge", "Glamorous" and "Big Girls Don't Cry" topped the Billboard Hot 100..." needs a bit of revision for clarity, along the lines: "the lead single "London Bridge" and two further tracks, "Glamorous" and "Big Girls Don't Cry", each topped the Billboard Hot 100..."
Done. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All of the singles sold over 2 million paid downloads each in the U.S." I think this should read "Each of the singles sold over 2 million paid downloads in the U.S." And is it necessary to specify "paid" after you've sais "sold"?
Done. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "shifting" is a bit informal, and the -ing form is grammatically wrong anyway. "...and had sold 2.4 million..." etc would be correct.
Done. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...as of February 2009" is a long time ago. "...as of December 2007" is ancient history. Can you uodate these figures at least to December 2009, preferably later?
Trust me, I've been searching a lot for some updates sales. Maybe I could just remove the "...as of..."? I mean I don't think the numbers from February 2009 or December 2007 have improved that much since she hasn't released any new material since spring 2008. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists: these seem to be skillfully compiled, but I'm having difficulty in relating them to the information in the text. The first paragraph of the lead defines the discography as "one solo studio album, one extended play and eleven singles, including six as a featured artist". That covers the first four lists. Does the fifth list, headed "Other charted songs", comprise the "four new songs" included with the deluxe edition of The Dutchess? It is not obvious that it does. The rest of the tables, dealing with "Album appearances" and "Music videos", don't appear to be covered in the lead at all. Some clarification necessary.
Other charted songs:
"Here I Come" and "Finally" are from the original edition of the Dutchess. "Personal (Big Girls Remix)" is from the Japanese edition I believe. "Labels or Love" was featured on the deluxe edition, but it was the soundtrack to Sex and the City, so that's why it charted.
Album appearances & music videos:
I don't think it's necessary to mention the album appearances as they were never released as singles. I added "other appearances" to the infobox and added a sentence about her soundtrack appearances to the lead. Music videos are usually not mentioned in the lead. Pancake (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find. As I am not able at the moment to watch my peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you want to raise any issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Undergone large changes since last PR and FAC, added content with inspiration from newly promoted Man utd. I believe a good copyedit could send it on its way to FAC.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 09:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say the lead section could do with a copyedit such that the second two paragraphs are more similar in length to the first two.
  • The final section in the History section smacks of recentism; although I can appreciate it was truly historic, and wouldn't say it should be merged into another section, I'd say it should be cut down a little. This is something I think would be raised at FAC anyway.
  • Why is the managers list only notable managers, and not every manager? It seems most managers are included, so it appears incomplete? I'd recommend adding in the others.
  • The support section could probably do with a bit more on the actual supporters, rather than just the rivalries. How many are there? How are they represented? Don't the shareholders own the club and elect the president? If not, then this section should probably be named 'Rivalries'.
  • The supporter ownership and revenue are mentioned in the lead, but not anywhere else in the article, which isn't allowed.
  • On the whole, I think it could do with a good copyedit. If you want I'll give it a go in the next few days?
Good article though, not far off FAC I don't think. Good luck with it. Tom (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from elcobbola (talk · contribs) per this request:

  • File:FCB.svg - If this crest was created in 1912 (per here), I assume it would be a very simple matter to prove it was published before 1.1.1923, thus making it PD in the US. (NFCC#1) This also doesn't have a verifiable source (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A), or attribute the author (NFCC#10A - Carles Comamala)
  • File:Player FC Barcelona 1903 year.jpg - If the author is unknown, why is it being claimed s/he's been dead 70 years? Creation date (1903) is not relevant to the copyright term.
  • File:Culers.jpg - No license (!!!), no date or authorship information at source (direct link to image itself is not acceptable); has already been nominated for deletion (not by me).
  • Can fair use be applied if information is uncertain/unknown? Sandman888 (talk)

Latest FLC 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • does publish have to be in a book? What about sale of shirts?

*File:Camp nou 2.jpg - Image does not appear at source provided. Where can we verify the CC-by-SA 2.5 license? Эlcobbola talk 13:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder Goes Forth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Currently listed as a Good Article, I've been overhauling and expanding this article recently with the intention of improving it to A or FA standard, and it would be very useful to have suggestions on how to improve it. In particular, I'd be interested to see if there are any sections which are felt to be missing, or otherwise lacking in information/references. I also wonder if some sections, such as the plot section, are perhaps a little too long? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Bob talk 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: I remember the series well, and am glad to see an article about it. I'm shocked, though, to find that it was over 20 years ago! Here are some comments.

  • Plot section
    • This does not decribe a plot, and I don't really see how a series of discrete episodes can have a "plot", as such. It can, and this seies does, have a theme or themes. As you have written it, the section adequately describes these themes. It sets the scene, introduces the characters, explains the dark and cynical humour, and illustrates these aspects with anecdotes. What you need is a section title that properly summarises what the section does.

checkY Renamed as "Scenario", following other FA sitcom articles.

    • There are a few instances of prose needing attention in the section:-
      • Sentence rewrite required: "The reputation of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig (who appears in the show's final episode played by Geoffrey Palmer), whose orders are alleged to have resulted in hundreds of thousands of British deaths (particularly at Passchendaele and the Somme)[12] are continually referenced and criticised by the characters." Two Parenthetical insertions in a sentence that winds on and on. Needs to be at least two sentences.

checkY Hopefully improved.

      • The reference to "the return of Bob" will be meaningless to those unaware of this character's appearance in an earlier series. A few words of explanation necessary.

checkY Clarified and revised section.

      • I'm not sure where it's stated, but I am pretty sure that there is a MOS stricture on the use of decorative quote marks within the text. Also (for elsewhere in the article) blockquotes should be not be used for shortish quotations; the minimum recommended is I think four lines of text.
  • Episodes: the very brief summaries are disappointing. It would be much more informative to have a 100-or-so words which outline the story of each episodes, rather than these one-line condensations.

checkY I've expanded them beyond the one line summaries, although they're perhaps not 100 words. I didn't want to give too much away, as there are already separate episode articles with larger plots.

  • Writing: I don't follow the sense of the sentence "During rehearsals, the script was exhaustively discussed and redrafted by the cast, many of whom were close friends of the writers, and being comic actors themselves, not afraid to question the script." It's the phrase "being comic actors themselves" that causes confusion; I don't know why it's necessary to point out that the cast were comic actors - I'd take that as read. Or is the point that Elton and Curtis were comic actors, in which case the whole sentence needs rephrasing?

checkY Rephrased, although I might revise that section again.

  • Filming: can you explain the reference to Blackadder Rides Again?checkY
  • Another MOS point: date ranges, e.g. 1914–1918, need dashes not hyphens.checkY
  • Also, there is a dablink on Baron von Richtofen.checkY

I think that's about all. As I am not able to watch my peer reviews at the moment, if you have queries arising from this review, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review - I agree with everything you've highlighted, although I'm a bit ashamed to admit most of the prose errors (except for the Haig one) are mine. To answer a question, the somewhat clumsy "being comic actors themselves" was meant to illustrate that each of the actors (Fry, Laurie, Atkinson) are noted for being comedy writers and performers in their own right. I'll try and work out a better way to phrase that. Bob talk 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I found it quite good... Can anyone suggest ways to improve it before nominating it as a GA or FA?

Thanks, ― A._di_M.3rd Dramaout (formerly Army1987) 18:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thank you for your interest in such an important topic. Unfortunately, I think it needs quite a bit of workk before it would pass at WP:GAN, let along WP:FAC. With GA and FA in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The biggest problem with the article is that it needs more references, for example many paragraphs have no refs, and some sections such as History and Core theories also have none at all. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • Per WP:CITE references generally come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Some refs need more information - for example current ref 25 is just a link labeled "Nasa.gov". Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
  • The section headers need to follow WP:HEAD - since the article title is Physics, try to avoid repeating that word in headers like "Core theories of physics" could just be "Core theories" (the reader already knows the article is about physics). Things like "Astrophysics" as headers are OK.
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • There are two ways to cite the lead - one is to only have refs for direct quotes and extraoridinary claims, as a summary, the refs will be in the biody of the article when the material is repeated. The other way is to cite the lead just as you would cite anything else (so essentially everything gets a cite). This is somewhere in between.
  • The article could use a good copyedit - just in the lead, I have no idea what Physics (no derivation given), but above physical (Latin- Physica, Greek- Physics-nature). really means or why it is in the lead (the etymology is given in the first sentence of the lead)
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these impede the article's flow for the reader, and should either be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example quantum mechanics is linked seven times in the article
  • In general, the broader the topic, the more difficult it is to write a really good, succinct article on it that is also broad in its coverage (GA criteria) or comprehensive (FA citeria). A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - while there is not an article this broad listed there, there are many FAs in Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy which may be good models.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I may additional comments:

  • The GA criteria includes fixing gaps that are easily spotted. Physics had multiple ancestory: Mesopotamian maths, used for religion; and Egyptian maths, used for land law. The Greeks both the speculations of the pre-Socratic philosophers and learned Mesopotamian and Egyptian maths and physics. The Arabs learned these sciences from the Greeks, and introduced them via southern Spain. As you say, the Chinese develop this indepently. How about India? --Philcha (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't get into the debate about reductionism, but physics can explain a lot of chemistry while chemistry can't explain physics.
    Dictionaries show definitions based on matter and energy.[1] But "excluding Chemistry and Biology" is an oversimplification.[2] The big problem with which I'm wrestling is how to express physics' place in the sciences. For example if an animal does something it can be explained in terms of biology, but the energy used by the animal can be explained in terms of chemistry; but finally its physics that explains all energy and matter. --Philcha (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use or ignore my comments about the relationships between the sciences. If I were done a large upgrade to the article I think that would have the basis - but you're the doing the job, and I should not interfere. --Philcha (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll need several citations, for example many paragraphs of section "Theory and experiment" have no citations. --Philcha (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is big. You may need to improve/create some articles into which you can move content. I know that's more work, but they can be easier GAs as you've have a lot of the content and citations :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24 kB of "readable prose size" (as computed by User:Dr pda/prosesize) isn't quite huge for such a broad topic: it is about the size of the median featured article. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "In current usage, restricted to Thesic science or sciences, treating of the properties of matter and energy, or of the action of the different forms of energy on matter in general (excluding Chemistry and Biology) 1715": Little, L.; Fowler, H.W.; Coulson, J.; Onions, C.T., eds. (1964). "Physics". Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University press.
  2. ^ "Physics - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Retrieved 23 July 2010.

Ricketts Glen State Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we believe that it is ready for Feature Article status and are seeking some feedback before it is moved to FAC. This article is similar to other PA state park FA articles like Worlds End State Park, Leonard Harrison State Park, Cherry Springs State Park, Black Moshannon State Park and several others. We know that alt texts need to be completed, but other than that we believe it is pretty much ready to go. Any feedback, comments and recommendations are, as always, appreciated.

Thanks, Dincher (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) and Ruhrfisch[reply]

Finetooth comments: This looks very good, and I agree that it is about ready for FAC. I need to run some errands, so I'm going to post my comments in two batches. Here is the first batch, and I plan to add a second batch later today.

Alt text

  • I'm not sure if it matters, but WP:ALT suggests putting the alt parameter before the caption parameter in the image markup. I notice that the order is reversed in this article. Does the reversal perhaps confuse the screen readers?
I am pretty sure that I fixed them all. Some alt texts are still not appearing. My vote is to get rid of them altogether if they are no longer required. Dincher (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THey all work on my monitor. Sometimes a space between the equal sign and the alt text seems to cause trouble with the alt viewer, so I took out all those spaces. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I use Internet Explorer and work and at home. The not working alt texts are consistent on both computers. Off the top of my head I know that the Indian pot and old aerials of the lakes don't work. Dincher (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add the old timey illustration and you have all the alt texts that I can't see, Dincher (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Improvements since becoming a state park include a new dam for the 245-acre (99 ha) Lake Jean, breaching two other dams Ricketts built, trail improvements, and a fire tower." - To avoid repeating "improvements" and the slightly awkward "since becoming", which seems to modify "improvements", I might suggest "Improvements to Rickett's Glen since it became a state park include a new dam for the 245-acre (99 ha) Lake Jean, the breaching of two other dams Ricketts built, trail modifications, and a fire tower." Or something like that.
  • I would not link "hiking", "camping", "hunting", "swimming", or "fishing" because I think most readers of English will already know what they mean. Some of the others, like "ice climbing" seem fine with links because they are less common.
  • "downstream in Ricketts Glen there are four to six named waterfalls, depending on the source" - "Source" here is a bit ambiguous since it might be taken to mean the source of the water rather than the source of the names. Could "depending on the source" be simply deleted since the explanation appears in the main text?
done, done and done. Dincher (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early inhabitants

  • "which is less than 0.4 miles (0.64 km) northwest of the park" - Since "less than" is non-specific, should 0.64 km be rounded to 0.6 km?
I agree but the 0.64 is produced by the convert template and I don't know how to work around it. Dincher (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rounded it to 1 decimal place by adding "|1" at the end of the convert template {{convert|0.4|mi|1}} Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern era

  • "Only the last three were actually built" - Should this sentence specify where they were (are)? Lake Jean, I think.
Not fixed. Not sure how to fix it. Dincher (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to Only the last three were actually built, all south of Lake Jean; the Hayfield area north of Lake Jean was to have had the facilities for golf and tennis, ... Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The DCNR has named Ricketts Glen one of "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks", citing its status as a National Natural Landmark, old-growth forest, and many waterfalls." - Perhaps a bit smoother would be "The DCNR has named Ricketts Glen one of "Twenty Must-See Pennsylvania State Parks", citing its old-growth forest and many waterfalls and its status as a National Natural Landmark."
Fixed. Dincher (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

  • "Prior to the arrival of William Penn and his Quaker colonists in 1682, it has been estimated that up to 90 percent of what is now Pennsylvania was covered with woods" - Since the estimate was made after the arrival of Penn, perhaps this would be slightly better: "It has been estimated that prior to the arrival of William Penn and his Quaker colonists in 1682 up to 90 percent of what is now Pennsylvania was covered with woods:"
Changed. Dincher (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glens Natural Area

  • "Hiking the entire Glens area on the Falls Trail loop, beginning and ending at PA 118 is 7.2 miles (11.6 km)." - Maybe rather than "hiking ... is", "hiking ... covers"?
changed. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a shorter hike, one may park at Lake Rose," - To avoid using "one" as a pronoun, perhaps "A shorter hike involves parking at Lake Rose... "?
Changed. Dincher (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is possible to see all of the waterfalls except the two near the highway by hiking around the triangular area: Highland Trail / Glen Leigh / Ganoga Glen. The distance around the triangle is about 3.2 miles (5.1 km). An optional side trip from Waters Meet along the three falls in the top of Ricketts Glen, then back to Waters Meet, adds 0.5 miles (0.80 km)." - This might fall into the category of "unnecessary detail" in such a long article.
Not sure what to do with this Dincher (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it by adding the 3.2 mile to the first mention of the triangular loop, and adding a much shorter version of the all but two on the triangle or within 0.5 mile south. Hopefully this is better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife

  • "Less common creatures include Beaver, Bobcats, Coyote," - Why plural for Bobcats and singular for Coyote? Same question for others in the list.
This is my Pennsylvania upbringing coming out and my lack of interest in learnin' what's right. I honestly don't know. I just typed 'em like I say 'em. Dincher (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency I made all references to a species singular, though things like "39 Fishers" remain. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beaver and River Otter have all been successfully reintroduced." - Delete "all" since only two are listed?
Fixed. Dincher (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "39 fishers were released in the State Game Lands" - Should "fishers" start with a capital F for consistency within the article?
Fixed. Dincher (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The White-tailed deer became the official state animal... ". - Should this be White-tailed Deer for consistency? Sorry to dwell on these. Wikipedia seems to have no consistent naming conventions for wild things; I just look for internal consistency.
Fixed. Dincher (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabins, camping, swimming, and picnics

  • "All cabin renters need to bring their own... " - Shorten by a couple of words to "Cabin renters must bring their own... "?
Fixed.

More to come. Finetooth (talk)

Thanks for the comments. I will work on them this afternoon/evening. Dincher (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much for your copyedits and comments, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes I could make and noted the ones I couldn't thanks again! Dincher (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have made all the changes Dincher was not sure about. Not sure what else to do about alt texts. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The alt texts look fine in the alt-text viewer above except for the gallery (montage), but I don't think alt text can be added to galleries. Finetooth (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can add alt text - it used to be the word "waterfall" repeated 24 times, then was blank. I just added a very brief description of the montage and hope I do not have to retype all the text labels. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • Should the townships that Ricketts Glen is located in be included in the geobox?

Right now, that is all I see; I'll take a fresh look at in the morning. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we left the twps. out on purpose some years ago whenever we went through and made consistent leads and added infoboxes for the parks. The reasoning for now twps. in the infobox was that there are so many. (I think). --Dincher (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Geobox tweaks and pointing this out. I checked and all the PA state parks FAs have the township(s) in the Geobox, so I added them in (all five). I have no idea what we would do for Bucktail State Park Natural Area (17 municipalities in 2 counties) or Laurel Ridge State Park (15 municipalities if I counted right, but 4 counties). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we'll cross bridge when we get to it. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Cold War era" have a hyphen? (Cold War-era)
  • "10,144 acres (4,105 ha) of the park are open to hunting and trapping."
    • Is there a better way to word this so that the number isn't at the beginning of the sentence?

There wasn't much more to be commented on or about. I'm pretty sure this is the longest state park article so far. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article, certainly comprehensive, wonderfully illustrated. The big map at the bottom is terrific. Aside from the waterfalls, I especially like the images of the red canoes, the black pot, and the visitor center, none of which I had seen before. Because of the article's length, I tried to suggest a few places where trimming might be possible without damaging the flow. This might result in a total reduction of 100 to 200 words or so; I didn't count, so I don't know exactly.

The article has no dabs, no dead urls. It has alt text. All of the image licenses look fine to me. The Flickr images are all CC-by-SA 2.0 generic; the other images not created by Wikipedia users are all age-related PD.

Modern era

  • "That same year, John Young in Hike Pennsylvania: An Atlas of Pennsylvania's Greatest Hiking Adventures wrote of the Falls Trail: "This is not only the most magnificent hike in the state, but it ranks up there with the top hikes in the East." - Since this sentence, including the direct quote, is repeated in the "Environmental education and trails" section, I would delete it here.

Environmental education and trails

  • I think the first paragraph is another place that might be tightened. It might be compressed to something like this: "Environmental education specialists lead guided tours of parts of the park from March through November. The walks give school groups, scouting organizations, and other visitors a close and informed look at natural wetlands, old-growth forests, waterfalls, flora and fauna, and geologic formations. In summer and fall, park educators lead "Ghost Town Walks" to the ruins of the lumber village of Ricketts and to adjoining State Game Lands."
  • "In 2003, Backpacker Magazine named the park one of its 30 favorite day hikes in the contiguous United States." - A park isn't a hike. Did the magazine specify a route?
  • "that passes through a stand of old-growth forest that includes an Eastern Hemlock" - Since "old-growth forest" is linked at least a couple of times earlier in the article, I would unlink it here.

Works cited

  • Grasping for straws, all I can think to recommend is that Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, not be linked in the Mitchell entry since it is linked in the Brown entry. Also, should the Petrillo entry include a place of publication?

I will be happy to support when this goes to FAC. Please let me know when that happens in case I am snoozing. Finetooth (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments and edits - they are very helpful. Will address the rest tomorrow, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All comments addressed, I believe - thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and kind words. Dincher (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MacD.

"..at least 10,000 BC. The first settlers in the state were Paleo-Indian nomadic hunters known from their stone tools.[6][7] The hunter-gatherers of the Archaic period, which lasted locally from 7000 to 1000 BC, used a greater variety…"

inconsistent use of commas in numbers
7,000 to 1,000 BC looked very odd, so I made it 10000 BC instead, although that looks somewhat odd too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the MOS says "Years are normally expressed in digits; a comma is not used in four-digit years (1988, not 1,988)." so I left the commas out of 7000 BC etc, but added a comma back to 10,000 BC. If you really think it should come out, please say so. Thanks and sorry to fip-flop here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is for consistency first and using commas second. However the question is not what do I prefer, but what is most likely to avoid unnecessary waffle at FAC? Arguably, 1000 is not a four-digit year but an indication of the era involved and could have a comma. I doubt anyone would think the hunter-gatherers had time-pieces that enabled them to arrive in exactly 7,000 BC and leave exactly six millennia later. I don't mind which method you use. Ben MacDui 07:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now no years have commas in them - will not change it again unless this is an issue at FAC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'the nominal control of the Iroquois, who lived in long houses,"

"who also lived in long houses" as you are repeating the info
Fixed, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" what is now New York."

there may be some protocol or other here, but non-US types might well assume this was the city. "what is now the state of New York"?
Used your text, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Revolutionary War isn't linked and I had to check to be sure I knew what you meant.

Linked now, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption " Some park trees are estimated to be 500 to 900 years old" - "to be between 500 and 900" sounds better to me.

Used your wording, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The first inhabitant in the area whose name is known was Mr. Robinson, a hunter" It took me two goes to be sure I had understood this clause. ("is known was" foxed me) "The first inhabitant in the area whose name is known, was a Mr. Robinson, hunter" perhaps.

I tried recasting it as A hunter named Robinson was the first inhabitant in the area whose name is known; around 1800 he had a cabin... Hopefully this is better? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption - "Ganoga Falls in 1875, a woodcut by John B. Bachelder" Is it possible that " Ganoga Falls in 1875" is the name of the artwork and should be italicised?

A reasonable guess, but the caption of the woodcut in Bachelder's book is "GANOGA FALLS, NORTH MOUNTAIN, PA." - the book was published in 1875. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" The Ricketts family was not aware of the glens and their waterfalls until about 1865," (!)

No less an authority than William Reynolds Ricketts, son of R. Bruce Ricketts wrote that. I also am surprised by it, and assume that the Native Americans had to know of the falls, and also assume the squatters did (as both their dams were very near the northernmost falls in each glen). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that Robert Bruce Ricketts shrinks to R. Bruce and then just R. B. Surely he had one less formal style that could be used consistently?

He was almost always known as R. Bruce, so I used that throughout. There is a R.B. Ricketts waterfall, which is where I think we got the R.B. from. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Glen" is Scottish English. Is it in such common use that it's not worth mentioning its appearance here - or maybe we don't know why the word was chosen?

I have no reliable source that says why Ricketts chose the name "Glen", but there was a Scottish connection. Petrillo's book (p. 68) says The name “Rose” was a Ricketts family name in Scotland. The family can be traced to Kilvarock Castle, in Nairn, Scotland. I also know Ricketts renamed Long Pond to "Highland Lake" for a few years before changing the name to Ganoga Lake (from Tomasak's book, this fact is in the Ganoga Lake article). There is also Watkins Glen in New York state. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Kilravock Castle. The occupants are Norman rather than genuinely Scottish, having arrived as late as the 13th century. I can see a property they used to own from my house. Might be worth mentioning the connection - to Kilravock that is, not me, notable tho' that is. Ben MacDui 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked glen on first use, and added the Clan Rose / Kilravock connnection in a note, along with the name Highland Lake. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that the metric units must be very tedious for you (and it is certainly annoying to read so many duplicates of very obvious information). I wonder aloud if there is not a potential wiki-solution to this so that we could just set a preference and read the article in our chosen system. There are no doubt hundreds of discussion pages about this somewhere.

Agreed that having this an option would be useful, but I do not know what else to do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders about the genuine value of these notional translations to modern currency values. Was Ricketts really so rich he could afford to spend $10 million on dams that didn't even work properly? The quote is wonderful tho'.

I also love the quote. According to Tomasak's book, at one point Ricketts owed nearly half a million dollars in mortgages and loans on his lands before the lumber operations saved him, so I think he was used to spending big (he spent about the same amount on the three dams). I have to work on the article on R. Bruce Ricketts before too long. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lake Jean dam had repairs in 1956" - surely "was repaired" or "required repairs" etc.

I used "was repaired" - thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" after remnants of a hurricane filled the lake to capacity. The remnants of the" - too many remnants

I changed the second sentence to The rest of the 1905 dam was removed in 1969. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose the MOS police would allow "From the tower, eleven Pennsylvania counties can".. the present version begins "11 Pennsylvania" and reads as if it might be a road or something.

Three states (assume PA, NY and NJ) can also be seen, so I made it From the tower, three states and eleven Pennsylvania counties can be seen. which is OK under the MOS (number consistency). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" That same year local fire companies trained to rescue people injured in the park when icy conditions make reaching and transporting them especially treacherous. The sentence starts in an exciting way - "local fire companies trained to rescue people injured in the park" did what - ? something dramatic? Oh, I see, they were just trained.. ☹ Can we say something like "That same year training was undertaken by local fire companies.."?

Used your wording, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never before heard of helicopters having had an "ecological advantage". I am not suggesting a change, although I'd be interested to know the carbon footprint

I believe that the reasoning was that the timber would be salvaged either way, but that helicopters required no new roads and heavy equipment in the forests, so the advantage was for the forests in the park. Even mules would probably have needed some new roads (higher methane emissions, less carbon dioxide than choppers). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"50 years old, were rehabilitated." This isn't (common) GB English - rehabilitation is what happens to criminals here.

I used refurbished instead. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "day trip" is overlinking?

delinked, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tremendous pressure on the sediment caused the formation of the rocks" - you could say "Tremendous pressure caused the formation of the sedimentary rocks" in case a passing geologist has a moment's excitement and thinks the " Tremendous pressure" created metamorphic ones. (sedimentary is linked later).

Used your wording, thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" Wedding-cake falls descend in a series of small steps, forming waterfalls that are said to resemble a wedding cake." The second part of the sentence is absurdly obvious - not sure what to suggest - a note perhaps? - or just link wedding cake on first mention per bridal veil.

Moved the wedding cake link to first mention and removed the second part of the sentence, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" Many of the old-growth trees are believed to be over 500 years old, and ring counts on fallen trees have revealed ages over 900 years" GB English would be "of over 900 years"

Used the GB English (which sounds fine in AE too), thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glens Natural Area " old-growth forest including giant Eastern White Pine, Eastern Hemlock, and oaks" - you told us that already in the section above.

Yes, but they are beautiful tres. Oh, OK, removed "including giant Eastern White Pine, Eastern Hemlock, and oaks". Left in size of old-growth forest as only place it is given, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caption - "White-tailed Deer" should be linked.

and now it is linked, I also liked Balck Bear in its caption - thanks Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like them too ☺Ben MacDui 07:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know if you ever want to import some likable bears for introduction ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Boids - "Winter Wren" is dbl linked.

I removed the second Winter Wren as the first mention said about the same thing. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Other programs are held in the park office, on topics such safety around wild animals" - missing "as"

added, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't checked the refs. Ben MacDui 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - we will work on all your points. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all of your comments, which were very useful, have been responded to now - thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks yet again, to all reviewers, I think this is about ready for FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks too to the reviewers. Ben's comments were also amusing! Dincher (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it recently went through an unsuccessful FAC. An unregistered user identified some problems but I addressed those. Everything else was addressed and it even had some support, it just didn't receive enough reviewers. Please help me identify any remaining problems the article may have, and suggest things I can do to make it more appealing or reviewable at FAC.

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: My main suggestion is to reduce the emphasis and the amount of space devoted to the controversy. I think this would make the article more balanced and would be more inviting to readers whose main interest may be in the song rather than the background arguments and hurt feelings. I checked a few of the contemporary song articles at WP:FA#Music, and they are generally short and to the point. See All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song), or Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song) for example. I think this article might attract more support if it were more concise in the lead and in the first section. Here are a few other thoughts:

Lead

  • "Shots of floating objects intersperse a second scene with Clarkson wearing a black dress and singing in a rehearsal room while being surrounded by an invisible orchestra playing instruments." - "With" plus "-ing" is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "Shots of floating objects intersperse a second scene in which Clarkson, wearing a black dress, sings in a rehearsal room while surrounded by the instruments of an invisible orchestra." (I haven't seen the video, but I'm assuming from what you've written that the instruments are visible even though the people playing them are invisible. Is that correct?)
  • "Despite her dissatisfaction with the song being released as a single... " - Suggestion: "Despite her dissatisfaction with the song's release as a single... ".
  • "The "grandiose admissions of vulnerability" that Clarkson conveys have been described as "an emotional wallop" and "near perfect" in Entertainment Weekly, Atlantic City Weekly and About.com, and reviewers in the Chicago Tribune and The Huffington Post said that Tedder's arrangement made the song a "timeless" and "extravagant ballad". - Noting that the question of to cite or not to cite direct quotations in the lead arose during the article's first FAC, I'd suggest ducking the problem by using paraphrase in the lead. Suggestion: "Critics have praised the song for its expressions of vulnerability, its emotional impact, and its successful use of the ballad form." Or something like that.

Background and release

  • My impression is that this section is too long considering that the controversy is about a relatively small matter and probably will have a very short half-life. Readers may get stuck here because the controversy gets big play in the lead, and really big play in the first section. I'd consider eliminating the quote boxes and the quotes within them and condensing the remaining material. I think this section would be better if it was about half of its current size. I'd also consider giving slightly more emphasis in the lead to the lower sections and slightly less to the controversy by reducing the number of words devoted to the controversy.
  • "Clarkson tried to have the song removed from All I Ever Wanted, but it was too late to make any changes; the album was already being pressed and it was too late to make any changes to the tracklisting." - Re-write to eliminate repetition of "too late to make any changes".
  • "She confronted him for using the same arrangement... " - "Confronted him about" rather than "confronted him for"?

Music video

  • "the scenes are interspersed by slow-motion shots of falling champagne glasses" - "Interspersed with" rather than "interspersed by"?

References

  • ""Already Gone"" - Just one set of quotation marks in citation 1.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birdo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to push it to good article.

Thanks, The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The basic theme of a transgendered video-game character is quite interesting and holds the article together nicely. However, prose and style issues alone prevent this article from reaching GA in its current state. I made some minor proofing changes, and I list quite a few more suggestions about prose and style below. The list isn't complete, and it would be good to seek the help of a copyeditor after other changes are made. The other thing I would suggest is to consider adding a Background section to briefly explain these games (if that's possible) to outsiders. What is a mini-boss, for example? Is Birdo's character developed through plot devices? Do the games have much in the way of a narrative? Does Birdo change (age, grow wiser, develop relationships) during the games, or is she essentially static within each game? (I realize that game developers have changed her from game to game, but that's a bit different from a continuous narrative or character development within a single game.)

  • Overlinking: Generally, linking special terms once in the lead and perhaps once more in the main text is good. More than that is often overkill. For example, I see no reason to link Super Mario Advance twice in the "Concept and creation" section or to link Super Mario Bros. 2 repeatedly throughout the article. Ditto for similar repetitious links.
  • Citation-needed tags: These should all be addressed in some way.

Lead

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention in the lead each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about "Promotion and reception", which is a large part of the article.
  • "The manual asserts that she is a male who believes he is a girl, and would rather be referred to as "Birdetta"." - Would it be more clear to say the "original manual"?
  • "Later versions of Super Mario Bros. 2 make no mention in either the manual or the video game itself." - Would it be more clear to say "no mention of gender"?
  • No need to link Captain Rainbow twice in the lead.

Concept and creation

  • Link Game Boy Advance?
  • "Birdo was originally a mini-boss... " - Should "mini-boss" be explained? Readers who have never played these games will not know what it means.
  • "In Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it is said that Birdo is of "indeterminate gender" in her trophy." - Would it be helpful to explain what trophy that might be? Also, should the phrase be "on her trophy"?

Appearances

  • "Birdo has made several cameo appearances, including an early one teaching the character the rules" - Does "character" mean the "player character"?
  • She would also make appearances in multiple Mario role-playing games..." - "Makes" rather than "would make"?

In other media

  • "The first Track of HORSE the Band's album The Mechanical Hand, called "Birdo" heavily references the character. " - Various problems. Suggestion: "Birdo", the first track of Horse the Band's album The Mechanical Hand, heavily references the character.

Promotion and reception

  • "Birdo has appeared several times in promotional items, including figurines, plush toys, and other collectibles such as a chess set. figurine or as a part of a set of figurines." - Punctuation and repetition of "figurine" three times.
  • "In the book "Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet" - Book titles should appear in italics. Ditto for other book titles in the article.
  • "They described her gender as one of life's biggest questions, commenting on how she shoots eggs out of her mouth as another oddity of her's." - Tighten by deleting "of her's".
  • "Birdo has received praise from transsexuals due to being a transgender, including video game designer Jennifer Reitz." - Suggestion: "Birdo has been praised by transsexuals, including video-game designer Jennifer Reitz, because Birdo is transgendered."

References

  • "Super Mario Bros. 2 credits roll in Super Mario All-Stars" - I'm not sure what this refers to. Should it include a publisher and date of publication? Does it refer to something within the game itself?
  • Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found. Citation 9, for example, could include the author's name (Harris, Craig) and the publication date (March 22, 2001).
  • Magazine names like Wired in citation 21 should appear in italics.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William "Tiger" Dunlop

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to see this article included in the Canadian Biography/History and Ontario History banners.

Thanks, CJ_WeißSchäfer 18:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by user MBelgrano

  • Article name The name of this article does not follow Wikipedia:Article titles. It should be either "William Dunlop" or "Tiger Dunlop", whichever is most common, but a real name with the nickname between quotes in the middle of it, not. However, if you move it, consider to move as well this review page and update any broken links to it.
  • Lead The lead is little more than a mere enumeration. It's of little use to simply list all the things someone was; try to provide the most core ones for the first sentence and follow it with a brief summary of his biography: what did he start doing, how did he gain notability, and how did he moved to the other areas. "office holder" is a very generic term. According to Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, you should try to avoid gratuitous uses of "is notable for..."
  • Image Considering that you are using a non-free image, you should be able to find a better one than a mere blured grey reproduction of a portrait or photo. And there's a problem with the current one: it does not state who did actually create it (the 1976 book is clearly reusing someone else's work, by such date nobody would "create" an image like this). Clear authorship must be provided; and perhaps it may be possible to move it to Commons.
  • Extension I don't really know anything about this man, but I can bet that the article is short. With such a big bibliography, it seems clear that there should be much more to say about him. Sections should be longer than just one short paragraph, they should be expanded or merged. For example, if he was a member of the parliament, it may be interesting to read a little more about wich projects of law he supported or opposed.
  • Words to avoid there are some informal words that be replaced by more clear ones, such as "colourful character" or "interesting speeches".

Those are some of the things I noticed so far MBelgrano (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


CJ_WeißSchäfer 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Hi there MBelgrano. Thanks for the review. As you've said, you don't know William "Tiger" Dunlop. But you have been rather insightful whether it was by design or circumstance. So I will address your comments. Article Name: William "Tiger" Dunlop is actually how this man is known. I can cite some current correspondence between souther Ontario librarians or correspondence contemporaneous to him to support this. Lead: You're right about the enumeration quality. I will work on this. Image: Without obtaining copyright rights from the National Library of Canada, this is the best of the images available to me.

Extension: This is where you hit the nail on the head. There is no reason to spend much time on Dunlop's time in parliament. Authoritative sources tell us that Dunlop was known for his humorous speeches and friendliness, and not much else. The point in him becoming a Member of Parliament was to stop Bishop Strachan from becoming the sitting member. The two ran against each other; the Bishop fixed the results and after Dunlop challenged, Dunlop won and became the sitting member. This is really a battle of good versus evil with Dunlop as a Canadian Robin Hood and the Bishop as the bad sheriff. Notwithstanding Dunlop employment with the Canada Company, the Bishop represents the interests of the Canada Company and the Family Compact. Dunlop respresents the interests of the settlers--some well-off, some not. The Canada Company had a habit of robbing the settlers and then selling back to them that which belonged to them in the first place. Dunlop was able to keep the feud under control with his sense of humor, oratory abilities, and his ability to keep the real objective in mind. The objective was to have Canada populated by British immigrants; something which would not happen if the Bishop et. al. continued to rule to the province. Having said all this, you may ask why this isn't in the article. Mainstream Canadian history describes the Bishop in terms of his religious duties thus rehabilitating him; it does not concentrate on his political and social asperations. My thoughts above are confirmed by a few academic thesis and the literature of Upper Canada, but would be challenged by the current historical paradigm. I believe it is more important to raise Dunlop to the place he deserves in Canadian history, than to engage in a useless battle of historical revisionism.

Words to avoid: I think after reading the above you will understand why I used those words. They are the words that may cause someone with an interest in the subject to enquire further

Thanks again for the review 99.246.14.181 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buso Renkin episodes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want it checked before sending it into Featured List.

Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington & Jefferson College

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to nominate it for GA/FAC at some point in the future, and I'd like to know what parts need to be worked on. I have expanded it significantly, while adding a number of sub-pages as splits for the larger sections. I already know that the lead needs to be expanded, and I'll be doing that in the near future. So let me know what you think. What are the strengths, the weaknesses, the parts that ought to be cut, reduced, or expanded. Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'It is also considered an excellent preparatory school for graduate level studies in general, but especially in chemistry, biology, economics, and history.' Sounds like WP:WEASEL IMHO. It could also use a nice trim; it runs really long even in Chrome. By the way, can you review Manufacturing in Hong Kong? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Thanks for pointing out the obvious problem in the lead, (which is something that I already knew about and noted in the peer review nomination). No, I don't think I'm going to review Manufacturing in Hong Kong, thank you very much. Is there someone else who would like to give this article a proper review?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Always nice to see articles on colleges and universities and being in Pennsylvania is a plus. With an eye toward FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FAs on schools, colleges and universities that may be good models. Ohio Wesleyan University is one that comes to mind, I also really like Avery Coonley School which is more recent (though not on a college or university).
  • The lead looks much better (I had read the old one). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
  • The college's seal has three dates (1802, 1806, and 1865). The Infobox says 1781. It is not super clear in the History section what the 1781 is referring to. I would be very explicit in the History as to when things happened, where they were, and what college this was eventually leading up to.
  • The more I think about it, woud it make sense to split the History into three sections: Washington College, Jefferson College, and then W&J?
  • The History is very detailed until about 1871 (6 years after the merger), then the rest of the history is covered in half a paragraph with decades-long gaps. This would be a huge problem at FAC, where comrehensiveness is a criterion. See WP:WIAFA It would also be an issue at WP:GAN where broad coverage is a criterion.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing, for example Thaddeus Dod is linked twice in History. Or the current president is linked at least twice in the body of the article.
  • The MOS says to refer to people by just their last names unless there is some good reason not to do so (two people with the same last name, for example). So drop "joseph" in Joseph Smith taught classical studies in his college, called "The Study" at Buffalo.[5] and drop the reverends in The first members of the board of trustees included Reverends Dod and Smith.[6] It is fine to mention that they were ordained, just not really any reason to use reverend as a title here.
  • Another issue that would be a problem at FAC is the reliance on material from W&J itself - the vast majority of the references are to things from W&J. As much as possible, use independent third-party sources like newspapers and books. The Coonley school article does a very good job of this, which is why I mentioned it above. Some primary material (from W&J) is OK and probably unavoidable, but try to minimize it and maximize other sources.
    • That is definitely a consideration that I had throughout the writing of this article. There are a few reasons why there are lots of those types of sources: 1) the local newspaper of record, Observer-Reporter, is very stingy with web sources 2) the U. Grant Miller Library Digital Archives is full of great information that appears to be very reliable (and many links contain a list of independent sources). I tried to take great pains to only include facts, not admissions puffery, from official sources.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article could use more images - I note there are four color images of buildings on campus on Commons - why not use some of them?
  • Also make sure that images have correct source and other information - for example the link for File:Old Main W&J 1880s.jpg does not lead to that image (it is of a lab of some sort instead).
  • Avoid lists like Areas of study - data dumps like that are not very encyclopedic. -- Done
  • All units have to be given in both English and metric units (English first as it is an American college). See acres in the lead.
  • Avoid needless repetition - the number of seats in the Olin Fine Arts Center is given twice in the article (once is enough) and the numbers do not quite match. Or as notable as James G. Blaine is, his political career only needs to be mentioned once in the bosy of the article (not twice)
  • The article needs to do a better job of making clear when things are happening. For example, when did the Field Days start and do they or the other traditions still continue?
  • In a related vein, avoid use of words like currently or now or today of at all possible - it is better to use "As of 2010..." or "since YEAR" Also make sure to specify when statistics were measured or published, so add years to thingsl ike With 37% of the student body participating in "greek life," fraternities and sororities play an important role in student life at W&J.[140]
  • WP:HEAD says to avoid repeating a header in a subheader, so in Athletics, the subsections could just be Intercollegiate and Intramural. Done
  • I think sometimes less is more. Does it really help the reader to understand the college better to know the lyrics to Whichi Coax? Or that In the mid 1850s, the Washington College Young Men's Christian Association chapter held 300 volumes in its library collection.[108]
  • Even before I got the sources listed as references, I noticed that the article has a lot of details on the early years of the college and its predecessor institutions, and a fair amount of coverage of the past 10 plus years, but not a lot on most of the 20th century.

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 ><>°° 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar al-Bashir

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

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

The article itself is well written, and comparable in scope and sourcing to other featured articles of living persons. Aside from that, the article is what could be considered a comprehensive study of the subject's life and importance to world history considering the amount of information available to the wider global community about his life, and moreover due to recent updates and copy-editing, I feel the article now meets WP:FA criteria. I feel it is also important to note that given the recent interest generated about al-Bashir due to the fact that the ICC has officially charged him with three counts of genocide (the first sitting head of state to be charged with a crime of this magnitude, as well as the first to be charged at all), his biography can be considered to be of significant interest to world politics and social sciences and indeed recent world history in general.

That being said, there are some points that might be contested about this article's (future)nomination, including:

The brevity of sections dealing with his personal life and early history.
Potentially the lack of sections describing the historical and sociological background in which he came to power and ruled as president.
The (relatively) short description of the Conflict in Darfur for which he is best known to the international community
The fact that as he is involved in a current event (I.E. the new warrant for genocide) more updates can be expected to be made to his bio, perhaps in quick succession.
The fact that given his reputation, his page has been and most likely will continue to be a target for vandalism.
The relative lack of free-licensed images.
General minor oversights vis-a-vis manual of style, clarity and coherence, etc.

In this review, I am looking for any criticism at all regarding the content or sourcing or any other physical aspect of the article itself so that I will be able to make the required changes. Please refrain from arguing the merits of the man himself or of the merits of his biography becoming a featured article. This review is for style and clarity and those concerns can be voiced at the nomination for featured article should it article ever reach that point.


I have looked at the edit history of this page, and the top most contributors seem to be either bot functions or consistent vandals, and the article as a whole appears to have been a collaborative effort rather than as an individual project. Therefore, in keeping with this review, I will do my utmost to try and respond to any comment/criticism and to edit the article to reflect any contentions that might arise, and I will hold myself responsible for the article as per this nomination for the time being. If any editor has an issue with that or claims that they should be responsible for this article, then please contact me via my talk page and I will step aside and update the review to reflect that, and as always feel free to voice any other concerns on my talk page and I will do my best to respond promptly.


Thank you all for your time and efforts, I truly appreciate them. Thanks, Cwill151 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty good, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to FAC.

  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are 93 FAs in Category:FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles, some of which seem like they would be good models. Perhaps Barthélemy Boganda would be a good model. There are also 47 FAs in Category:FA-Class Africa articles, which might be useful.
  • In the lead, I think that his name should be given in Arabic (see the FA on Ban Ki-moon for an example of foreigh language names included in the lead of a FA). I think that it might not be a bad idea to say something like "commonly known as Omar al-Bashir", but am not sure that is required.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing. For example, Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation and Hassan al-Turabi are each linked three times in the body of the article. My rule of thumb is once in the lead, once in the body (first use) and then perhaps in captions or tables or refs.
  • Looking at the External links checker in this peer review (upper right box), there are several dead or probably dead links that will have to be fixed before going to FAC.
  • Many of the refs cited do not have all the information needed - for example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. For example current ref 51 is just "Tribune correspondent charged as spy in Sudan". LA Times. 2006-08-26. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-060826salopek,0,6941372.story?coll=la-home-headlines." It needs the author's name (given in the online article) and the date accessed, and LA Times should be spelled out in full.
  • Please make sure that the refs are also all internally consistent, so some refs say "accessed on DATE", other say "retrieved on DATE" - again using templates is one way to get these more consistent.
  • As for images, I think the article could have a map of the position of Sudan in Africa also showing Chad and Egypt (and other nations perhaps), and one of the nation of Chad itself showing Khartoum and Darfur etc.
  • There are many images of Khartoum on Commons - not sure if any would work here. Same for Sudan. There is also another free photo of Bashir at File:Omar al-Bashir, 12th AU Summit, 090131-N-0506A-342.jpg to use here
  • I think bevity is OK in general - I would make sure that enough background is included to provide context to the reader. For example, I owuld say when the Kingdom of Egypt and Sudan ceased to exist (when did Sudan become independent). Or what year did he return to Sudan from Egypt?
  • Comprehesiveness is a FA criterion - one way I try to check that is to look for gaps in history. Here there is nothing from 1973 to 1989, which may be an issue at FAC.
  • I do not see any way to avoid vandalism (if it gets too bad, ask and the article can be semi-protected). Similarly, changes from current events do not necessarily compromise an article's chances of becoming or staying FA (though it makes more difficult). FOr example Barack Obama is a FA (and had been since before he was elected a US Senator, IIRC.

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 ><>°° 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw VI

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it passed its GA review on March 4, 2010 and I have been doing a lot of tweaking and copy-editing since then. I would like to see where it stands now before I jump into my first FA review, which I plan on doing with this article. I don't want to embarrass my self by completely failing as soon as I nominate it.  :) Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mike Allen 03:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 14:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this movie. The carousel scene gave me nightmares :(

The best Saw trap ever. :) Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hank (Gerry Mendicino), his janitor and a smoker, is in the same situation across from him. Hank is killed when he fails to hold his breath longer. Doesn't mention how he's killed. Does that matter? Wasn't there some kind of poisonous gas in the mask or something?
My understanding is that a film's plot summary it should not go into extraneous details. Like how someone is killed, why they where killed, where they were killed and what they were killed with. Hank does not play in any main part of the "games", or plot, of the film as he was just pawn in Jigsaw's game. No, I don't think anything was in the masks, not even oxygen. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second test, Jigsaw's puppet informs William that he must choose to save either his file clerk Allen (Shawn Ahmed) or his secretary Addy (Janelle Hutchison), and let the other die. Were you previously advised to pare down the plot summary? Because I think it's a tad lacking when the irony of William's decision isn't pointed out (Allen is in perfect health but has no family, while Addy has a chronic condition but has kids).
Yes, actually on two separate occasions someone asked that the plot be trimmed and stay within WP:PLOT (400-700 words). See the talk page. I never "wrote" the plot section, I just trimmed it down and fixed errors. It's possible that I've whacked off too much. When the GA review was done, the plot was at 636 words and it's now at 705 words. Their character pages (List of Saw Characters#Saw VI) has more details on their "games". Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do think it's a tad lacking, but I'm not really up on FA standards for articles on films.
  • When Hoffman returns to the observation room, he finds a letter that Jill has placed on the desk, which he himself had written to blackmail Amanda Young Department of redundancy department?
Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''It was stated'' that questions about characters stated by whom?
I just removed it. It didn't fit anywhere. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new actress Tanedra Howard from the 2008 VH1 reality acting competition show Scream Queens won a role in the film. I think this could be worded better to specify that one is the direct result of the other, that is, that Scream Queens existed for the sole purpose of awarding a role in the film and that Howard is not just someone from that show as the first part of the sentence would seem to suggest.
Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armstrong said there will be traps called the "carousel room" and the "steam room". Certainly this sentence came from when information on the film was still speculative. It should probably be removed, since those traps have already been explained above in the article.
 Question: I don't quite understand this request. The "carousel room" and "steam room" is only discussed in the Filming and traps section. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already know what the "carousel room" and the "steam room" are from reading the article. So giving scant details, in the future tense, later on in the article doesn't really help anything.
  • Buena Vista, the film's foreign distributor, has since filed an appeal. Resolution to this? And the dated language should be avoided. Motion picture rating system#Spain says Buena Vista, the distributor, unsuccessfully appealed the decision.
I agree. Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw VI opened in 3,036 theaters at No. 2 with USD$6,957,263—$2,292 per theater, only behind Paranormal Activity. I think behind only is the more common usage.
Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''On the Halloween weekend'', it moved down to No. 6 and made $5,270,79 Sounds clunky. Maybe On Halloween weekend or On the weekend of Halloween
Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher Monfette of IGN Movies rated Saw VI three out of five Kim Newman of Empire gave Saw VI 3 out of 5 Blake French of AMC Filmcritic gave Saw VI three and a half out of 5 Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting gave the film 7 out of 10 These need to be standardized. WP:MOSNUM would seem suggest using numerals for all, though three and a half is a bit thorny as I'm not sure "3½" would fulfill accessibility concerns (do screen readers verbalize "3½" as "three and a half" ?)
 Question: Do you mean write the numbers out as words? Not sure about screen readers.Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had it backwards. MOSNUM actually suggests spelling out numbers below ten. But either way, don't mix the numerals and words together like this.

Music videos by Mushroomhead, Memphis May Fire, Hatebreed and Suicide Silence was also be included with all editions Mushroomhead and Suicide Silence are already linked above. Linking them again is redundant.

Fixed. Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This article is quite good. I'm not the best at critiquing the technical aspects (spacing, accessibility, that sort of thing), so you may wish to have someone else dive in as well. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your time and suggestions. Do you usually review FACs? At any rate, what is your honest opinion about taking this through FA within the next month or so? I'm not a professional writer -- obviously. lol Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article seems to assume a familiarity with the Saw franchise as a whole (much as the movie did). Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell) meets with Hoffman at her clinic; he informs her that he is taking control of the games No need to retell Jill's life story, and surely the details about the clinic are in her article, but an uninitiated reader may not be sure of the meaning of "he is taking control of the games" There are several other instances like this in the article. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid if I keep trying to explain to the reader who each character is in the plot section, I'll run over to 1,000 words. I've thought about making a cast... *gulp*... list and including a brief summary of each character along with real-world casting details. I don't care about cast lists and my understanding is that is frowned upon with FAs. Do you think that would work? Mike Allen 02:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a frequent FA reviewer. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think the article's chances at FA would be greatly improved if the article contained a photo. I suppose the poster technically satisfies the FA requirement to have an image in the article, but even just a picture of someone from the cast or crew would be very helpful. Is there a free use image of Greutert, Outerbridge, or Mandylor? They'd be the best options. I notice there are images of Bell, Russell, and Smith in their articles, but they're more like supporting players in this film. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No free pictures of them that I'm aware of. Many non-free pictures though (like Mandylor posing with fans at SawMania, etc). Ugh. I actually got lucky on the Saw VII article, someone was close to production in Toronto and got a snapshot of the set. It was unusual for them to be in public filming like that anyway. It's possible to use a non-free image with critical commentary if no free images can be found. Like a scene of the film or something. I don't know what it would be though. On your other notes, I see what you mean now and will fix those issues. Thanks again. Mike Allen 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cunard

I haven't seen this movie, so my comments will be from the perspective of one who knows little about this topic.

Not a Saw fan, or just haven't seen this particular one? Or did you stop at part 3 like most?
I've never seen any of the Saw films before, and I'm not sure I want to see them. Mutilation and torture in graphic detail–not my type of thing. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's plot has a heavy emphasis on the 2009 economic struggle of the U.S. government attempting to regulate healthcare.[1] – This piece of information isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. The lead should summarize the article's contents, so this should be included in one of the bottom sections.

    Additionally, "the part of the sentence from "2009 ... attempting to regulate healthcare" is a bit awkward/unclear. Would "the U.S. government's attempt to regulate healthcare" or "... U.S. government and its attempt to regulate healthcare" be better?

That sentence is kind of new. I didn't add it and to prevent it from being WP:OR, I found a citation for it. I really couldn't fit anywhere in the body. Would it fit better in the Critical reception section?
I don't know. If you can tie it into critical reception, it might fit there. You could also include it in a new section about the film's themes (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Themes), if there is enough information for something like "contemporary influences on the film". If it doesn't fit anywhere, though, I'd just remove it. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I suppose it doesn't have to be a huge section, just a paragraph. Mike Allen 05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • which followed the tradition of being released on the Friday before Halloween – it's not clear what tradition this is continuing. Perhaps you can add "followed the tradition of Saw films being released ..."
Fixed.
  • When Hoffman returns to the observation room, he finds a letter that Jill has placed on the desk, which he had written to blackmail Amanda Young (Shawnee Smith), while Jill enters suddenly and shocks him, while William simultaneously reaches the end of his path, finding himself between the two cages. – this sentence is too long; it should be broken up into two or more sentences to improve readability.
Fixed.
  • Production: Developing and writing: This section is a bit listy in that it lists the people who returned as writers, producers, cinematographers, etc. for Saw VI but I don't know if you can avoid that. Is there any more information about the writing process you can add?
  • In May 2008 it was reported that Kevin Greutert and On July 26, 2007 it was announced that Costas Mandylor would sign on ... – try to avoid writing in the passive voice. Who reported that Kevin Greutert would become the director or Costas Mandylor would continue to portray Mark Hoffman? Perhaps something like "The Saw franchise announced that Kevin Greutert ..." would be better? There are some more instances of "it was reported" or "it was announced" throughout the article that can be reworded in a similar manner.
Actually, after reading this section thoroughly---I hate it. I hate the "so and so returned" being used repetitively. What was I thinking. I wish I had more sources to work with, but I believe I have used every source there are for Saw VI. Though, two interviews here and here already being cited in the article may have some more script material. I'll read those interviews more thoroughly. Those are the two more informative ones. I think I solved the "it was reported by" and "[..] returned".
Yes, much better. The changes you made have significantly improved the prose of that section. As Erik mentioned on the talk page, you could also try to find more information in periodicals that are available in the research databases at public libraries that could be used to expand this section. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will. I do know Fangoria covers each film every year. Not sure about any other magazine, or any "in depth" coverage. Maybe I'll be surprised once I start looking... Mike Allen 05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • he stated that the traps or "games" in Saw VI would be more personal to the victims and would be more one-on-one with the trap. – perhaps "...more personal to the victims who would be more one-on-one with their traps" would be better?
Agreed.
  • "David Armstrong thinks visually, it might be his favorite saying ..." – this reads like original research, though it's not. Perhaps "David Armstrong thinks "visually", which reviewer Mike Pereira comments might be Armstrong's favorite saying" would be better?
 Question: I've changed it.. but it still doesn't sound right? I don't know.
I think I've fixed it so that it reads better. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MPAA gave the film an R rating without running the movie for "sequences of grisly bloody violence and torture, and language". – this sentence is confusing to me and probably needs a little rephrasing for clarity.
Actually, wow. That's a big mistake I've made. Kevin actually said "Yep, that’s our badge of honor, courtesy of the MPAA! [...] we got the R without ruining the movie, and it’s a huge relief." NOT "running". This has been in the article for months too. Sigh.
  • It was released on October 20, 2009, through Trustkill Records. – this sentence needs a citation.
I think what happened here is that it was sourced with Fangoria, but since they don't like to retain articles on their website for very long (so you will buy the magazine?), it was removed and is now unrecoverable. This is why I web cite every ref before they suddenly go offline. I will look for another site, but doubt I'm lucky.
Though the source is no longer online, it is still usable. The online link is just a courtesy link, so you can include the relevant citation info without a url; see WP:DEADREF (the paragraph beginning with Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article) for how to do this. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that particular statement has never been sourced. The only source available is the official website. Which I think I could use since it answers what I need: who released and when. Right? Mike Allen 05:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that the official website qualifies as an acceptable source to verify the information. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three editions have a "2-Movie Set", which bundle the first film. – should it be "...bundles the first film?
I'm sure it should be. :P
Occasional grammatical errors tend creep into my writing, too. ;)

I don't think this article is ready for FA yet, though it is getting very close. I don't think it would pass Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1(a). The prose needs more work, so I recommend contacting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants who can provide more help with copyediting. Thank you for this entertaining and informative article. Cunard (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think this article is ready for FA yet". After reading your concerns about prose (and the concern of not having any images), I don't think so either. Thank you, I will contact someone about the copyediting. I just came to Wikipedia last October (editing) and recently began working heavily on Saw VI and created Saw 3D in February, from scratch. I would love to get at least Saw and Saw III to GA one day. But it's easier to write a film article when you're updating it from the beginning–to–end of the film development cycle (to me). Since Saw 3D is the last film, I won't have to worry about prepping another one next year, so maybe soon I will being work on the others. Thanks for you comments (and copyedits of your own)! Since the films are so controversial and has a "certain" fan base, I was worried that no one would bother reviewing it. So this peer review is reassuring. :D Mike Allen 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I believe that Saw VI fulfills nearly all of the criteria at WP:FA? except for the 1(a) I mentioned earlier and also possibly 1(c). There may be more information in periodicals that could be used to expand the article. For example, you note that the film is controversial and has a "certain" fan base; maybe you can include that in the article—perhaps under a section titled "Controversies"? Also, have any of the sources talked about themes in Saw?

I recommend reading film articles that are featured articles to give you ideas for what else you can include in Saw VI. Looking through Category:FA-Class film articles, I found Bride of Frankenstein, which is also a horror film and is an FA. Keep in mind, though, that a number of the FAs promoted in 2008 or earlier would not be considered FAs under today's standards. For example, many paragraphs in Sunset Boulevard (film) are unreferenced, so Sunset Boulevard would fail a Wikipedia:Featured article review if it were not improved. Cunard (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not just this entry that is controversial it's the franchise as a whole that is. I will study some of the current featured horror films.
Okay. Was there anything controversial about Saw VI that was different than the previous films? If so, there can be a possible "Controversies" section. If not, then never mind. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some info from the Fangoria issue with this edit. Mike Allen 19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Sorry for the delay in getting to this, but hopefully the following are helpful.

  • In the lead, "After the producers edited out the "most violent scenes"", a citation would probably be needed here if 'most violent scenes' is going to be quoted. If you don't want to cite here, then some slight rephrasing would alleviate any issues.
    That is something new I added since it was just announced that Spain will show the film. I changed it to, "After the producers edited out the offensive content, the film will be released in the country with a "18" rating on October 8, 2010." Is that better?
    Works for me. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's interesting about the rating of the film in Spain, since it still has yet to be fully released there, you may want to start off with the earlier releases before leading into Spain.
    • Fixed
  • "The film opened behind Paranormal Activity..." This could use a little more clarification, especially with those unfamiliar with box office jargon. Was it released after this film or, I'm assuming, grossed less than PA in its opening weekend?
    • Is this better: "The film opened at the box office in second place behind Paranormal Activity and earned $14 million its opening weekend and went on to gross over $64 million worldwide, making it the lowest-grossing Saw film to date."
    Or maybe something like "Grossing $14 million in its opening weekend, Saw VI placed second to PA's $21 million. Saw VI went on to gross over $64 million worldwide, making it the lowest-grossing Saw film to date."? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed
  • "The writers of both Saw IV and Saw V, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan returned to write the sixth installment." It seems to me that this would flow better with the names at the beginning followed by the clause.
    • Agreed
  • "Greutert said in an interview with Bloody Disgusting that Saw VI would have the most characters in any Saw film to date including a lot of new characters to the series, but said that the writers would stay true to previous story lines to prevent any "violations of logic and chronology"." "Said" is used twice here, see if this could be reworded a bit to remove the redundancy.
    • I trimmed this.
  • "Lionsgate also held their annual "Give 'Til It Hurts" Blood Drive which was donated to the Red Cross." This could also use some rewording as it currently reads that they donated the drive to the Red Cross, not the actual blood donations. Although the drive is familiar to Saw fans, a sentence or two on what the drive entails would be helpful (what separates it from other blood drives).
    I couldn't find more sources that said when the blood drive took place, where it took place or anything worth noting. So I removed it.
    You should probably still keep it, as it is something that is prevalent throughout the franchise and kind of separates it from other films. Maybe you can get some further details from here about the background of the drive and its past success for the other films' releases. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about sourcing it with the official facebook page since it clearly says when the event took place. Would that be fine for the date verification? I found article that explains how the blood drive works, but it's from 2007, I think would still work for the background. Mike Allen 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that Facebook would be deemed a reliable source. I'd say stick with the original source that covers the specific details of the drive in relation to this film, and use the others to supplement details about the background of the drive itself. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Well, Facebook is being used more and more by official people as an "official" site. That page is from Lionsgate, and it lists when the blood drive dates took place. That's all I would need the source for. But I'm sure during a FAC a reviewer would automatically dismiss a "facebook.com" citation. Sad. :( I'll just work with what I've got. Thanks. Mike Allen 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's okay for listing in the external links section if it is for the official page, but for citations, I don't think it would be deemed reliable. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saw VI opened in 3,036 theaters at No. 2 with USD$6,957,263" This would read better as "at the second position" or "in second place". Also, the infobox uses the '$' by itself, but 'USD$' is used here. To stay consistent, one label should be used throughout the article. Since the film opened in second place, it may be helpful to mention how much Paranormal Activity opened to.
    • Fixed
  • "...and was pulled from 1,314 theaters and made $449,512—$579." It appears the "per theater" designation was left out here.
    • Fixed
  • If going for FA, a few more reviews would be helpful, especially if any foreign reviews could be included.
    • Will be looking.
  • I tried searching for a variety of images of the premiere, cast, and film set a few weeks back, but didn't find any likely candidates that I could get an author's permission for. Before nominating, I'd recommend trying to find a free image if possible. If not, then if there is significant coverage on one of the traps, a non-free screenshot could be included.
    Thanks for that. I had seen you were the one that uploaded the Cary Elwes photo. That really helped the Saw 3D article. :) I'll have to use a non-free image, probably an image of a trap.
    I would like to use an image of the carousel trap since there is a good commentary for that particular contraption. Though no good quality/promotional screen shots are available online, so I may have to snap a screenshot from the DVD. If that fails, they released a promotion poster with that trap. Mike Allen 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you could consider using a small video portion that could focus on one of the traps. Although our articles are not to be censored on here, if you were going to use one, I would recommend a clip that is not too gruesome but places strong emphasis on the trap related to the text. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, that may work. Though, how do I transfer a .wmv or .mp4 to a .ogg file format? Mike Allen 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are using Firefox, there is an application that can be downloaded to convert files over to the .ogg format. The Multimedia department may provide some further guidance (and if not, help to edit the page to tailor it to how it works for you, since it doesn't seem that videos are springing up around Wikipedia). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, if it works, I hope the 39 second video will be deemed useful and within fair-use guidelines in the end. Mike Allen 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far, it will be interesting to see how this does at FAC. I would recommend asking a member or two at the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look before nominating to trim and reword certain portions of the article. If you need any clarification on any of the above points, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will be interesting indeed. I've been looking at that guide of copy editors, trying to pick someone I think would be interesting in reading the article. Mike Allen 21:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: instead of finding a particular copy-editer, I listed the article on their requests page. Mike Allen 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Teplyakov

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to improve this article, but the GAN backlog is so large that I don't expect my article to be reviewed soon.

Thanks, Slon02 (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but may not be broad enough in coverage to advance to GA. Could anything be added about Teplyakov's early life, family life, or publications? I suppose it's difficult to find reliable sources, but the existing article is pretty thin. Here are a few other suggestions:

  • Abbreviations: Most abbreviations should be spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use like this: radio frequency quadrupole (RFQ). After that, the shorthand by itself will make sense to all readers. RFQ, SFSR, MeV, IHEP, and RF all fall into this category. RFQ is explained in the main text, but it appears without explanation in the lead. I would spell it out there rather than on second use.
  • Jargon: Most readers will not be familiar with physics in any great detail. Any special terms should be explained, if possible, in a way that would be understood by a wide audience. Words or phrases in this article that might be clarified include: ion, proton, drift tube, linac, radio frequency quadrupole, and electrode. Some of these could be linked to explanatory articles, while others might need a brief in-text explanation.
  • Persondata: Biographical articles often include metadata that's invisible except in edit mode but is useful for cataloging and statistical purposes. I added a persondata form to this article and filled in the name and alternate name. A few other details should be added. WP:PERSON has details.
  • References: The citations are incomplete. Citations to Internet sources should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if these are all known or can be found. For example, citation 1 should include Cern Courier, and it should include the access date.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Romance

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is a comprehensive and informative article on one of the most popular songs to come around in contemporary times, by a tremendous popular artist. I believe with proper language correction this has a chance of becoming a Featured Article. So my fellow reviewers, please point out the flaws in the prose that you can find.

Thanks, --Legolas (talk2me) 05:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time PR an article, but I think its a good place to start. I have to say, the overall look on the page is really good. Just scrolling down it, I come to the conclusion that the article is through, backed up with references, and can give me a fairly good understanding of Bad Romance. Nice job with that! I think articles that, when I do scroll down them, have a good amount of information are good for Wikipedia. There are some issues though that do puzzle me.

Lead
  • "The video received positive response for its artistic treatment and innovation; critics complimenting its craziness and symbolic plot."
Background
  • Nothing stands out to me here.
Composition
  • The first paragraph of this section includes many lyrcs from the song. I don't entirely know if that is standard procedure, but maybe taking a few of the lyrics would make it's flow better? I might just be rambling here, sodon't take it as it being a major problem.
Critical reception
  • ""Bad Romance" received positive reviews from critics."
Credits and personnel
  • Like I said, I am not familiar with the CD articles much, but is it necesary to include this? You go from track listing to credits to charts. I think it would flow better if this was put below release history or removed altogether.

Other than those very little situations, I think the article is wonderful. A side note, would it be possible to convert the charts to prose? I try to distance myself from major charts, and even think trying to figure out how to take the usual "Superman - Best superhero (nominated)" and convert it to "Superman was nominated for best superhero in the year 2010 at the Teen Choice Awards." I think it would challenge your mind, but also improve the article. Its just a personal opinion though. ChaosMasterChat 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Borden

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, while short, it is comprehensive and I would like to take to GA status. Issues I seem to run into in the past are prose and flow.

Thanks, Neonblak talk - 22:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulron comments: I don't know much about baseball, so my comments will tend to be on general prose issues, MOS and nitpicks.

  • Lead
    • "During his short, seven-game stint with the team, he posted a 2–4 Win–loss record, along with two shutouts." Why the capital W? And, showing my baseball ignorance, how does 2 wins, 4 losses and two shutouts equal seven games? Also, why is detailed information given for his first season, but not for his much busier second season?
    • First paragraph: successive sentence begin with "During..." Try to vary.
    • Second paragraph first line: as it's a new paragraph. "he signed" should be "Borden signed"
    • "a three contract"? Presumably, word missing: "a three year contract"
    • "were known as" → "had been known as"
    • He is credited..." → "Borden is credited"
    • "to avoid having his father know" → "to avoid his father knowing..."
  • Career: the first sentence has far too many commas, and is ungrammatical anyway. More to the point, this preamble doesn't add anything to what we've just read in the lead, and needs to be developed. For example, if his family was "prominent", then it should be possible to say in what field they were well known - business, politics, etc. That might illuminate why Borden wanted to kep his professional baseball career quiet.
  • 1875 season
    • First sentence too long, needs subdividion
    • "His first appeared..."?
    • "Borden lost his next three starts..." Surely you mean his team lost their next three starts?
  • 1876 season: I'm pretty confused by the baseball talk, none of which I can follow without using several links per sentence. This suggests that the prose may be pitched at sports magazine rather than encyclopedia level. I will, however, draw your attntion to a few prose oddities:-
    • "...some historians claim that this was, in fact, the first no-hitter thrown in the NL, thus becoming the first Major League no-hitter." Very clumsy. The words "in fact" are unnecessary; the end of the sentence could be simplified: "...thus the first in Major League baseball".
    • "Bases on balls were not official counted as hits until 1887, however the rule was reverted following that season." Presumably should be "officially"; the comma after 1887 should be a semicolon.
    • "This hypothesis is not without dispute however" What "hypothesis" are we talking about here?
    • Further cases of redundant "in facts"
  • Post-baseball career
    • I don't want to dwell on the point, but it seems odd that, if he came from a prominent family as previously stated, he was forced to earn his living by stitching baseballs. Had his family disowned him? Seems there might be an untold story somewhere.
    • "Officially he died..." I think this should be "Official records show that he died..."
  • General: No doubt you have looked, but I'm surprised that there seems to be so little information on record about Borden, other than that directly related to his baseball career. Nothing about his family life, schooling, whether he married, etc. Have all possible sources been exhausted?

I hope these comments are helpful. I am unable to watch my peer reviews at the moment, so if you want to raise any queries, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review, its a big help because prose, flow, and proof reading my own articles are not at the top of my skill set.Neonblak talk - 17:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by Thomas Eakins

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is an article I've been working on for a while. It's very much a work in progress (lots of stuff left to do, as well as some possible inaccuracies), but I'd like to get some other eyeballs on it and get some feedback. Raul654 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I realise that this is still work in progress, so my comments are not a final opinion on the list, but I hope they will facilitate further development.

  • Lead: it may be advisable to extend the present brief lead section by including background information, to provide a more substantial explanatory introduction to the list. I also understand that the opening form "This is a list of..." is generally deprecated.
  • File:Thomas Eakins circa 1882 cropped.jpg: Since no author information is provided, the image can't be licensed on an "author's death plus 70 years" basis. Assuming that the 1882 date is broadly accurate, it cannot be assumed with certainty that the photographer died before 1940. Is it possible that the Amon Carter Museum can supply details for the photographer, or any information on the image's possible publication prioe to 1996?
    • I checked the source for the image in question (Bolger, p 76). It says "Circle of Eakins" which is a phrase coined by Gordon Hendricks in the 1970's to describe photographs that were taken either by Eakins himself or one of his art students. Eakins and his students shared a camera, and did not sign their work, so for the vast majority of Eakins pictures, nobody knows who took them. This effectively makes them public domain, because they cannot be copyrighted if the photographer is unknown. Raul654 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not checked out all the images included in the very long list. However, I have noticed a few things while examining the first dozen or so:-
    • The Map of Switzerland has no description on the image page
    • Same image: Eakins's dates should be shown since PD is claimed on a death + 70 basis (this may apply to others of the images)
    • The Map of France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy is misdescribed as a "Portrait by Thomas Eakins"
    • Peasants and Travellers Among Ruins lacks an image description
    • The formal title of the lathe picture is "Perspective of Lathe", not "...of a Lathe". Also, the image description is uninformative.
  • Some general presentation points
    • It would help if (e.g. in J6) where images are on each side of the paper, this information was included in the "Notes" section of the table. This is done in some instances, not in others.
    • Why are the images 109A to 109H contained in a single line of the list, which looks odd and untidy? 106, 106A and 106B have their own lines.
    • 122 carries the note "Has a sketch of Dr. Andrews on the reverse side", but no indication as to where this sketch might be found.
      • "Reverse side" indicates that it is on the other side of the paper. As for where that sketch is located, it's in a private collection. The owner of that painting (circa the mid-1980s or earlier) is almost certainly listed in the Goodrich files, which I have cited. (I don't have a copy of that particular file in front of me). However, I wouldn't feel comfortable listing it here without talking to them first. You have to understand, a number of these paintings are in private collections, and have never been publicly reproduced in books. Getting locations and images for them is exceedingly hard. Raul654 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that numerous dates are missing, but perhaps that is part of the w-i-p?
      • I got the dates from Goodrich's 1933 monograph. Some of the entries in that catalogue included them, some did not.
  • Online references require formatting and retrieval dates (but you will know this)
  • Citations in the prose sections seem haphazard; often whole paragraphs lack citations
  • Three dablinks need fixing. Also, the checker tool is showing a dead link on 327, but the link appears to be working.

The list does seem like a very formidable undertaking, and if no comparable list exists elsewhere, could be a great resource for researchers in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No list like this exists anywhere else (Lloyd Goodrich published a similar one in 1933, but that list is incomplete, outdated, unillustrated, etc). I intend to get it published as a monograph, and William Innes Homer has agreed to be my co-author. Raul654 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments

Manuel Belgrano

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because most of the hard work (checking books and turning their information into a complete article, adressing all major topics) is done. Even more, except the first two sections, it's not a translation of the Spanish article, but an article written almost from scratch. I'm aware that the references are a little repetitive and that I should cite more books, but that's mostly technical: the biography is more or less the same by all modern authors that deal with it, which means that new references would hardly invole important rewritings of the article.

However, I'm not a native english speaker, and I'm too familiar with this topic. I need a review of 2 things: first, languaje (if there are things wich are not written correctly, or may be improved), and second, whenever there are details that may seem confusing to people with no knowledge on the topic and that may require higher explanations (or, on the contrary, if somewhere I overexplain something that is already clear for the casual reader).

Thanks, MBelgrano (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on a complicated article about an interesting and important historical figure. I've tried to at least in some way respond to your two questions above, but this is by no means a line-by-line critique.

  • Copyedit: A general copyedit by an experienced editor who is a native speaker of English would be a good idea. Your English is very good, but quite a few subtle slips occur here and there. For example, in the final paragraph of the "Europe studies" section, a sentence says, "His main topics of interest in the works of such authors were those referred to the public good and popular prosperity." Rather than "referred to", I think the phrase that you are searching for is "related to". The next sentence says, "As many other South American students, he became interested in physiocracy... ". I would change "as" to "like". Further along, a sentence says, "Belgrano developed the idea that the principles of physiocracy and those stated by Adam Smith could be complemented... ". I think you mean "combined" rather than "complemented". Later, I see "particular cases over theoric generalizations". " 'Theoric' should be 'theoretical'." Later in this paragraph a sentence says, "During his time in Europe he became president of the forensic practice and political economy Academy of Salamanca... ". Something seems to be missing from this sentence since it's not possible to be become president of a "forensic practice" or a "political economy". These second-language problems are all in the same paragraph, but I see a similar pattern throughout. Copyediting this article will be a fairly big job. You might find someone willing to help via WP:PRV.
  • Sources: While some of the article seems adequately sourced, many claims lack sources. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every paragraph. For example, in the "Ancestry" subsection, what supports this claim: "His father Domenico was Italian, his Italian last name was Peri, which he translated to the Spanish form Pérez, but later changed it to Belgrano as being a name that denoted good wheat production"? The only source cited for the paragraph in which this claim appears seems to support the claim that the Belgranos were the second-richest family in Buenos Aires, but it's not clear that the same source supports any of the other claims in the paragraph. If it does, the reference should appear at the very end of the paragraph. If not, the other claims, like the name change mentioned above, may be challenged on grounds that they are not common knowledge and must have come from somewhere.
  • Possible unnecessary detail: I'm not sure you need all of the detail in "Diseases". Most people have health problems during their lives, especially at the end, but most of this section strikes me as unnecessary. In addition, the "Political thought" and "Promotion of education" subsections seem, in part, to repeat information included in the "Europe studies" and "Work in the Consulate sections". These subsections could be trimmed or perhaps merged with earlier sections.

Work in the Consulate:

  • "Those proposals were rejected by the vocals... " - It's not clear to me what "vocals" means or refers to.
  • "He proposed to keep reserves of wheat in order to have control over its prize." - Do you mean "price" rather than "prize"?

British invasions

  • "he served as field assistance of a division commanded by Balbiani. After the successful resistance, Belgrano resumed... " - Something confusing happens in this section. Belgrano goes from saying "we want the old master, or no one" to fighting against the Spanish rather quickly. Could it be made more clear in this section how he moved so smoothly from resisting the British to resisting the Spanish?

This is not a complete review, but it should give you a few ideas, at least. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider those advises, but in the case of the loyalty, your confusion comes from a common misunderstanding. Although the development of the war would lead to independentism, and that it is known as a "War of Independence", Belgrano and the others were not motivated by separatism at the early steps of the war. The motivation was instead to replace the absolutist monarchy with a more free government, either a republic or a constitutional monarchy; but both sides (the ones promoting such change, and the ones who tried to keep the absolutist government) considered themselves Spanish and fight for what, under their respective perspectives, was the best for Spain. It was only by the point when the Spanish King restored absolutism when the fight became independentist: the new values at the iberian peninsula were doomed, but they could still survive in the Americas by separating from the metropoli. And there is another interpretation: people like Belgrano was independentist all the time, even during the British Invasions, and this kind of displays of loyalty to the king were merely a ruse to conceal his true ideas.
But, as you see, this is a topic way beyond the scope of this article, which about the biography of a single man. This is more deeply explained at May Revolution and Historiography of the May Revolution MBelgrano (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to receive feedback on the article's prose, structure, and depth. I plan to take this article to WP:FAC.

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though it wasn't in the backlog, I reviewed Saw VI at Wikipedia:Peer review/Saw VI/archive1. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I thought this was an interesting article and enjoyed it, but think it needs some more work before FAC. Thanks for your work on it; here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The article deals not only with the phrase have a nice day, but also with many variants - I think the article should be clearer that noted authorities see these other phrases as variants. Otherwise I can see someone at FAC reading the History section and saying "Have a happy" is not the same thing, why is it in here?
  • There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the article's flow, including one in the lead. I think in most cases these should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
  • I do not think one weather girl in New York City would spread a phrase to the whole eastern US - TV reception (especially in the early 1960s) is not that widespread - In 1964, Carol Reed spread the phrase in the Eastern United States, closing her weather reports with "Have a happy".[2][3]
  • The source from Safire says, "Soon after, that phrase was popularized in the East by WCBS meterologist ... Carol Reed". The other source from Shepard says, "In 1964, Carol Reed had been for years a popular household image with her weather forecasts on WCBS. Her catchy, if meaningless, sign-off, Have a happy, had become a metropolitan area cliche."

    Because the second source sounds more reasonable, I have revised the article to say that the phrase was spread in the metropolitan area. Cunard (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of the article appears to be anecdotes rather than history or analysis (though some things like Safire's piece are clearly more analytical). I am not sure how the FAC reviewers will react to things like this one sentence paragraph in the History section In the twenty-first century, Ann Raimes writes in her 2009 book Pocket Keys for Writers that after she bought Chinese food, she discovered that the food came in a bag decorated with a smiley face and the phrase "have a nice day".[9] What makes this a historical observation as opposed to an anecdote?
  • Another potential problem is that the article is very US-centric. There is a short section on usage in Israel (how much English is spoken there?), but the rest of usage is from the United States and much of it is anecdotal.
  • One could argue that the phrase is not used in Europe much as Europeans do not mostly do business etc. in English. There is relatively little on usage in Ireland and the UK (one paragraph), and I did not see any mention of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, or India.
  • Comprehensiveness is a FA criteria, so the USA focus will likely be an issue, and may be seen as a WP:WEIGHT or even WP:NPOV problem.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - I am not sure what a good model would be/ Chinese classifier or Sentence spacing are both recent FAs and may be useful as models.
  • Kudos for finding so much material on this topic. I am not sure if FAC reviewers would react this way for sure, but I am pretty sure the US-centric nature would be raised, and the other points seem likely to me.

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 ><>°° 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments.

  • The last sentence in the lead falls apart from the rest of it.
  • The article uses too many "notes", "muses", "opines", "acknowledges" and other loaded synonyms for "wrote" or "said" (WP:SAY).
  • Usage section: the phrase "usage is particularly common among United States citizens" is ambiguous. Does it mean that recent immigrants to the US (non-citizens) don't catch up with the industry standard, or does it mean "U.S. vs. rest of the world"?
  • To second Ruhrfisch comment, the words of Thomas L. Friedman or Ann Raimes or the Israeli soldier seem redundant. You have already said that the phrase is used in commerce and for sarcasm, these examples don't add up much.
  • I've removed the paragraph from Thomas L. Friedman, so I think the Israeli soldier example is the remaining sarcasm example. The Ann Raimes example was to demonstrate that "Have a nice day", which "defined the '70s", survives in the 21st century. I'll try to find a more historical example for that and will remove the example if I cannot find another source. Cunard (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Israeli segment leaves the impression that this is the only country (other than the US) where the phrase is widely used, but also leaves the reader in doubt: is it really the case? I'd recommend moving the paragraph on "Europeans generally feel the phrase is fake ... " up, into the "Usage" section, to clear these doubts. P.S. I've heard the phrase from shop attendants in Amsterdam. No, it was not a coffee shop :).
  • Moved. I've expanded the article with analysis from publications in London, Australia, and Ireland; much of this information I have placed in the "Criticism" and "Defense" sections because they belong better there than in the "Usage" section. There has been a lack of sources about instances of usage in other countries, including cities such as Amsterdam. As such, I have to say that you must have been going to the wrong shops—shops that do not represent the true spirit of the Amsterdam people. If you went to the right kind of shops, where the most intelligent people in the world go, you wouldn't have heard such nonsense. ;) Cunard (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, East of Borschov 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Peer reviews tend to receive only one review, so I am grateful for another one. Thank you especially for this correction of my embarrassing mistake. Best, Cunard (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville (season 2)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The season 2 article of Smallville has potential to become a good article and achive the status. Before it is submited for Good Article status though, the article needs to be looked through and improved. Because of the length of the article, it would be a good idea to have the editors, familiar or not with the series, contribute to the article to achive this milestone. Any advice that is given is appreciated.

Thanks,  ChaosMasterChat 00:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Although I've read many Superman comic books and have seen a fair number of Superman movies, I've never watched an episode of Smallville. I'm coming at this therefore with general knowledge of the subject and zero knowledge of this particular TV series. That said, I must confess that I can't bring myself to read this much detail about Smallville and gave up at the end of the "Superman mythology" subsection. Sad to say, my impression is that the article is much too long and includes a great deal of unnecessary detail. At the same time, it lacks a "critical reception" section and depends too heavily on the book by Paul Simpson. The sections from "Production" through "Physical effects", which make up the bulk of the article, rely almost entirely on this single source. Here are a few other comments:

  • It's often helpful to look at FA articles about similar subjects to see what other editors have done. You'll find articles about TV series at WP:FA#Media. For example, Parks and Recreation (season 1), which is on this list, runs to 60 kilobytes and includes a substantial critical-reception section. You are already at 79 kilobytes, but if you tightened the middle sections, you could expand the "Awards" section by adding what TV critics said about Smallville (season 2). I think both changes would help improve the article. In fact, if I were writing this, I would aim for something more like 60 kilobytes than 80.

Lead

  • "Season two regular cast members include Tom Welling... " - I stumbled here a bit because of the four modifiers in front of "members". Perhaps "Regular cast members during season two included Tom Welling... "?
  • "At the end of season one, Eric Johnson left the show as Whitney Fordman." - Suggestion: "At the end of season one, Eric Johnson, who played Whitney Fordman, had left the show."

Heat

  • "a woman he barely knows, who turns out is able to control men with meteor rock-enhanced pheromones." - The triple-modifier is awkward. Suggestion: "a woman he barely knows, who is able to control men with pheromones enhanced by meteor rock."

Writing

  • "to run the newly formed writer's room" - Maybe "writers' room" since there were more writers than one?
  • "because they felt they were still in the process of finding the show's voice" - Tighten to "because they were still seeking the show's voice"?
  • "The creative pair understood... " - Tighten by deleting "creative"?
  • The creative pair understood that a writing staff would help "expand [the] show". - Needs a source immediately after the punctuation at the end of the quote.
  • " ...Jeph Loeb, who spent his first two weeks trying to come up with fresh ideas for new episodes." - Tighten in this way: " ...Jeph Loeb, who spent his first two weeks seeking fresh ideas for new episodes"?
  • "someone to talk to who was not his parents" - Maybe "someone who was not one of his parents"?
  • "Even though they had developed a writing team and brought in comic book scribe Jeph Loeb to help facilitate new story ideas... " - Repeats what was already said in the previous paragraph. Generally, the prose in this section could use tightening. I'll stop making line-by-line copyediting suggestions at this point and simply suggest that you enlist the aid of a copyeditor. You might be able to find one through WP:PRV.

Superman mythology

  • I count 12 repetitions of "red kryptonite" in the third paragraph.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear. Finetooth (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify initially, the size of the article is misleading. True size is based on readable prose, which makes this article closer to 60kb (give or take a couple). Also, this article is based on Smallville (season 1), the first season page to become featured. There is no problem with relying on a single source for most of the information in the article, so long as it is not the only source (which it isn't). Obviously the prose could use some tightening, but I disagree that it is "overly long" or contains "unnecessary detail". Wordiness I can give you, but the idea is to be comprehensive. If it's a statement that is irrelevant, that's one thing, but details can be really beneficial when it comes to some of the complexities of production. Also, you're comparing it to a 6 episode show (Parks and Recreation), where we have 23 episodes here. Plus, this is a show with a lot more going into production, so you're going to have a lot more information. That said, Chaos and I are trying to acquire some reviews specifically for a couple of the episodes to separate them out. Unfortunately, early seasons of the show did not garner a lot of critical reception for individual episodes. The reception section for the overall season has not been written up yet, but we have the reviews.
All that said, I have implemented all of your suggestions (brought the 13 red-Ks down to 6), and realized that there is more that can be cut or tightened in just the Superman mythology section alone (thus, clearly all over). This will require an extensive re-reading of the page this weekend. I hope that you'll find some time and continue pointing out issues, as people who are unfamiliar with the show are typically the best reviewers. I personally will read over issues because I've seen the show and when something is missing I automatically fill in the answer in my head (but that doesn't help the average reader).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doors of Perception

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think this page meets all the Featured article criteria, but it probably needs a bit more work before reaching the lofty regions of the featured article. I'm not sure if it is a 'Language and literature' or 'Philosophy and religion', as Huxley is generally thought of as a novelist and essayist, although the book/essay deals with religion and philosophy. Thanks, Evenmadderjon (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


P. S. Burton's comments: Is the cover in the infobox the the first edition? If not, I suggest using the first edition cover. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks P. S. Burton. I can see a couple of small images of the first edition cover after a Google images search (there are both US and UK editions and the UK one looks slightly more interesting), but would I be allowed to take one of those images? Even the largest one is only 149 × 220 in size, is that too small? --Evenmadderjon (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on wikipedias fair use policy, but if think something like 300 x 400 (like this [1]) would be the ideal size. I think one of those you found will work tough. Its always better to show a first edition. (I will try to do a more extensive review of the article later, I don't have the time right know.) It sure is a fascinating book. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I think it needs some more work before it would be ready for FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement with that goal in mind.

  • First off, I agree that the cover of the first edition (and presumably the first British edition) would be better to use in the Infobox. It would need a fair use rationale, as the current cover image already has (so there is a model to follow)
  • I think that a mdoel article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 37 FAs on books at Category:FA-Class Book articles and it seems to me that perhaps something like History of a Six Weeks' Tour or Rambles in Germany and Italy, which are books by a British author on their experiences, might be useful as models. I also think that Getting It: The Psychology of est, which is on a somewhat controversial topic, might be a useful model too. No model is perfect, but hopefully there are some helpful ones in the category.
  • The disambig links in the toolbox in the upper right corner of this PR page finds two dab links that need to be fixed.
  • Now on to specific points. The lead of this article does not follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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 Native American use of peyote and the quote which is the source of the name seem to only be in the lead.
  • The current lead does not adequtely summarize the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but the criticisms are not mentioned in the lead at all.
  • One big potential problem with the article, especially at FAC, is a lack of references. Direct quotations all need refs, so the Blake quote needs one, as do texts taken from the book itself.
  • There are also several places that need refs. For example in the "Huxley and Huston Smith's response" section, the last two paragraphs have no refs, but need them. Anything that is attributed to someone, like Smith claims that consciousness-changing substances have been linked with religion both throughout history and across the world, and further it is possible that many religious perspectives had their origins in them, which were later forgotten. also needs a ref.
  • My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • There are also some Manual of Style issues here - for example the use of quotation marks does not follow WP:MOSQUOTE - many places use 'single quotes' (which should only be used for a quote within a quote, per the MOS) and should instead use "double quotes"
  • Per WP:See also, the see also section is generally reserved for links to articles which are not already linked in this one. At least Peyote and Humphry Osmond are already linked and so almost certainly do not need to be in the see also section
  • I would spell out the names of people mentioned, at least on first use - so Robert Charles Zaehner, not "RC Zaehner" - if there is a strong reason to just initials, the MOS says to use periods after them (so I think it would be R.C. Zaehner, can't recall if there should be a space between the initials or not)
  • Another major issue is that the article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which interrupt the flow. I would combine these with others wherever possible, or perhaps expand them.
  • The one sentence section on Cultural references is problematic too - it is very short, needs a ref, and should not be a bullet point.
  • There is a free image of Huxley in his article, and there are free images of some of the art works (Vermeer for example) mentioned that could be used to illustrate this
  • The other major concern I have here is comprehensiveness, which is a FA criterion. I think that the article needs some background to let the reader know more about Huxley and peyote and why he decided to take mescaline when he did.
  • If anything about the writing of the book is known, that should also be included. Similarly if there is any sort of publishing history (did he have trouble finding a publisher, was the book banned anywhere, etc?)
  • I have no idea of the critical history of this book, but the article seems to point to multiple critical responses to it - One of the earliest criticisms of The Doors of Perception was by RC Zaehner... As it is though, the article focuses only on Zaehner's critique and the responses to it. I think other cirtics need to be included.
  • What was the general effect of the book on society of the time and after? Did it encourage others to try mescaline / peyote? I think the Cultural references sentence could be included in this section, when expanded / written
  • My other concern is that the Synopsis section seems very long and quite detailed, especially compared to the rest of the article. On a quick count, there are 10 paragraphs in Synopsis and only 11 in the rest of the article outside of the lead and Publication date

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Ruhrfisch, very helpful indeed. A trip to the library is in order I think.--92.7.96.234 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glee (season 1)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Glee (season 1) is now complete and Frickative (talk) and I have both been working quite hard to make this page one of the best in the television articles, and are hoping to improve the article to GA GL or possibly even FA FL status. What would be useful for both of us is some additional critique on any little possibly-overlooked bits. I have some concerns about the Music header (under Reception) as to whether more needs to be done there, in particular, but any section that needs some work I'd love to know. Anyone willing to help with references? That would be a great help, as there could be one or two dead ones out of over a hundred (I already tagged #49). It's a very well-referenced article (Frickative has been working overtime getting legitimate references) and we both want to know what more needs to be done to finish it up!

Frickative may add on here herself with her own concerns. Ignore the FAC bit on the talk page, I submitted there a few days ago instead of doing this step and may be going back to FL eventually; just not sure if I should remove that from the talk page since I withdrew the nomination.

In the meantime, many thanks! CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article or a season list? There tends to be a difference in what is expected. Right now, what I see is a season list, based on a comparison of this page to other season lists and the few season articles that exist. Which are you striving to become?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the FA in Cyclone's opening was a typo, but I believe it was agreed we would aim for a FL submission. As far as I'm concerned, at least, it is a season list. I know there would need to be significant expansion in key areas of production - writing, filming etc. to shoot for FA, and at present I don't believe an adequate depth of coverage exists to do so. Frickative 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is correct (I know I'm replying after the comment below mine). I meant GL or FL, as Frickative did agree that it seems to be a list instead, and my faux pas going to FA without a peer review did bring up the comment that it's a list as well. I checked others (i.e. List of 24 episodes) which are FL already, and they are the same kind of article as this. I've corrected the above care of a penmark. CycloneGU (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll look at the page more as soon as I can (hopefully tonight). I just wanted to know how I should be viewing the page before I did.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. Need to bold either "first season", "first season" and "Glee", or "first season of Glee" (the latter would require a tweaking of the sentence), per the WP:LEAD requirements. If you choose any variation that includes "Glee", then you need to delink the title and link it again somewhere else since you are not supposed to link and bold at the same time. There does not appear to be uniformity across FL season pages with this, so just pick some variation of the above.
  2. Don't need to know who "produced" the series, unless it's different than the primary broadcaster, since in 90% of cases the primary broadcaster is the producer of the series. Example: Veronica Mars was produced by Warner Bros. but aired on UPN (which is own by CBS). I think what you could do is point out that Ryan Murphy's company co-produced the series alongside 20th Century Fox. That would give it a little more relevance when reading it. Otherwise it just comes off as a IMDb reading of the company credits.
  3. "The series focuses on a high school glee club called New Directions, set within the fictional William McKinley High School in Lima, Ohio. The season consists of 22 episodes. The pilot episode was broadcast as an advanced preview on May 19, 2009, followed by a further 12 episodes from September 9, 2009 to December 9, 2009. The season resumed for a further nine episodes from April 13, 2010 to June 8, 2010. The first 13 episodes of the season aired on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET), while the final nine episodes aired on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." - Little too much detail in the lead. I would separate the description of the series from the broadcast info. Move the broadcast info to the first paragraph and trim it to: "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." - More terse. We don't need to know about when each segment aired in the lead, and we already know the premiere date because it's mentioned in the first sentence.
  4. Following that, I'd probably provide just a touch more detail into the series description (which should either end the first paragraph or be the start of the second paragraph), basically summarizing any major storylines for the season into a couple of sentences. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if it even has storylines.
  5. The reception stuff in the lead is also a bit detailed for a lead. I would do more summarizing and less listing every song or episode that won something. The first sentence is largely fine, but for the rest you can easily summarize it as "multiple songs breaking the Top 10 music rankings in various countries around the world"....or something to that effect. Otherwise, you're not leaving much for the reader to read when they get down to the music section. All the good stuff has already been stated in the lead. The lead should entice them to read further.
  6. The last bit about the reviews and awards is perfect a part from the final statement identifying the Golden Globe award it won. Just because it won that award doesn't make it more important than any of the others. Some might think and Emmy nom is more important (just pointing it out).
  7. Ordering - I don't know why articles are doing this, but for some reason season lists seem to be the only pages (from television or film) that put the episode table dead last. Plot sections are designed to be used to provide context to any real world info (production, awards, reception, etc.). They cannot do that if they are last. You're supposed to read them, then when you read what went into making them, or what critics thought about them, those later aspects make more sense because you understand the scenes of what happened before hand. I kind of get the initial idea of following chronological order of things (production, broadcast, reception), but you definitely don't win awards before an episode is aired. There's been talk on the MOS about trying to put in specific wording about such things, but I think everyone got busy and stopped talking about because it's not an imperative issue with articles.
  8. Reception section - Looks good, but be weary when doing such huge chunks of quotes from critics. This section shouldn't look like the back of a DVD box (i.e. picking tagline quotes) or just a copy/paste of what they said. Paraphrasing is our friend, and it's especially our friend on Wikipedia since we have a license to produce non-free content under encyclopedic guidelines. :D Other than that, it looks good. Good sources (CNN, TIME, Variety, etc.)
  9. P.S. When quoting, you do not use ":" unless you have briefly summarized what the person was saying beforehand. For example, "He rose to address the meeting: "(Ahem) ... Ladies and gentlemen, welcome!""
  10. "The second episode, "Showmance", premiered on September 9, 2009, averaging 7.30 million viewers and achieving a 3.5/9 rating/share in the 18-49 demographic, making it Fox's best scripted premiere in three years." - How does the second episode's airing break a premiere record? Premieres are typically pilot episodes.
  11. Becareful with the DVD release section. I'm not sure what other articles are doing (I didn't look at their sections), but this shouldn't be a place where we're selling the DVD. In other words, we're not here to just list all the specs that a DVD contains. IMDb, Amazon, and other vendors take care of that type of stuff. This section should really focus on sales of DVD (if you can find it...not a mandatory thing), controversial removals (e.g., episodes that were controversial and subsequently not placed in the DVD box set), major differences between releases (e.g., same as above, but seen between countries), etc. You can do basic table layouts, including basic info like number of discs, episode count, release dates in all regions, but I think that for some reason pages have start to go overboard and include every minor spec on the DVD boxset like it was taken from the back of the box or some press release. I think the MOS needs to address this issue, because right now it's just barebones on what it expects in the section.
  1.  Done CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Done (updated) CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Done for lead, have not dissected the other text anywhere and will let Frickative handle that. CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Done now after discussion. "The show features the fictional high school show choir New Directions competing for the first time on the show choir circuit, while its members deal with relationship, sexuality and social issues." CycloneGU (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Done CycloneGU (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Done - Is this what you meant with naming the award, just say that it won one award? CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Done - Now a sub-section of "Production" CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'll let Frickative handle that as she wrote the section initially, I just split off the Music subsection within it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thanks Cyclone, I'll leave your comment as I don't think we're meant to refactor other people's messages in discussions, but I've taken a stab at the paraphrasing. I've cut out all the long copy/paste quotes and I hope it's okay, but as it's not my strong point in general, I'd appreciate a second opinion on that. Frickative 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Done - I hope! CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10.  Done - Just removed that last tagbit, you are absolutely correct and I missed that before. May 2009 was the premiere, with the pilot. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is because the pilot originally aired as an "advanced preview", so some outlets make a distinction and class "Showmance" as the actual season premiere episode. It's a bit intricate for the casual reader, so probably better removed, but I will add a sentence to "Production" explaining the non-standard scheduling. Frickative 12:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11.  Not done at this time - see discussion following. May be updated in coming days after said discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For #2, instead of "The season was produced by 20th Century Fox Television and Ryan Murphy Television, and the executive producers were series creators Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto." - I mean you could do more like, "The series was executive produced by Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk, and Dante Di Loreto; Murphy's production company helped co-produced the series alongside 20th Century Fox." - This way, instead of saying "it aired on Fox" and following that immediately with "It was produced by 20th Century Fox", you change the focus to be more on Murphy and you do it by reordering things and not actually removing any text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like your phrasing better, and I've taken it a step further putting the episode tally before that as part of the first sentence, leaving me a small rewrite. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it further because it was a really long sentence (borderline run-on). Just swapped the order and put in a period. Looks good otherwise.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone through the list, I have a couple I'm still looking at (please see my comment on #9 and reply below here as well) and Frickative can edit behind me for some things. Will post again when done. In the meantime, please feel free to check what I've done so far. =) Currently working on #11. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples:

  1. "Jean Bentley of MTV described the season as "uneven", comparing it to the final episode, "Journey", in that it: "started out with a promising, action-packed plot, impressed with a couple of flashy musical numbers, then got too cheesy for its own good and petered out with an overly sentimental song."" - Here, it is used mid statement. In this case nothing should follow "it" other than the quoted text. No comma, no colon, nothing but the quotation mark and the text. This is because it's being presented as part of the statement.
  2. "James Poniewozik of Time ranked it the eighth best television show of 2009, commenting: "when Glee works—which is often—it is transcendent, tear-jerking and thrilling like nothing else on TV. [...] It can be a mess, but it's what great TV should be: reckless, ambitious, heart-on-its-sleeve and, thanks especially to Jane Lynch as drill-sergeant cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester, gaspingly funny. When it hits its high notes, nothing else matters." - This is borderline. It could be considered ok when looking at the opening statement, but because the piece is so large is would probably be bettere served in some other way.
  3. "In contrast, Raymund Flandez of The Wall Street Journal commented: "It's been a long premiere season of ups and downs, and this last show is a warm embrace that — let’s face it — you just don't want to let go."" - "In contrast" isn't enough to justify the colon usage. You'd simply use a comma here.
Ah, my bad...I thought you were talking about quotes within quotes hence my sandwich example. Now I understand and will look at that.
As for the DVD section, I'm looking at this. I think the section that Frickative started was modelled after this, and it also lists the features of the DVD. Are you saying that we should try to omit use of any special features? In other words, put in the set details but cut special features entirely? CycloneGU (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My stance is that we're not here to sell DVDs, so identifying ever spec doesn't hold actual encyclopedic value without context. For right now, leave it as it is. I'm going to start a discussion here in the coming days (so long as I don't forget) to get a formalized consensus for the MOSTV page that addresses what these sections should and should not cover. I think that a couple of people started this and since we typically say "look at othre FAs or Fls" for examples it tends to grow before it's really been addressed. This is why for many years every film and TV article had trivia sections. Because it was something done and no one discussed it until much later. So, for now just leave it till it can be discussed further by the community.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check. I will leave it for now and update my list above based on this discussion.
Another update: I've put a blockquote on the "borderline" one, and am contemplating another which I have not decided on yet. I've reviewed the quotes and see no further colons in that section that don't fit at current glance, but may change my mind on that. CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You caught my mistake not moving the note related to the episode summary. I caught it as well but forgot to go back and move it as I was working on something else at the time. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment - Pages really only need to be linked once, unless the primary page is really long then you'd link the first instance and one way down the page if needed. I've seeing more and more overlinking issues with crew and actors being linked multiple times. I think the producers are linked at least 3 in the first 3 sections (including the lead).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and take care of this now. Question, though: I know names should generally be linked on first mention, but as the episode table is transcluded to the list of episodes, is it better to leave them linked there, and delink the names in the production section instead? Frickative 13:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that if they're linked in "Production" but not "Episodes", they won't be linked anywhere at List of Glee episodes which isn't ideal. Unless we move "Episodes" so it's the top section in the article? Frickative 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ignore that suggestion, I just realised it would leave an ungainly whitespace until the bottom of the infobox. Frickative 14:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole, except for the DVD bit, the list is completed. Would you mind another quick read seeing if there is anything else glaring to take care of?

Also, anyone else coming here is welcome to contribute as well! =) CycloneGU (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Frickative about linking, you can either delink the production section and leave it in the episode table or move the table to the top. I understand the ugliness of having the big white space there, but some browsers automatically correct it. It's probably better to delink the production section either way, because there they are all crammed together and it just looks like a big blue blob. To Cyclone, it's all looking great. I'll try and give another pass over it ASAP.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it's been a few days inactive, so I'm going to call the peer review completed. Thanks for the help! =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Killed the Video Star

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate the article as a "good artice" (GA), but before that I would like to know if there is anything else to improve.

Thanks, MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Obviously, a lot of dedicated work has gone into this article. There are, however, a number of ways in which it could be improved.

  • Lead
    • "Over 23 countries..." sounds strange; either be precise, or say "over 20 countries".  Done MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "music critics" does not require a wikilink (everyday language)  Done
    • "viewed by many" Many what? Critics, fans, members of the public, etc?  Done
    • The possessive apostrophe after "JLS" looks distinctly odd. This has to be rendered as "JLS's"  Done
    • General re lead: the section needs expansion so that it becomes a true summary of the article. All the sections of the article need to be summarised, albeit briefly, in the lead.
  • Background
    • "Reality Killed The Video Star is Williams' first studio album in three years" Needs to be "was". Also (next sentence), I suggest you rephrase: "In that period he worked with many producers..."  Done
    • The words "at the end" are unnecessary.  Done
    • Word missing? "...required by Williams to [fulfil] his EMI contract."  Done
    • "and said that it would not be released until 2009." To what does "it" refer?  Done
    • "...will be released in late 2009" → "would be released in late 2009.  Done
  • Tense consistency required. ("was mostly written", "was recorded", "Amongst those who collaborated in the songwriting are..." Later, "it was confirmed that the new album will be titled..." Should read "would be titled"  Done
    • Soon after..." Soon after what?  Done
    • "...a play of the song "Video Killed the Radio Star" by Horn's former band The Buggles." This needs rewording for clarity, perhaps "a reference to the song "Video Killed the Radio Star" by Horn's former band The Buggles."  Done
    • "...a last minute tribute song to Jackson that will be released on the album." Needs updating, since the album has now been released.  Done
    • The last sentence, about the proposed Italian name, seems out of place, since you have earlier said, in the "Soon after" sentence, that the album was to called Reality killed the Video Star.  Done
  • Musical style: Where does the quote from Sutherland end? If, as seems to be the case, it covers the entire paragraph, this is far too long for a verbatim quote; it needs to be summarised and paraphrased. Also, a discussion of the album's musical style needs to involve more than one person's opinion.
  • Release and promotion
    • "A special CD called Songbook was released on October 11, 2009 with The Mail on Sunday." Need to clarify that this was issued free with each cpy of the newspaper.  Done
    • "The show featured a full band orchestrated by Trevor Horn". Needs rephrasing; you can't "orchestrate" a band, you orchestrate music.  Done
    • Overall, this section is confusing, with its multiple accounts of Williams's various appearances before and after the release. I think this material could be cut down significantly, by removing trivial details, e.g. Williams's non-appearance on 5 December and reducing the number of mentions of concert appearances.
    • ""Morning Sun" was confirmed to be the third single by EMI Germany." I don't understand what that means.  Done
  • Critical reception: Far, far too many verbatim quotes. Although key or arresting phrases can properly be quoted direct, the main prose ought to be your own, using – as I said before – summary and paraphrase. Also, giving comments from eleven critics is overdoing it; four or five, possibly six, but no more, should provide an adequate cross-section.
  • Re refrences: I haven't done a references check, but I did notice one thing: you have at tendency to treat website names or web addresses as publishers. One example at random: Ref 72, the publisher is Australian Recording Industry Association, not aria.com.au. There are many more instances.

I hope that you find these comments useful. It would greatly assist the peer review process if you were able, in return, to review one of the articles in the backlog listed in the WP:PR page. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very, very much for your time and effort invested in the review. I only saw that you reviewed the article today. I will try to fix all the problems as well as reviewing other articles myself. :-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated peer review here [2] Yousou (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy L. Pflueger

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Tim Pflueger, a self-made man, was one of the most interesting architects in 1920s and 1930s San Francisco. His work spans many types of buildings and touches a lot of colorful SF Bay Area history.

It is definitely time to move this article forward, as it earned GA status a few months ago and has been very stable for more than a year, with myself as (by far) the main contributor. I have recently added alt text to the images, with the intent to go to WP:FAC and try for featured status. There are no stray dablinks, and the external URLs all work okay. What am I missing? What can be improved? Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I will try and give the article a proper review in the next couple of days. Meanwhile, in answer to your question "What can be improved?", the first thing that struck me was that images tend to dominate the text. I realise that with a subject like this, you want to use images to best effect, but in this instance they are somewhat overpowering. I would say the infobox image is too big; there are a couple of instances where text is squeezed between images, contrary to MOS; I wonder if all the gallery images are necessary to give an adequate illustration of Pflueger's style. Perhaps you would consider these points, and hopefully I will have some more detailed points for you in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I created the infobox image at 282 pixels wide because I was under the impression infoboxes were allowed 300-pixel-wide images, as is the case for Template:Infobox military person. (My first good Wikipedia style lessons were given at military history articles, and those lessons stuck.) I set the infobox image size parameter at 282 pixel because I wanted the image to be rendered for the reader pixel-for-pixel for maximum clarity of a non-free image rather than shrunk and made blurry. At Template:Infobox person, I am confused as to whether the maximum width is 200, 220 or 280 pixels. The guideline contradicts itself by saying "200x300px (max width & max height ... defaults to 280x220px if empty or omitted." The specific infobox that we have here, Template:Infobox architect, does not give a maximum size, and points at 250 pixels wide as a significant "line in the sand"; for smaller images, size is to be set in the parameter. Whichever is the largest allowed, I will want to resample the original non-free portrait and re-upload it so that it is exactly the right width for the infobox.
Other than that, I have struck two images from the article, but the effect is somewhat reduced from my moving one up from the gallery. Another image or two has been slimmed by the |upright|thumb| parameter, and a tall, slender one has been rotated 90 degrees so that its thumb width makes it much smaller. The biggest change is that I went to Wikimedia Commons and created a gallery so that this article can simply link to it rather than host its own gallery. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have made are definite improvements. May I suggest a few more things to try:-
  • Infobox image. Infobox images are indeed allowed expansion to 300px, but that is to increase the size of small images. 282px, in this case, makes the infobox image rather overbearing—compare it with other biographical articles. I tried out 220px on this one, and in my view that gives a good image size.
  • Zigzag: I would improve the left-right sequence, as follows:-
    • Shift "Wayside Church" to the left, after the first paragraph in the "Early career" section
    • Shift Stackpole figure to the left
    • Shift Paramount Theatre to the left and Alameda Theatre to the right
    • Shift Macy's to the right
  • Use "upright" for the two abnormally sized images (Castro Theatre and Bay Bridge) to bring to a size more uniform with the rest.

I have tried out all of these, and they look good. Why don't you try it, and see what you think? Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I don't like to put an image anywhere except next to the prose which talks about it, but with the Wayside Church image following the relevant paragraph instead of preceding it, I don't think our blind readers get too great of a jolt. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bell

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nominate it for FA in due course and would like feedback.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Masia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review. I have substantially added stuff about this honed academy. Do copyedit! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The idea of a special academy for football is interesting, but this article needs a lot of work. It badly needs copyediting and proofreading. Much more in the way of background would help readers unfamiliar with football leagues to understand exactly what this academy is and does and how it might be special. Finally, the article as it stands is a kind of puff piece for the academy. Is nothing about it controversial? Is everybody happy with it? Does it have no problems? Here are a few more comments:

  • It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with football to include some background material explaining what a youth academy is, how it functions, what it does for the youths, who pays for it, and so on. Does every team in the league have a similar academy? Is this one special in some way? Do the players study academic subjects (math, science, languages) here as well as football?

Lead

  • The lead should summarize the whole article and should include nothing important that is not mentioned in the main text. The existing lead is not a summary of the article that follows and includes important material such as the 1702 date that does not appear in the main text. Please see WP:LEAD.

History

  • This section begins with "at first", but the building clearly pre-dates 1957. What is its history before that?
    • included
  • Date formatting should be consistent.
    • done
  • "Starting in the first side" - Link or explain "side".
    • side -> team
  • "one of the first graduates during Johan Cruyffs management" - Cruyff's.
    • check
  • "Guardiola would later be a source of inspiration for Xavi Hernández, Andrés Iniesta and Cesc Fàbregas.[4] with Xavi later reporting that he considered transferring abroad due to the pressure to fill Guardiolas role in the midfield." - This does not make sense as written. I'll stop pointing out these proofing errors. There are lots more.
    • ce'd...

Organization

  • "there are 12 teams that count on more than 300 players and 24 coaches" - In what sense do they count on them?
    • -on
  • What are the meanings of the squad names such as "Alevi A"?
    • included

Other

  • The dab tool finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
    • check

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the review! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brütal Legend

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take this article to Featured status, but need comments on the language and content. It is already a good article, but expecting it to need some copyedits to polish it up.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 15:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not play such games and had not heard of this one, but it looks pretty good to me. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks with FAC in mind.

  • The external link checker tool (upper right corner here) finds 6 dead links that will need to be fixed before FAC.
  • Lead I think the "of" could be removed in Brütal Legend was generally well-received by game reviewers, praising Schafer's vision and writing of the heavy metal-inspired world, and the performances of the voice cast, particularly of Black and Osbourne.
  • Gameplay I have never seen the use of the small font for unit conversions. I also would round the metric conversion to the same number of decimal places as the English units: The game uses an open world that Tim Schafer has described as being approximately 40 mi2(103.6 km2) in area.[4] I would say 40 mi2 and 104 km2. You could also use the {{convert}} template.
  • I would use "into" instead of "in" in ...a roadie who one day finds himself transported in[to] a fantasy heavy metal world.
  • I think it might help to mention that Clementine is the guitar in Launching magical attacks from [his guitar] Clementine is performed by playing a minigame... Similarly for the other tools - I read the sentence defining and naming each once, then had to go back and find it to see what Deuce or whatever was in some cases.
  • I might split the first Gameplay paragraph into two - start the new second paragraph with the Fire Tributes material.
  • Need to be consistent on game specific terms - for example is it Stage Battles or "Stage Battles" or "stage battles" (all are used). The capitalization looks odd to me, but I understand this may be a game style issue.
  • Characters I would make this a new sentence (whose hair is so big "and luscious" that he uses it to fly, flapping it like a pair of broad wings).[14] The general's hair is so big...
  • 'Plot Awkward Having use for Ophelia no longer, Doviculus rips out her heart, ... Perhaps Having no more use for Ophelia, ...
  • Link Psychonauts on first appearance - it is also linked three times in the article, which might be seen as WP:OVERLINKing
  • Link cut-scene (and make spelling consistent)
  • Characters and voice acting I would say "in consideration of" in Schafer stated the filters were added to the game in considering of older players that may not wish to see such aspects...
  • Third paragraph of Soundtrack needs at least one ref
  • The big double table of songs and artists has some issues for me - first off the tables do not quite line up on my monitor - could this be one table 4 columns wide? Second, could the table be collapsible or moved to the end of the article? As it is, it is a big blob in the middle of the article that I suspect most readers will skip over.
  • Development history - I am uncertain does the last phrase in ..until EA Partners picked up the game for its 2009 release during December 2008.[18] refer to when the release was (2009 releases actually start a month early for the holidays? Or does it refer to when EA picked up the game?
  • Awkward While Double Fine believed they were given the go-ahead to develop a sequel to Brütal Legend, but were told by EA that it was cancelled.[52] also could a date / year or two be added for calrity and context?
  • Reception need to spell out what an RTS is (at least I did not see that anywhere)
  • I am still a bit fuzzy on stage battles - as mentioned I am not a gamer, so it might just be my near total ignorance.

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 ><>°° 04:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heuschrecke 10

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed before, but I am sure that still has small flaws that can be identified.

Thanks, Tartarus talk 00:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum

[edit]

Before I noticed that you had only just started a peer review, I'd just looked at the article by pure chance. I have just removed some content that wasn't supported by the sources given, both of which I have access to. Also removed some conclusions which were a synthesis not mentioned in any of the sources cited.

Sadly, I don't think the article currently merits B, let alone A, or GA. although it can probably easily make B with some corrections, and GA with some work.

  • The lead should summarize the article content, and not have separate unsourced information in it. (i.e. to be built in Magdeburg). It also shouldn't have minutia like the serial numbers of prototypes.
  • Grammar. For example: "Mass production of the Heuschrecke 10 was scheduled to start in February 1945, but never eventuated."
  • Unsourced paragraphs and phrases tagged.
  • Citations of books should have page numbers.
  • Break it into more logical sections. The version that previously passed an A class review in 2008 had a better structure [3].

(Hohum @) 02:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your enlightening conclusions, but I would like you to elaborate. When you state grammar, what do you mean? Also, I have attempted some fixes. Tartarus talk 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good start. Well, I gave one example of a grammar issue. "Eventuated" is rather an unusual word to use, and will puzzle the average user IMO, but other phrases like "The Heuschrecke designed by Krupp was similar in design to a vehicle built by..." are awkwardly worded, when "The design by Krupp was similar to a vehicle built by..." would convey the same. I have a feeling a good deal of the article has been translated from German. (Hohum @) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Diffie

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see if I can get it to GA. This was my first shot at GA back in 2007 and it was a miserable failure; since then, I've gotten much better at article writing. I've taken a couple other country music BLPs to GA (Clay Walker, Shenandoah, The Kentucky Headhunters and McBride & the Ride), and would like to add another one to that list.

Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a go. I generally use a standard procedure:

  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per the GA criteria.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in than main text.

A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service. I suggest you check the previous GA review at Talk:Joe Diffie to see if any of it is useful. --Philcha (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not infallible, so tell me if you disagree of any of my comments.

Coverage (from Philcha)

[edit]

Structure (from Philcha)

[edit]

This threw the first time round. After some head-scratching I thought:

  • Section "Biography" should be re-titled e.g. "Early life". This should: include his first marriage and divorce, and his bankruptcy and depression, all of which occured before any of Diffie's professional music career, and his 2nd marriage, which started before any of Diffie's professional music career but ended half way through it. Biographies are often difficult, and each person's is different. --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • professional music career in sections "1990–1992: A Thousand Winding Roads and Regular Joe", "1993: Honky Tonk Attitude", "1994–1996: Third Rock from the Sun, Mr. Christmas and Life's So Funny", "1996–1998: Twice Upon a Time and Greatest Hits", "1999–2000: A Night to Remember", "2001–2004: In Another World and Tougher Than Nails" and "2004–present". --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should retitle "2004–present" to "2004 to 2010", as "2004–present" will be false as soon as 2011 opens. One difficulty about living subjects is at you'll also have to check the article. --Philcha (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have only 1 image, in the infobox, a table with the years and most events may help readers. The tricky part will be placing the table to avoid the infobox in a widescreen monitor. --Philcha (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once the structure is stable, we can walk through the sections - e.g. citations and prose. --Philcha (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you for now. --Philcha (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me as a simulated reader, the personal life and the musical career don't integrate - I'd have to work it for myself by comparing the years. Right now that's the largest difficulty. If I were doing a GA-review of this article, I'd failed it for not being clear. If you disagree, you could request a 2nd opinion at WT:GAN. --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what do you think would make it flow better? Flow's always been an issue with me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In case we have a misunderstanding, what you mean by "flow"? --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the personal life and the musical career don't integrate" — how do you suggest fixing that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I'm the reviewer. It's your job as the editor to integrate the personal life and the musical career. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean exactly by integration. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as it the personal life and the musical career as parts of different articles. I'll request a 2nd opinion, as you and I was going round in circles. --Philcha (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early life (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • IMO "His first musical performance came at age four, when he performed in his aunt's country music band. Diffie's father played guitar and banjo, and his mother sang; in addition, Diffie took up singing at an early age, often listening to the albums in his father's record collection" is unclear and also probably can be more concise:
    • Does "Diffie's father played guitar and banjo, and his mother sang" mean as part of Diffie's aunt's country music band? If so, how about e.g. "His first musical performance came at age four, when he performed in his aunt's country music band" could be more concise, e.g. "His first musical performance came at age four, in his aunt's country music band, in which Diffie's father played guitar and banjo and his mother sang. in addition, Diffie took up singing at an early age, often listening to the albums in his father's record collection". --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if Diffie's father and mothers music was separate from the aunt's band, then e.g. "His first musical performance came at age four, in his aunt's country music band. In addition Diffie's father played guitar and banjo and his mother sang, and Diffie took up singing at an early age and listened to the albums in his father's record collection". --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brownie points if you can clarify "first grade" for non-US readers :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify "Washington" - some will think of DC and others of the home of Microsoft. --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link points to Washington state already, but I clarified the text to say "Washington state."
  • American topics use American English, so the implication is that it's American football. I don't think a clarification is needed here.
  • Fixed.
  • IMO the prose defects are already enough to fail in a GA review. I've seen types of problem, making causal connections between events and making the prose clear and concise. After seen GA reviewers of other articles, I've concluded that the remedy is practise. I suggest you try as many as possible to re-write a passage of about 10 sentences to seen which works best. As you should not change the article - other editors might want to work on it - I suggest you create a sub-page of your own page and store there each re-write, so you can compare them. I'm a big fan of sub-pages, my are like a construction yard, so I have an index sub-page plus sub-subpages for the real work. :-) --Philcha (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional music career (from Philcha)

[edit]

1992: Regular Joe (from Philcha)

[edit]

General comments (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • (comment only) Your few inaccuracies in sticking to the citations are the kind that come from knowing the content for years - I find the same problem :-) I make that mistake less often when I work on something new. --Philcha (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you think you've finished work on the main text, use these User:Philcha#Tools to check for dead links and DAB pages. You should also use these just before you nominated the article for GA review. --Philcha (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to do the lead last, when the main text settled, to minimise the risk the that the lead contains something that's not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this PR has found enough ways to improve the article, and I hope you find it helpful. Please tell me if there's anything you want to discuss. Either way, good luck! --Philcha (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it should be given a GA status.

Thanks, Contribs Muslim Editor Talk 08:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on the article - sounds like a very interesting person. I assume you know that to become a GA, articles have to be nominated at WP:GAN and this is a PR to prepare for that. With GAN in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • One issue that would cause problems at GAN are the references. Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase. This has many refs before punctuation.
  • Article needs more references in a few places, for example The attacker was released by Karachi police next day. has no ref and needs one, as does the statement including MadaniChannel, a non commercial Islamic satellite network. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
  • The references used are incomplete and need more data provided. 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
  • I also note that some of the references seem to be repeated duplicates, for example refs 3 and 11, or 12 and 14. These should be combined using the ref name = trick (please ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this).
  • YouTube is fun, but is not usually considered a reliable source. I do not speak or read Urdu, so I have no idea how reliable those sources are - please try to find as many independent, third-party sources (so the Online Libraries are not third-party as they are his movement's website)
  • Per WP:LEAD, his alternate name (Attar) should be in bold face.
  • Days of the week are generally not given unless there is a significant reason to do so, and dates are not given with "th" after them (so just Qadri was born on 12 July 1950... would work).
  • The WP:MOS says to refer to someone by just their last or family name in almost all cases - assume this is Qadri - I would also use hs name in each section (Early life just uses "He")
  • Provide context to the reader - can the month and day of his marriage be given? How about the year of the founding of Dawat-e-Islami?
  • Article has many typos and grammatical issues - for example Sheikh Ilyas Attar Qadri have[has] said: I have forgiven the one who kills me.[space]If someone succeeds in martyring me ,[space]Allah will decide to punish him or not.[space]But i[capitalize] will try my best to take him to Jannah with me,[spoace]if he[space]([the] one who killed me) was a beliver,[space]because due to him i[capitalization] got martydom.[12][13]
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • A Good Article criterion is broad coverage. I got the idea that he was very religious and successful, but not much more about what he actually does or what exactly Dawat-e-Islami does. For example, the infobox mentions social networking and there is one phrase about it in the article, but there is no year when this started or any other information on it.
  • Not much else to say as the article is quite short - there are many biography GAs and FAs that may serve as a useful model article with ideas and examples to follow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God Only Knows

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just bumped the article from C to B and see that it failed GA four years ago; all points mentioned then are adressed now. Since WP:GAN#MUS has a huge backlog and avises to get a peer review instead, I'm doing this. What's missing for GA/A/FA?

Thanks, Oneiros (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: The prose doesn't read too badly, but the most serious fault with the article is its lack of citations. There are a few citation tags in place, but there ought to be many more; whole areas of the article, including direct quotations, are uncited. I think such an obvious defect needs to be tackled before the article is ready for a detailed peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Pharmaceuticals

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

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

I am trying to expand the article while avoiding a COI

Thanks, RollinSwollen (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This brief stub needs to be expanded before a peer review is appropriate. Please note that, according to WP:PR, peer review "is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". The article appears to be the work of an inexperienced editor; it might be worth studying WP:DEV or other Wikipedia guides before proceeding. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work here, here are some suggestions for improvement of the article.

  • First off, the article is so short that it is difficult to make many comments on it. If it could be expanded using reliable sources that would help.
  • A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is one WP:FA on a pharam company, Icos, which may be a good model.
  • I had many questions remaining after reading the article - where in Florida is the firm (city)? WHen was it founded? What is its corporate history? Who is the CEO? Is it privately held or publicly traded? How many employees does it have? Does it have its own manufacturing facilities or does it merely re-brand products others manufacture for it? See the model article.
  • While it is OK to have links to the firm's own website, the article should use more independent third-party sources per WP:CITE and WP:V
  • There is one external link (about the lawsuit) that needs to be converted to an inline ref (this is a good source)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
  • Any chance for an image of the headquarters or a facility they own or operate? I think the logo could be used under WP:FAIRUSE
  • The Redline (drink) article needs refs and reads like an advertisement in places - try to clean it up too or it may be nominated for deletion (no independednt sources to establish notability - see WP:NN)

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 ><>°° 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kesha discography

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i plan to nominate it for FL status in the next couple weeks. I would appreciate feedback regarding any mistakes so i dont get shot down in 5 seconds durning the nomination.

Thanks, (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I have reviewed a few of these discographies, and this one looks generally up to the mark, but needs polishing around the edges.

  • Prose issues
    • "Her musical genres incorporates..." Either "genres incorporate" or "genre incorporates"  Done
    • "Although an active musician since 2005..." Requires a verb, thus: "Although she has been an active musician since 2005..." etc  Done
    • "...after appearing on Flo Rida's number one single..." The "ing" form is not grammatical here. It needs to be "after she appeared on..."  Done
    • Can you explain what is meant by "regions" in this context: "The song reached number one in twelve regions and has been certified gold or platinum in nine countries."?
    • MOS requires that numerics of a value less than 10 should be written out, thus "five million" not "5 million".  Done
    • "album's", not "albums"
Sorry where is this located? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -  Done
  • Tables: very little to pick on here:-
    • Why are sales figures given only for the album, not the singles?
Because there done in certs more then specific numbers, albums tell you weekly sales, singles dont. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Because in the MOS guidelines for discographies, only albums have sales figures. Fixer23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The note: "Kesha is not credited in North America" raises the question as to why this was so.
    • The further note under "Other appearances": "Kesha is not credited" raises the same issue
Its just the way they were released. Not all artists get credit when there not famous. Dont know why... - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
Do you mean that there should be further explanations to supplement those notes? Fixer23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "appearances" the right word, unless these are video recordings?
Would collaborations make more sense? Fixer23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Format issue: In only one of the six tables do you use a "refs" column. Is there any reason why this wasn't done in the earlier tables?
I dont know what you mean. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
It would only make sense in that table (and probably the music videos table), the other tables have their refs under the charting countries. Fixer23 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is about all I can find. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content inventory

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like feedback from community members familiar with the topic; and I'd like to see this article on a path GA and then FA. Thanks, Cirrus Editor (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article too - since I recently reviewed Website governance, I see that this has some of the same issues - for example, both are quite short, so there is not a lot to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to eventually taking this to WP:GAN or WP:FAC.

  • Biggest issue I see is a lack of references. In the Description section (which is most of the article), there are no refs that I could see after the first three paragraphs. Similarly the first paragraph in Value has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. \
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase so fix things like A content inventory typically includes all information assets on a website, such as web pages (html), meta elements (e.g., keywords, description, page title), images, audio and video files, and document files (e.g., .pdf, .doc, .ppt)[5][6][7][8][9][10].
  • Also, why does such a fairly straightforward sentence need six references?
  • Make sure that all refs used are relaible sources (RS) - for example blogs very seldom meet the RS criteria, so is this a relibale source? Do they list sources they use or have a reputation for fact checking?
  • 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
  • If a ref is repeated, the "ref name =" trick can be used (so current refs 3 and 9 by Scott Baldwin seem to be the same and could be combined). Please ask on my talk page if you do not know how to do this.
  • The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and should be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - this can also be a good way to expand the lead.
  • The prose here is farily choppy - there are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which interrupt the flow of the article. In most cases, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Bullet point lists are also usually better as prose - some of the current list is very repetitive too Date page last updated — Date of last page update is almost an insult to the reader's intelligence ;-)
  • The article is quite short and I think it needs to be expanded. Broad coverage is a GA Criterion and comprehensivenes is a FA criterion.
  • See also section does not follow [[[WP:See also]] (as See also sections generally do not link to articles already linked in this article)
  • Some very basic terms are linked, like "website" and do not need to be - please see WP:OVERLINK
  • Quantitative analysis is a disambiguation link and needs to be fixed.
  • Any chance for an image of some sort?
  • Should the article be called "Content inventory and audit" perhaps?

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 ><>°° 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of South Asia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it refers to an American anti-war group that's frequently criticized online by Indian or Hindu nationalists who disagree with the group's positions (e.g. see archived talk page). I'm worried that the debates around whether Friends of South Asia is good or evil have often overshadowed article quality. I want help with:

  • how to make the article read better, and make it more useful to readers?
  • does the article feel POV? if so, how to decrease it?
  • what details are lacking? what details are too specific?
  • nearly half the text of the article is devoted to criticism of the group -- is that appropriate or in line with other such pages, and/or how can that be consolidated or made more useful to readers? is there a certain threshhold of notability for a criticism?

Thanks, Anirvan (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'In February 2006, Mihir Meghani, president of the Hindu American Foundation was quoted in Silicon Valley newspaper Metroactive saying that "It's pretty well known that they're [FOSA] tied with the Communist Party in India...It's really a ploy to break down and dissemble Hinduism."'
Is this quote accurate? 'dissemble' makes no sense in this context; 'disassemble', though, might.
  • 'George Thundiparambil...': this section is pretty vague. Usually if one is engaged in 'anti-national' activities, it's pretty clear what concrete actions one is taking or advocating, eg. assassinating national politicians or cutting some weapons program or other. --Gwern (contribs) 05:36 23 July 2010 (GMT)


Gwern, thanks for the feedback.

  • Meghani did indeed say that FOSA was a Communist ploy to "dissemble Hinduism." I've added a "[sic]" to make that clear.
  • The entire George Thundiparambil section is incredibly unclear. I did a rewrite for clarity. Basically, a reviewer says that articles in a book collectively criticize several groups (including FOSA), but without giving any specific details. (There are also no references to the existence of this book besides this reviewer's review.) -- Do you think it's reasonable to consider this a vague and non-notable criticism?

Thanks, Anirvan (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little copy-editing i think needs to be done. Eg- "The local vigils grew out of a series of vigils for peace in South Asia held simultaneously in 18 cities around the world.[9]" no need for repetition.

its pretty well sources so no queries there.
Trying asking what you would want to know as a lay reader and what is lagging. You've got criticism, but you also then need the praise. Someone must have reacted positively to the initiatives. How is the group organised? Who are the leaders?, etc.
And then broaden the lead to summarise content (ie- briem mention of actitivies and criticism)(Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Website governance

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like another editor with some academic knowledge and practical expertise in the topic of website governance to review the content and suggest where improvements might be made. (And I'd like to see it on its way through to GA and FA status.)

Thanks, Cirrus Editor (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - as it is now, it is quite short, so there is not a lot to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to evntual WP:GAN or WP:FAC.

  • The lead is too short per WP:LEAD and should be expanded. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - this can also be a good way to expand the lead.
  • Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
  • Make sure that all refs used are relaible sources (RS) - for example blogs very seldom meet the RS criteria, so is this a relibale source? Or what makes [this a RS? Do they list sources they use or have a reputation for fact checking?
  • 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
  • If a ref is repeated, the }ref name =" trick can be used (so current refs 2 and 10 by SHane Diffily seem to be the same and could be combined). Please ask on my tlak page if you do not understand how to do this.
  • There are some WP:MOS issues - do not use ampersands unless it is in a direct quote (spell out "and" instead)
  • Spell out abbreviations like DRM, so Digital rights management (DRM), but only if you plan to use the abbreviation again
  • Identify people by more than jus their last name on first mention, so "Candi Harrison" not just "Harrison" (last name only is fine for subsequent mentions)
  • Figure is too small to read - is it freely licensed? Looks as it it was taken from somebody's website, which would be a copyright problem
  • Article is quite short and I think it needs to be expanded. Broad coverage is a GA Criterion and comprehensivenes is a FA criterion.
  • See also section does not follow [[[WP:See also]] (for one thing no red links allowed, for another See alsos generally do not link to articles already linked in this article)
  • Some very basic terms are linked, like "staff" and do not need to be - please see WP:OVERLINK

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 ><>°° 04:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School for Creative and Performing Arts

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to list it at FAC shortly. It has been rewritten entirely since GA. I would appreciate any comments with FAC in mind, especially any pointers on the finer points of WP:MOS.

Many thanks, Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me (and sorry I have been so slow in reviewing it), here are mostly nitpicky some suggestions for improvement.

  • No dabs, external links all seem to still work. I noticed a few YouTube links - if they are the TV station's page, they should be OK, but some might question if the poster had copyright permission otherwise (I owuld leave them in as sources will be reviewed at FAC - just a heads up).
  • In the lead, would "about ages five to seventeen" be better? In 2010 SCPA combined with the Schiel Primary School for Arts Enrichment to create the first kindergarten through twelfth grade (around ages five to seventeen) arts school ..
  • In the caption, wopuld it be possible to identify the superintendent of CPS? Could probably tighten it a little too, perhaps as something like Bill Dickinson (left), who led the school from its founding in 1973 until 1991, and CPS Superintendent Dr. Donald Waldrip at a Cincinnati Boy Choir performance on Cincinnati's Fountain Square, c. 1974. The article calls it Cincinnati All-City Boy Choir too. Not sure the caption needs two Cinicinnatis
  • In note a, I would spell out NAACP (even though it is linked).
  • Would it make sense to say Baldwin Piano was then making pianos in Cincinnati?
  • I would link NRHP in the Mount Adams school picture caption
  • I would split this sentence into two - a bit uncwieldy as is Councilwoman Bobbie Stern proposed to move the school to Cincinnati Union Terminal... (Start the new sentence with the rotunda)
  • Needs a ref Into this historic but blighted neighborhood the school moved with its 650 students in 1976, to the Old Woodward School building at 1310 Sycamore Street. Any reason not to have the sentence read "The school, with its 650 students, moved into this historic but blighted neighborhood, and its Old Woodward School building at 1310 Sycamore Street."?
  • Section is called "Controversy and comeback (1991–2009)" but we are not told who the principal was after the 2008 resignation (all these allegations of sexual misconduct, is there something in the water there?)
  • The school was paid $10,000 per episode. Could the total number of episodes also be given?
  • "ground broke" sounds odd in By 2007, after more than a decade of fund raising and negotiations, 90 percent of the final $72 million budget had been secured and ground broke for a new building across from Washington Park in September of that year.[76]d[›] would ground was broken work?
  • I would say the park features statues of Friedrich Hecker and Robert Latimer McCook, and then explain who they were (heroes...)
  • Link "disabled accessible building" to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • This sentence makes it sound like everyone must audition Admission is by audition and selective; the school has been criticized as "elitist".[94] But then this sentence says not everyone has to audition Students entering grades four through six are required to audition in every arts major and older students are encouraged to do so.[95] Which is it?
  • Typo If a one lead role is played by a white student, the other lead role will be played by a black student.[115] Also I think this refers to the two casts - could it be clarified?
  • For the People, with schools it is often the case that the years they attended or the year of their graduation is given.
  • I made a few copyedits as I read - please revert if I made any mistakes or introduced errors. I think this looks very good - please let me know when it is at FAC.

Hope this helps. Hope my comments are useful. Thanks for alreasy peer reviewing an article at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination Chamber

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this article a Featured List.

Thanks, --Nascar king 01:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Please don't list at FLC and PR simultanously. And the subject of this makes me think this should be an article, so instead of making it seem list-like if think you'll be better of making a seperate "List of elimination chamber matches" and going for GA with this one after a re-write. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 12:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…editors have left notes on the talk page of how beneficial the article was in informing on the matter at hand and also the "article is the most comprehensive that I've ever seen."

We've split off the page so as to not make it too long and unreadable, some formatting and tables made it easier to read and process the information. I was wondering what someone might need to know what is not answered and to make it more comprehensible so as to eventually be a FA. Anything that would help in making the article free (or close enough) of deficiencies, on particular sectional organisation and/or contradictions.

Thanks, Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an odd name

  • No dab links, but external links for refs 13 and 86 are down or dead.
  • The gigantic reactions table was split off—yay—but I think the public hearings one should go too. You say you want this to be a FA at some point, so remember criterion 4, and ask yourself if comments by (for example) Burundi, Jordan, and Vietnam really aren't "unnecessary detail".
  • Watch the citation formats (2c):
    • Refs 1 through 70 mostly use ISO-style YYYY-MM-DD, but suddenly veer off to Day Month Year after.
    • Try not to mix {{cite ___}}, {{citation}}, and hand-typed citations if possible.
    • Clothe the bare URLs. You don't want some naughty PDF link running around and showing its colons and slashes to everyone, without so much as a publisher or access date on hand in case they die and we want to reminisce...oh, the horror!

--an odd name 05:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like feedback to see if there are any areas that I can improve on, or something I've missed, before I nominate it as a FL. It failed back in February due to a few referencing issues and it was back when I was still relatively new. I feel silly nominating it because it was nowhere near ready. I've done a lot of work on it in the last couple of weeks in my sandbox and have improved the referencing, along with the general layout and introduction. Any comments will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this easily fails 3.b and as a stand-alone article the subject is simply not notable. Who was made POY could easily be indicated at a list of Argyle Players, it doesn't justify a fork with a little bit of intro text. I would probably oppose on FL on those grounds. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are four lists of this type that are featured, with this one being the most recent.
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick drive-by comments - I count at least four places where you have used "the clubs" instead of "the club's". "Steve McCall matched that feet" also made me chuckle. And I'm not convinced of the relevance of some of the footnotes. Machin's, for example, refers to events that took place while he was playing for another club, so its relevance to PAFC is negligible. Others describe certain players' entire careers in glowing terms, but that doesn't really indicate why they won the POTY in a given season. If you can find any sources that indicate why the fans chose to honour player X in year Y, then obviously they should be included, but IMO things like "He returned to Home Park in 1990 for a two year stint as manager and was a member of the coaching team during Tony Pulis' spell as manager in the 2005–06 season" really aren't relevant to this list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this is what confuses me; I've used "club's" before and have seen other people remove the apostrophe. The comment about McCall could probably be worded more encyclopedically I agree. I really wanted to include Machin's footnote because it was a defining moment in the disciplinary system, but obviously it has no relevance to the award. After that, I guess I got a bit carried away with the footnotes but I did make sure I used references when describing players in glowing terms. Maybe replace them with appearances/goals from the season and if the club achieved something notable (ie. promotion/relegation)?
Thanks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the bit about McCall is not that it could have been worded more encyclopedically, but rather the vaguely humorous spelling error. Feet = things on the end of your legs. Feat = a great achievement. And anyone who you've seen remove the apostrophe from a phrase like "the club's supporters" is completely wrong. Just as you wouldn't write "my grandmas cat", you don't write "the clubs supporters". You always add 's to indicate possession -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia used smilies then I would be using the embarrassed one now. It was getting rather late last night when I was working on the lead, so I clearly messed up there. I've corrected it now and added apostrophes. Still thinking how to go about altering the footnotes. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are looking much better now so thanks for the suggestion. Including too much information is a habit of mine. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eshmun Temple

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's well developed and written

Thanks, Eli+ 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is most interesting, and it's clear that a lot of work has gone into it. I did a fair bit of proofing, and I'd suggest another proofing later, after any further changes to the text. Here are other suggestions for improvement:

Lead

  1. The article title is "Eshmun Temple", but the geobox says "Eshmun temple" with a little "t". This same inconsistency occurs here and there in the main text. All uses should be made consistent with the title except where "temple" is used by itself. In the second paragraph of the lead, "sanctuary" is spelled with a capital "S" once and a small "s" once. Small "s" is correct, I'd say.
  2. "therapeutic and lustral purposes" - Should "lustral" be briefly explained?

Eshmun

  • "Hellenized names of the Awwali River" - Would it be helpful to say here where the Awwali River begins and ends? Does it flow into the Mediterranean?

Historical background

  1. "In the 9th century BCE, the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II conquered the Lebanon and its coastal cities." - Is "the Lebanon" a typo? I note that the Lebanon link is to Mount Lebanon, the mountain range, so "the Lebanon" may be exactly what you intend. Many readers may assume, though, that you mean the country. Could the meaning be made a little more clear?
  2. "Sennacherib instated Ittobaal on the throne" - "Installed" rather than "instated"?
  3. "Sidon was stripped of its territory, which was awarded to Baal I, the loyal king of rival Tyre." - "Loyal" to whom?

Construction

  1. "awarded king Eshmunazar II with the Sharon plain - Even though it's possible to follow the link to get more information, would it be helpful to include in the text just where the Sharon plain is in relation to Sidon and how big it is?
  2. "As two series of inscriptions on the foundations of the monumental podium attest" - Would it be helpful here to give dimensions? How big was the podium? How big was the temple?
  3. "water adduction works from the Awwali River to the "Ydll" source" - Any idea what the "water adduction works" consisted of?

Decline

  • "many chapels and temples were later annexed at the base of the podium" - This phrase suggests that the site was large and complex. Can this be quantified? How many acres?

After 1975

  • "it is accessible from an exit ramp near Sidon’s northern entrance" - An exit ramp from what highway?

Location

  • Rather than repeating the word "location" three times (in the head and two subheads), it might be better to shorten the subheads to "In ancient texts" and "Modern". Another possibility would be to eliminate the subheads entirely and just use the head. The Manual of Style generally advises against many extremely short sections and subsections. This article has quite a few short ones. The other option with short ones is to expand them, but that's not always feasible.

Architecture and description

  1. "Spring time in Bustan el-Sheikh, amid the flowers a Babylonian style column base" - The combination of two sentence fragments joined by a comma is a little odd. Suggestion: "Spring flowers bloom near the base of a Babylonian-style column in Bustan el-Sheikh."
  2. "the altar of Eshmun is a 4th century 2.15 metres (7.1 ft) long by 2.26 metres (7.4 ft) wide and 2.17 metres (7.1 ft) tall white marble structure." - Such long compound adjectives are not so good. Suggestion: "the altar of Eshmun is a white marble structure dating to the 4th century. It is 2.15 metres (7.1 ft) long by 2.26 metres (7.4 ft) wide and 2.17 metres (7.1 ft) tall." Also, I'd be inclined to round the imperial numbers to the same number of significant figures as the metric numbers; i.e., 2.15 metres (7.05 ft), for example. Or you could round both; i.e., 2.2 metres (7.2 ft), if that seems better. Ditto for other conversions in the article.

Function

  1. This section seems out of place. Might it not be better to add it to the "History" section?
  2. "Aside from the extramural sanctuary at Bustan" - Should "extramural" be briefly explained?
  3. "ritual purifying ablutions were performed in the sanctuary’s sacred basins alimented by running water from the Asclepius River" - "Supplemented" rather than "alimented"?
  4. "Fecundating" and "votive" may be words unfamiliar to many encyclopedia readers. Should these words be made more clear or replaced with more common words or phrases?
  5. "The healing attributions of Eshmun were met with his divine consort Astarte’s fecundating powers" - "Combined" rather than "met"?

Artifacts and finds

  1. I'd consider turning the bulleted list into straight prose. WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists has details.
  2. "It is important to note that all of these sculptures represent boys." - I'd omit the judgmental part of this and simply say, "All of these sculptures represent boys."

In popular culture

  • This section is so slight, I would recommend merging it with something else, expanding it (if possible), or turning it into a note.

Notes

  1. Should each note begin with a capital letter?
  2. Should citation 8 be in quotation marks?

References

  1. Single pages should be abbreviated "p." rather than "pp." To induce the correct abbreviations in the citation templates, either use "page" for a single page or "pages" for multiple pages.
  2. Book citations should include the place of publication as well as the publisher.

Other

  1. Overlinking. I would not link words like "Sidon" more than once in the lead and once on first use in the main text. Maurice Dunand should not be redlinked twice. National Museum of Beirut does not need to be linked more than once, I think. Christianity does not need to be linked multiple times. You may find other terms that are overlinked.
  2. A more detailed map of Sidon and vicinity would be helpful. It would be nice if it showed the river, for example.
  3. The incomplete license information for File:Eshmun.jpg might eventually cause it to be deleted. If you know the url of the defunct Lebanese website, you might be able to link to it via the Internet Archive.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________________________

Lead
  1. Name inconsistency issues fixed ,
  2. lustral defined in the notes
Eshmun
  • Awali river article created, linked to Eshmun temple article. Should i still elaborate this in the article?
Historical background
  1. indeed , "the Lebanon" was used intentionally, pertaining to the mountain range that gave the country it's name, i don't think it's misleading. But if you insist i will change it, let me know please.
  2. instated is much more appropriate than installed, imho, please check the definition to see what i mean and let me know if it isn't a very current word.
  3. Baal was a vassal to Esarhaddon, i added the info.
Construction
  1. well about the Sharon plain, i have already included it's location in relation to Sidon in my notes, the problem is that one cannot accurately quantify the area of the plain neither it's borders in ancient times (and i have found no sources too). The Sharon appellation is still used today to describe the the northern half of the coastal plain of Israel (Palestine). I'd rather not mention either this or that "nation" in this particular article for fear of edit wars since both have a more or less limited international recognition. Pro-Israel users will change Palestine for Israel and vice-versa. I can't risk that so let's dodge this issue. I think the current info are enough, and the link is very informative and it does not jeopardize the status of the article.
  2. how big was the podium and temple >>> details are given in the architecture and description section and i quote: The podium stands 22 metres (72 ft) high, runs 50 metres (160 ft) into the hillside, and boasts a 70-metre (230 ft) wide façade. The terrace atop of the podium was once covered by a Greco-Persian style marble temple probably built by Ionic artisans around 500 BCE. The marble temple has been reduced to a few remaining stone fragments due to theft . unfortunately, what few remains from the temple does not allow for a quantification of the structure's dimensions. though the shear size of the column bases implies that the temple was quite large, but this is just speculation.
  3. the nature of the water adduction works that the inscriptions alluded to is a mere detail; this paragraph aims mainly at elucidating the construction era of the temple. Anyway the sources don't say much.
Decline
  1. indeed the site was large and complexe, i can only tell you that the excavated surface area is 72 hectares (that's about 17.9 acres) including later roman structures and byzantine churches + annexe buildings but not one source identifies the area of the temple in antiquity, probably because the site is still open for further excavations.
After 1975
  • Exit ramp issue cleared
Location
*you're right
Architecture and description::
  1. right again
  2. Sentence fixed, but i'd rather not round the numbers for the sake of accuracy



Eli+ 22:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cubzac-les-Ponts

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

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

  • I am seeking a comprehensive review of every aspect of the article, as am aiming for Good Article, then Featured Article status.
  • Ideally, need someone to help me put together a 'job-list' for the article.

Thanks, Randomblue (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is probably not an exhaustive list of "things to do", but I think it covers the main areas for attention if the article aspires to FA status:-

  • The lead needs to be expanded into a full summary of the whole article
    • I've expanded the lead. Will expand even more soon.
  • Infobox image: I'm not sure that a 100-year-old photograph is the best image with which to head the article. If it is, the caption needs to be more informative.
    • The image has been removed. I've put an image of the three bridges.
  • The article is badly cluttered with images and tables. Many of the images are indeed striking, but they tend to overwhelm the text. The panoramic images would be better placed in a gallery at the end of the article.
    • I hope this has been addressed.
  • There are several cases where text is squeezed between images and/or boxed tables. This should be avoided by careful placement. Also, ask yourself whether every image is a necessity.
    • I've removed some images and tables.
  • What is the pupose of the rectangular box immediately after the Geography and climate section?
    • Removed.
  • "Etymology" is misspelt. A major section should have more than a single brief sentence in it; personally I don't think this topic is worth a section on its own.
    • Done.
  • The list of mayors should be at the end of the article.
    • Done, together with evolution of population size.
  • Why is a table of populations shown in the Geography and climate section?
    • Removed.
  • What is the purpose of the unheaded and uncaptiond table to the right of the suspension bridge section, which gives an historic list of toll fees?
    • For interrest, removed.
  • There are "citation needed" tags throughout the text. There could be many more - there are no citations at all after the Saint-Julien church section.
    • I'm working on this, namely gathering more sources and reading them.
  • References need sorting out. For example:-
    • Many of the listed books are not cited, so it is not apparent how they have been used as sources.
    • Publisher information is generally missing.
    • It should be noted that all the sources are French language.
    • There are formatting issues with the on-line citations.
    • Wikimapia is not a reliable encyclopedic source.
      • I hope all the points above are now more or less sorted. I think I've dealt with the formatting issues, but I'm not sure.
  • The licensing of the older images is wrong. In the case of File:Cubzac.jpg, you cannot claim PD on the grounds of "author's life plus 70 years if you don't know who the author is. You cannot assume that the photographer who took this picture in 1907 must have died before 1940. You need to establish the publication history of this image to establish that it is PD in the United States. For File:Pont suspendu de Cubzac-les-Ponts.jpg, it seems that the licence should be on PD-art rather than PD-old or, if you can date the magazine given as the source, on publication prior to 1923.
    • I removed File:Cubzac.jpg. For File:Pont suspendu de Cubzac-les-Ponts.jpg I have changed PD-old to PD-art. What is PD-art?
  • I have not gone through the text in detail, but in places there are odd choices of words. For example, "Many stone quarries have been slashed in Cubzac..." I have never heard "slashed" used in that context. Quarries are excavated or blasted; they are not "slashed". The article will need a thorough copyedit.
    • For sure the article needs a lot of copyediting. I haven't finished putting all the information yet, so I'm slightly postponing the copyedit. Having said that, the section "Eiffel bridge" has most of the information in, so is ready for a copyedit.
  • Finally, the article's structure does not seem to follow any logical plan. Sections seem to have been added as you have thought of them. Have you looked at "town" articles that have achieved GA or FA status? They may give some further ideas as to a better structure for this article.
    • Yes, I've looked around. I've interchanged the sections History (which needs a lot of expansion) and Geography. I have also merged "Ancient crossing methods" in History. Finally, I have shrinked the table of contents. Can you think of some other obvious changes to make?

You have collected some interesting and valid information here, and some vivid pictures. But as the above list suggests, if the article is to be a credible candidate at GA or FA, it needs a great deal of further work. I hope that you will feel it worthwhile to make the attempt.

I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, so if you have questions about this review, or want me to take another look, please call my talkpage.

Additional comments

The article is looking distinctly better after the reorganisation and tidying exercises so far. There is still work to be done on referencing, with several citation tags still in place, and unreferenced sections towards the end. The list of citations should be placed before, not after, the lists of sources, per MOS. The "Geography and climate" section is still inappropriately named - nothing about the climate. The article could do with more information about the local economy, employment etc. Is this based on agriculture, vineyards, tourism? Is there any local industry? These are all areas to be worked on. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Monday

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to improve the article to GA status, but I would like to know what is missing, especially in the grammar. Thanks, TbhotchTalk C. 05:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say, this brings back memories! I'd say that this is pretty close to being GA. The prose is not bad at all. I've made a few adjustments to improve the English; please check that you're happy with the changes. One thing I'm not sure about is that I've changed one sentence to say that the woman is "wishing it was still Sunday". I'm not sure about the use of the word wishing as it seems a bit of a cheesy use of the lyric! I don't know if you can think of a better word...

I'll list the things I noticed as I read through the article. Not all are necessarily GA requirements, some are just my personal opinion so feel free to take them or leave them.

Infobox

  • Image rationales look good and I see you've reduced them. I'm not 100% sure whether the second image qualifies under Fair Use, that might be something worth checking.
    I think it could pass. Since one is from the US / 7" single and the other is form the UK / 12" single. TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I would slightly reword the first sentence. This is just my personal choice, so I didn't add this myself, but I prefer to start by saying it's a song, like so: "Manic Monday" is a song by American pop band The Bangles, and the nth single released from their second studio album Different Light (1986).
     Done TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence is a bit long, with too many segments separated by commas. I would consider finishing the sentence after "Apollonia 6" and starting again with "He decided to pull the song..." Where you say "the group", I would give their name, to distinguish them from Apollonia 6, who have just been mentioned.
     Done TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you list the countries, I would start with the US, since it's an American band, and perhaps, continue with the other English-speaking countries, followed by the rest.
     Done TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "It was rumored..." - this is a bit weasely. This could do with expanding on a bit. Who exactly was saying this? Was it in media reports? Was it ever confirmed or denied? Obviously you can't write what isn't there, but it needs something. It's a pretty big deal to say that he let her have the song in exchange for sex, especially since it's about living people. In addition to the sources, you need to say who said it.
    Thanks to the information that Frcm1988 gave me, Vicki Peterson, practically, denied those rumours. TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was rumored that after Price listened to the LP All Over the Place..." - Whose LP? Might be clearer to state that it was the Bangles' first album.
     Done TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to link "introduction"?
    removed, not really needed. TbhotchTalk C. 17:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Are there any other reviews of the song available?
    Amazingly there are not. I searched and I were not able to find them TbhotchTalk C. 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to try to summarise the reviews a bit more, rather than just quoting them.
    Semi-done TbhotchTalk C. 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bangles' recording debuted at number eighty-six..." - seems a bit of a strange way of wording it. I would just say ""Manic Monday debuted...", or "the song", or "the single".
     Done
  • "...being blocked from the top of the chart by the songwriter's single "Kiss"" - seems unnecessarily mysterious. I know that we know who wrote this song, but it might not be immediately clear you're still talking about the smae songwriter here. I would just say "Prince's single "Kiss"".
     Done

References

  • Is the first reference (the angelfire one) reliable? Are Per Nilsen or David Magdziarz relevant somehow?
    It is a transclution of the book Dance Music Sex Romance: Prince: The First Decade so it is reliable; I changed it anyway. TbhotchTalk C. 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations could do with a bit of tweaking for style consistency. For example, websites (eg. Amazon) shouldn't be in italics. 'Billboard should be linked at its first occurrence, not its last.
    Per the FLC of the 82nd Academy Awards. TbhotchTalk C. 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • The first thing I wondered when I clicked on this page is: is there a sample of the song? That would be a great addition! Let me know if you want to, but don't have the song, as I do and would be happy to upload.
    If you want to help me with that, that would be great. TbhotchTalk C. 18:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, as I say, I think it's quite close to GA. Let me know if you have any queries or comments as I probably won't notice them here otherwise. Good luck with it!--BelovedFreak 00:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for review it and copy-editing the article, it was so kind by you part. TbhotchTalk C. 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Texas at Dallas

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of extensive revision to the article.

Thanks, Stan9999 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrapedApe's review
  • The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, so there shouldn't be any references there, since that fact would be referenced in the body. If there's anything in the lead that's not in the body, move it down to the body.
  • I don't like the [Note 1] right that the beginning of the article. It's jarring, and the note doesn't really give any important information. See how Ohio State University deals with the "The."
  • Don't bold the former names in the lead.
  • The sentence that begins with "The rapidly growing university is now known for..." is pretty NPOV. Is there a reference for that statement, and if so, put it in the main body somewhere.
  • Don't bold the main article templates.
  • Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead.
  • "While UTD is relatively young, the school boasts a Division III athletics program in the American Southwest Conference." What does being a young school have to do with having a DIII program? Liberty University is younger and has a DI program.
  • Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead.
  • Under "Rankings," the "University rankings (overall)" is very problematic. Use the {{Infobox US university ranking}}.
  • I would cut the Student government section--there's nothing there that every other college doesn't also have.
  • "Various publications show UT Dallas consistently improving in scholastic rankings" this in NPOV
  • The rankings section is not an approporate place to needle other schools, like Cornell or Berkley
  • The images File:UTD bronze bust of Cecil Green.JPG might be a copyright violation of the 3D bronze bust. Same thing with File:UTD Erik Jonsson Academic Center.JPG. File:221588main CNOFSmodel HI.jpg needs a source, and I have tagged it at commons.
  • Note 2 is not really necessary.
  • Refs 51, 52, 67, 80 are dead.
  • I'm sure the debate and chess teams are great, but those probably shouldn't be in the lead.
  • I haven't given this article a full line-by-line reading (except for the lead section), but someone should before sending it to WP:GAN.
  • It's not really clear how UTD related to the rest of the UT system. For example, how is its governance? Is there a separate UTD board of trustees? Is the president appointed by the UTD system? Is the whole system governed by the government? How much independence does the school have?
  • There are a lot of acronymns floating around. Make sure every acronym is necessary: see if it is used later in the article and consider if it is easier to use the full name.
  • My overall thought is that the prose of the article could use some work and polishing. A lot of the paragraphs read like a collection of unrelated sentences. It might help to try to condense or combine some paragraphs. I've read User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and found it helpful. There are also quite a few sentences that approach WP:NPOV/[{WP:OR]], especially ones that praise the school's growth or strength. See WP:BOOSTER for guidance. Remember, only use facts, not opinions. If a prominent person or critic has praised the school in some way, you might be able to include it with something like "US News has called UT Dallas 'the best school in Dallas'." But you can't say "UT Dallas is the best school in Dallas."
Thanks for the review, I really appreciate it! I'll work on the listed items.Stan9999 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed Note 1 and followed Ohio State University example.
  • Removed the former names bold.
  • "The rapidly growing university is now known for"... I changed to "The university is now known for"...
  • "Entering freshmen average SAT scores shouldn't be in the lead." Not sure I see the problem with this?
  • "Don't bold the main article templates." Removed the bold.
  • I removed "overall" in infobox. I found the Infobox US university ranking too limited. I wanted to include the rankings and the rankings by school in one infobox which seems to me to be more informative and readable.
    • Unfortunately, adding school rankings can be very controversial, and the template contains the rankings that have received a consensus to be included.
  • Deleted the Student government section.
  • The images File:UTD bronze bust of Cecil Green.JPG and File:UTD Erik Jonsson Academic Center.JPG are pictures I took with my camera. I added the source for File:221588 CNOFSmodel HI.jpg.
  • "Refs 51, 52, 67, 80 are dead." Those Refs resolve fine for me?
  • I'm sure the debate and chess teams are great, but those probably shouldn't be in the lead." Because the the University doesn't have a major sports program in football, basketball, etc. they put a lot of emphasis on their chess and debate programs.
  • "I haven't given this article a full line-by-line reading (except for the lead section), but someone should before sending it to WP:GAN." I am just trying to get past the "Rated Start-Class" on the Talk:University of Texas at Dallas.:)
  • "My overall thought is that the prose of the article could use some work and polishing." I'll continue to work on the prose, hopefully some other kind editors may drop in and help.
  • Removed "Various publications show UT Dallas consistently improving in scholastic rankings"
  • "The rankings section is not an approporate place to needle other schools, like Cornell or Berkley." Removed reference to other schools.
  • "Note 2 is not really necessary." Removed "Note"
  • Redoing the University of Texas at Dallas academic programs article.
  • "If Radio UTD is the internet radio station, is there an FM college radio station?" No UTD FM radio station.
  • "I'm not sure that eXtended WordNet is notable." Not found in University of Texas at Dallas article?

Again, thanks for your time and help!

Stan9999 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article is now "Rated C-Class". Thanks for the new rating, though I must admit I am a bit deflated and was hoping for a "B".:) I'll just keep hammering away at this to improve the article.Stan9999 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can get the problems in the lead worked out, it'd be a B. I gave you some thoughts on the lead, and there were some in the earlier peer review. Also, make sure you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). I won't be watching this peer review, so let me know when you think that you have the lead taken care of, and I'll re-assess. Feel free to ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, as well. Don't get discouraged--there is a good start here.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the rankings infobox to the {{Infobox US university ranking}} per this review but their refs are out of date. It is using 2009 refs. I left a note on the talk page.Stan9999 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Pacino

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to get this article in shape to reach GA or FA status and would like any constructive criticism, comments, suggestions, etc. to assist me in improving it. Thanks and Many Regards

Thanks, Monkeymanman (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Belovedfreak

I enjoyed reading this, and he's an important actor within Hollywood, so it would be good to see this article improved. There's a lot of good content here but I think it needs a little work before a GA nomination yet. I notice from the article history that you only recently started making significant changes to this. Prior to going for GA or FA, it can be worth contacting any major contributors for their input, although I see that in this case that editor, User:Wildhartlivie, may not be editing frequently at the moment. One thing I would definitely recommend is getting someone unconnected with the article to give it a thorough copyedit. The prose isn't bad, but it's a little awkward in some places. That's not my forte, but I'll try to give a few examples as I go along. I will go through by section and make some suggestions.

Lead

  • One very basic point is that per WP:LEAD, the lead section should be no more than 4 paragraphs. That can easily be remedied here though by combining some paragraphs. done
  • Somewhere right at the beginning, you could say exactly why he is notable. Yes, he's an actor, but what are the things that immediately spring to mind? We don't tend to mention awards or anything in the first sentence, but you could say that he's an actor known for his roles in certain types of films. (However you want to put that - as mobsters, in crime films or whatever) done
  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarise all the main points in the article. Check that it does.
  • At the same time, the lead shouldn't introduce information that isn't covered (and ideally expanded on) later on. One thing I noticed was "his most critically acclaimed work being the 1992 drama Scent of a Woman" - which unless I'm missing it, doesn't seem to be mentioned later on. I would either remove that from the lead, or add a bit about it later on, with a citation supporting it. Another point not mentioned later is that he is a method actor. This too would need a reference.
  • "As well as a distinguished career in film, he has also enjoyed a prestigious career on stage...", "A highly respected actor..." - try to be careful of using overly positive language like this. Yes, I would say that he has had a distinguished and prestigious career, but try to keep the descriptions as neutral as possible, and let his achievements speak for themselves. done
  • "Native to the State of New York, he is a method actor.." - this is a slightly odd sentence. Is being from New York directly relevant to method acting? changed
  • "In his personal life he has had three children..." - I don't think you need to say "in his personal life"; he wouldn't have had them anywhere else, would he? changed
  • "He has tended to shy away from the limelight..." - this is something that should definitely be expanded on later on in the article (and sourced) - is he particularly known for being private? If not, it shouldn't be in the lead, but if so, it's an interesting detail, but needs citing.

Early life and education

  • As well as getting someone to copyedit, make sure you give it a good proofread before a GA nomination. I found at the beginning of this section, "Pacino was born in the Bronx, [1]New York City," - citations should go directly after punctuation, followed by a space.
  • Is there any reason for having four citations at the end of the sentence about his grandparents? If the information is in one reliable source, just cite that one. Having too many citations can make it a bit laborious to read. removed redundant refs, he did say it on inside the actors studio
  • "His father moved to Covina, California, working as an insurance salesman and owner of a restaurant ..." - the prose isn't quite right here. You wouldn't normally say he "worked as an owner of a restaurant" changed to restaurateur
  • The name of a restaurant doesn't need to be in italics changed to restaurateur
  • "he was also nicknamed 'The Actor' by his friends due to his obvious talents" - this is a little vague. WHat obvious talents? Was he taking part in plays etc? (I presume so as he was at that kind of school, but could you expand on this at all?) left nickname only can expand later
  • "hard drugs" is a little vague (and I'm really none the wiser from our article about it). Does this mean that he used cannabis for example?
  • Per WP:ORDINAL, try to keep numbers consistent. In general, write them as words if they're less than 10, as digits if they're 10 and above, but try to keep them the same within the same sentence. done
  • Do we know what his mother died of? Normally, I wouldn't say that was hugely relevant, but since she died at 43, it piqued my interest a little.

Career

  • The AFI titbit seems a little trivial. I'm not sure that I'd include it. It's also unsourced. Agree removed
  • I's the Actors Studio, not The Actors Studio changed
  • I'm not sure that Lee Strasberg was a co-star of Godfather II. "Appeared" perhaps? agree
  • You have two quotes here, one after the other, but one uses the {{bquote}} template, and the other doesn't. Try to be consistent. (I personally would not use the template for quotes of that size.) moved into new section and changed format
  • This section contains some very short paragraphs, including one of just one sentence. Try to either expand these or combine.
  • "As of 2009..." - could do with updating moved into new section
  • "However, it did put him in financial straits[7] until the end of the decade." - this citation can easily go at the end of the sentence agree
  • "It was the 1971 film The Panic in Needle Park, in which he played a heroin addict, that would bring Pacino..." - As we're writing from 2010, you don't need to use that conditional tense. Works as It was the 1971 film The Panic in Needle Park, in which he played a heroin addict, that brought Pacino... done
  • Again, be careful of WP:NPOV in describing his films: "the popular Serpico", "the successful sequel The Godfather Part II" removed
  • "However he was to lose out that year to Dustin Hoffman in Kramer vs. Kramer—ironically a role that Pacino had declined." - Again, this tense is awkward. What about simply, However he lost out that year...? Also, "ironically" is not necessary - readers can decide that for themselves. done
  • "...despite poor notices from critics." - needs a source removed, unlikely to find a source
  • "...his appearances ... were critically panned." - this needs a source. Also, why was Cruising controversial? ref for both with expansion
  • "Cuban drug dealer/lord" is a little awkward. Would "drug lord" not suffice? done
  • "In 1985, Pacino worked on his most personal project..." - it's not clear why or in what way this was particularly personal
  • "...Pacino was nominated for a Drama Desk Award." - needs a source added
  • "He would finally win the Academy Award for Best Actor, for his portrayal of retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade..." - tense again changed
  • "...starring in Oliver Stone's critically acclaimed Any Given Sunday in 1999." - needs a sourced, not for the fact he starred but for the fact that it was critically acclaimed. changed
  • "during the last decade" - try to be specific about time, say which decade you mean changed, moved section
  • Some more sources are needed for the awards won (end of the "1990s" section) sources added and ones not found removed
  • It might be worth stating what The Godfather: The Game is; it may seem obvious, but that could conceivably be the title of a film. This bit about his voice changing etc needs a source changed, removed bit about voice, prob wont find source

Filmography

  • As labelled, this needs some sources. Presumably most of this is easily verifiable to IMDb or something, but it should have citations for the "notes" column. trivial info and awards removed, all others referenced

Missing section?

  • I wonder if perhaps there should be a section on his work more generally. The sections on his career are chronological and a straightforward, "he was in this film, and it did well." kind of thing, which is fine, but surely for an actor like Pacino there must be some critical analysis of his work and style. It could include the type of work he's known for, his method acting, his influences and perhaps if he's had a major influence on anyone. Also, has he been known for anything outside his acting career? Any charitable work or anything?

Images

  • You might get away with that non-free image at GA, but I think the fair use rationale on it could use a little work. It's important to say why the image is needed in the article.

References

  • There are some dead links marked, which should be taken care of done, either removed or replaced
  • All citations should have enough useful information to ensure verifiability. Where possible, web sources need titles, authors, dates, publishers (eg. website) and retrieval dates. None of them should be bare URLs. Book sources need ISBNs and page numbers (this is a problem here, you'll need to go through the book sources used to add page numbers to the citations)
  • Non-print sources like websites should not be in italics (eg. BoxofficeMojo); print sources should (eg. Peaople) done, i think
  • Please check that all sources used are reliable. For example, what makes these reliable?:
    • brainyquote.com not used now
    • wippit.com not used now
    • Buzzine.com not used now

General

I hope these comments help. Although I've mentioned a lot of things, I think this could easily become a GA. It just needs a bit of tightening up all round. If you have any comments/questions please let me know as I probably won't notice any changes to this page. Good luck, --BelovedFreak 18:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the edits to the article that you brought up, minus only a few.
Lead; I think the lead summarises the article well as a whole but would probably need someone who has not read the article to double check this. I do not think that it introduces any info that is not included elsewhere in the article but again would need this checked. The part about him ‘shying away from the limelight’, I have heard before, but would need to find a source to confirm its inclusion and expand on later in the article.
Main article; I am unsure about the ‘hard drugs’ inclusion, I think I remember him talking about it in the interview with james lipton but cannot be sure. His mother died in maybe slightly odd circumstances and it was speculated by someone on ‘the biography channel’ that it was due to complications with sleeping pills, but it was hardly a conclusive ‘fact’ so I would be wary about its inclusion. His ‘most personal project’ could maybe be reworded, because my understanding is that they were very personal projects for him (the local stigmatic, looking for Richard). Without his backing they would never have been made. The local stigmatic was initially only released to some of his closest friends according to the same biography channel.
Filmography; I have removed all trivial information (including salaries and minor awards) and have found refs from the awards websites for the rest.
References; I have tried to correct all refs so that there are no redirects and they are all accounted for. The only problem is with the books. I have Al Pacino: The Authorized Biography and will try to work through getting page numbers from that book in the next few weeks. The other [Yule, A. Al Pacino: Life on the Wire, Time Warner Paperbacks (1992), only has five refs from it, so if this is a problem in getting GA then they could be probably found elsewhere.
I gave the 2000 section a bit of a rewrite and expanded on the 1990’s. There will still be areas that need improving but I would like to think that the majority have been covered. I would be greatful if you were willing in the next few days to check it, and hopefully you like what you read : ) Monkeymanman (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second look

I must say, it's looking much better, you've really worked hard. No glaring problems jump out. A few minor things:

  • You still have some short paragraphs which could be improved. As an example, I see no reason why the last two paragraphs of "1960s" couldn't be together as one paragraph. In the "acting background" section, the sentence beginning "Pacino is currently co-president..." is on its own. Since the previous paragraph is also about the Actors Studio, why not make it part of that paragraph?
  • You're absolutely right to hold back on the info on his mother, and drugs, without proper referencing. No more info in the biography you have?
  • You need a source for the Ebert quote at the beginning of "1990s" found source but changed quote
  • Watch out for overlinking. it's sometimes hard to tell when you're so involved with an article, but make sure all wikilinks are really adding to the reader's understanding, or that they will want to click on them to read more. This is especially true of articles that contain a large number of links already, which pop culture articles tend to. The theory is that having too many blue links makes the reader ignore them, reducing the value of the links. I'll leave it up to you to decide, but I would question some of the following:
    • crime dramas Carlito's Way - if you were reading this, would you stop and want to click on the drama article? Here, I would only link the film name. When you go to Carlito's Way, that links to crime film anyway, if the reader's still wants more changed
    • At the beginning of the "Acting Background" (which, by the way should not have a capital B!), you have several links, one of which is very quickly repeated. Try to think whether all of them add value to the reader's experience. (organization? New York City? - bear in mind that Manhattan has just been linked) changed
  • Is it "Actors' Studio" or "Actors Studio"? You have both. changed them to, Actors' Studio
  • Try to watch little mistakes in punctuation and WP:MOS (for example ellipses should be three unspaced periods (...), with spaces either side. (WP:ELLIPSIS). I fixed a few little things that you would probably have noticed with a thorough read over. (a missing quotation mark for example) That's not a criticism, just make sure you keep proofreading, especially when you add bits, and when you copy-paste quotations.

Just a few things to work on. Well done though, it's looking much better. Feel free to ping me again after you've added more material or if you want a final proof read or something if you're going to nominate it at GAN.--BelovedFreak 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COINTELPRO

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's well made and significant.

Thanks, CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes and bulleted lists are a bit too long. Can the be merged into the prose? Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have so many 'see also's - can the links be put into the appropriate places in the prose above? The further reading list is also a bit too long. Maybe they can be used as references instead. By the way, can you review Manufacturing in Hong Kong too? Thanks Kayau Voting IS evil 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on a very difficult subject to write about fairly. The topic is interesting, but the existing article seems to be pushing a particular point of view, and it has problems related to the guidelines in the Manual of Style. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

  • "The FBI used covert operations from its inception" - It would be good to add the year of inception here.
  • "seeking independence for Puerto Rico." - This and any other direct quotations in the article need to be sourced. The ref number should appear directly after the end punctuation of the quote or the sentence punctuation that follows it.

History

  • ""COINTELPRO began in 1956, in part because of frustration with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government's power to proceed overtly against dissident groups..." - It would be helpful to add who, exactly, was frustrated.
  • A good rule of thumb for sourcing is to give a source for every claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, for every direct quote, for every set of statistics, and for every paragraph. In an article about a topic such as this one that is political and controversial, I'd be especially careful to provide sources and to be as precise as possible. Two quotes and one paragraph in this section are sourced, but the rest is not. Partial lack of sourcing is a problem throughout the article.

Range of targets

  • Generally, it would be better to paraphrase than to quote such long passages (three paragraphs here) from documents such as the Church Committee report. Ditto for the long quotes in the Illegal surveillance section. Paraphrase and source.

Methods

  • I would turn the numbered list into straight prose. Each paragraph should be sourced. Spectacular claims should be sourced. Any claim of assassination is sure to be challenged, and I would probably not use that word unless directly quoting highly reliable sources. The South End Press book is one reliable source, but the two dot-coms (Paul Wolf and It's About Time) don't seem to qualify; personal web sites and blogs generally don't. To the extent that the sourcing is doubtful, the claims can be doubted and seen as emphasizing a particular point of view rather than presenting a neutral and verifiable account of events. The article is on much more solid ground with the claim about David Halberstam in the last section. Please review WP:NPOV.

References

  • Quite a few of the citations are malformed or incomplete. I find the "cite" family of templates helpful in organizing my citations. Even if you choose not to use citation templates in the article, they include handy lists of the data that can be, and in some cases should be, included. See WP:CITET for the lists. If you decide to use templates, don't mix the "cite" family with the "citation" family; choose one or the other.

Other

  • The link checker in the toolbox at the top of this review page finds three dead urls in the citations.
  • I agree that the See also section includes unnecessary items. For example, I would not include any items that are already included in the main text.
  • If the books and articles in the Further reading section are important, I would try to include references to them in the main text rather than simply listing them in a bibliography. This would require reading them all and deciding what to mention and what to omit; this would be a seriously time-consuming and difficult undertaking.
  • The External links section is a kind of WP:LINKFARM. The guidelines say, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment
  • I also noted that the infobox is aboutthe FBI. It should be about the operation(s) that made up COINTELPRO instead. Since COINTELPRO ended in the 1970s, it is very misleading to list the current director of the FBI in the Infobox, for example. There is no requirement for an infobox in an article, so if there is not one for intel ops, that is OK. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona in Europe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review, and I want to get feed-back whether this should be listed in List of FC Barcelona records and statistics or be an independent article. Previous discussion showed disagreement between two users and no consensus. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 17:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I am not a football person, though I have a basic understanding of the game, so I am not the best person to decide if this should be an independent article. I did not see the discussion of this on the article's talk page. It seems to me that the two best palces to discuss this would be the WikiProject Football talk page and the FLC talk page. I would start the discussion in one place and leave a notice pointing to it at the other. In general PR is not a place for dispute resolution - sorry. I can make comments on the article, which seems very detailed and comprehensive - thanks for you work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • WP:LEAD says that the bold face words from the title of the article should not also be linked.
  • It also says The article should begin with a declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] The first sentence for this article is currently FC Barcelona is a professional football club based in Barcelona, Spain. which tells the reader nothing about the "in Europe" part of the title.
    • re-wrote lead.
  • The prose could use a copyedit - just in the lead the article is not consistent on whther FC Barcelona is a singular or plural noun The club was [singular] created in 1899, and have [plural - has if singular] participated in regional and domestic competitions since 1901, and in international competitions since the Pyrenees Cup in 1910. They [plural] have won...
  • The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but most of the section headers are not mentioned in the lead.
    • re-wrote
  • While I generally like History sections, I also think that each table would be clearer if there were a brief introduction before it that explained what the cup(s) were / are, etc.
    • Re-organised layout
  • The section "UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup" in History does not mention the Fair's Cup at all. I also note that it is spelled "Fairs Cup" later in the article - which is it?
    • spelling fixed!
  • In the same section, the last pargraph needs a ref.
  • I am a bit puzzled by the level of detail or lack thereof in History. For example in the UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup section, there is a whole paragraph on the first Europe Cup tournament they were in, a sentence on the next one, one sentence on the next three, and one sentence on 15 UEFA Champions League appearances!
  • I also note that the History is organized differently than the tables - so the History starts with early years and the Latin Cup, then talks about UEFA competitions and Fair's Cup, but the tables start with UEFA and do not mention the Copa Latina.
  • I also note that the History says both the Copa Latina and the Fairs Cup are not considered official by UEFA, but the tables list one (Fairs) and not the other (Latina). Why? I can see listing both or neither, but why just one?
  • Again I am not a football person, so it took me a while to figure out that A was Away and H was Home in the title. I think some sort of explanatory note would help.
  • The tables are not especially wide on my monitor - I think I would add actual notes to the Notes column, and not just the cryptic letter footnotes. I think it would help to have "Won on the away goals rule." in the table (and there seems to be room for it). I also think that when they lost, it might help to say so.
  • The Finals and Semi-finals tables seem to be needless repetition to me. If this is standard Football MOS stuff, ignore me ;-)
  • Surely there could be some images here?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments
  • I like the rearranged tables and History, thanks.
  • I still think it would look better and follw the MOS if there were a lead image
  • Needs to be consistent in table headers etc. For example, is it Opposing Team or Opposition (both are used, I prefer Opposing Team)
  • This really needs a copyedit to polish the prose before it is up at FLC.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contra La Corriente (Marc Anthony album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is given a B-rating from Puerto Rico's wikiproject and I would to improve the article further by making it a Good Article nomination.

Thanks, Magiciandude (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is generally well-done and seems to have most of the essential elements. The main thing I notice, however, is that the sections are shorter than I'm used to seeing in album articles. I don't know if more information is available or not, but if you can find anything to expand the sections, especially the tiny ones, that would be good. You might get some ideas for expansion by looking at the FA articles on albums; they are found at WP:FA#Music. Here are some other suggestions:

Background

  • "Marc Anthony was already a well-known salsa singer" - Link salsa?
Okay, I've added a link to the article. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

  • The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short sections. This section is only four sentences long, and the next section consists of only three sentences. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge. I'd suggest expansion, if material is available from reliable sources.
I've merged the two sections together instead and added a reference for Omar Alfanno working with the artist on the last album. I couldn't find a reference Fernando Arias, and the only the reference I found for it is unavailable. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • This section lacks sources, but the information is not common knowledge and must have come from somewhere. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every direct quote.
See above. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Album

  • "On the tropical chart" - Should "tropical chart" be linked or explained? Are "Top Latin Albums" and "Top Tropical Latin Album chart" two names for the same thing?
  • "The album crossed over... " - It won't be clear to all readers what "crossed over" refers to.
  • "A remastered edition of the album" - Should "remaster" be linked or briefly explained?
I've added a link to the Tropical Albums chart and noted that it debuted #1 on both charts and a link to remaster. I've reworded the sentence to state that it was his first time charting the Billboard 200. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Singles

  • "which is his first number-one single on the chart and the first single to reach number-one by a salsa musician" - Might be better slightly re-arranged thus: "which is his first number-one single on the chart and the first single by a salsa musician to reach number-one".
Took your advice and did exactly that. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • The first two paragraphs lack sources. Even though the sources are mentioned by name in the text, the claims still need in-line citations. In addition, each direct quotation needs a source.
I've added the inline citations for the paragraphs missing them. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • The date formatting should be consistent throughout the reference section. Citation 1, for example, uses "February 25, 1999" and also "06-04-2010". You can use either format (in the references but not in the main text) but not both.
Fixed. Magiciandude (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway lines in Vietnam

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to get this article up to Featured List status, and I'd like to hear from other editors as to what needs to be done style- and content-wise to make that happen. The list is fairly complete right now, containing all the major railway lines and many of the smaller lines (both operational and defunct), but I'm not really satisfied with how the information is presented, particularly in cases where a once-defunct line has been proposed to be rebuilt: should it be listed under both "defunct" and "proposed"? Or is there an even better way of presenting this information? Thanks in advance for your help! (Also listed at WikiProject Trains.) dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started formatting the refs, but some won't be allowed at FLC because they are amateur hobby websites. Are you going to create all the lines, because if some of them are staying unlinked, it would be necessary to explain where Hoc Mon is, among others YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right about the hobby links. I've had a lot of trouble finding information about some of the less well-known lines, especially in the case of the defunct lines (most of those are on the Sébastien Schramm site, which is self-published). The Da Lat railway site is another self-published site, but I've actually managed to find other sources for that one, so I may actually be able to phase it out. I suspect I'll really have to search hard for information on the others, though. I suspect the French Overseas Archives (Archives nationales d'outre-mer) would have a lot of info, although I'm not exactly sure how I'd access their files, not being in France...
With regards to creating links, I expect I should be able to create links for all the current lines; I suspect it'll be too difficult to create articles on most of the defunct lines. The Da Lat–Thap Cham line is already linked, and I think it should be possible to create articles for the Phu Lang Thuong and Loc Ninh lines, but the rest I'll probably leave unlinked for now. I will have to go through and flesh those lines out though, you're right—at the very least, specify where they begin and end. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Partisan movement, 1979–1988

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is quite good myself, covering an interesting subject, having various good references and several free images. Would like to get feedback on the prose and structure, though. Lead needs to be beefed up, also. Thanks, --Soman (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first one at this so Im not sure what exactly to say, but off the bat:
  1. Lead as you say needs to summarise thecontent of the page.
  2. Think the section titles could be altered as in the one about the communist party which is too long.
  3. Is there just the one event that happened? (ie- just the massacre) Is there anymore ground to cover?
  4. Perhaps "veterans society" can be changed to "Legacy" or something of the sort and then expanded.
  5. Some related links for a "see also"/"further reading" would enhance this i think. PJAK??
  • Otherwise it seems good and referenced well. Albeit a little short and of course an orphan. I would suggest putting a fact at DYK to get its some publicity and either "see also" it on other pages on merge into the content of other pages like the Iraqi Comm. Party/PUK, KDR, etc. Hope this helps, at least somewhat ;)(Lihaas (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2010

(UTC));

Brianboulton comments

  • Although the article shows promise, at around 730 words it looks far too short to give adequate coverage of the subject. For example, what military activities did Al-Ansar engage in before the Pasht Ashan affair in May 1983? We are told that it was operational from April 1979, and "the partisan forces operated throughout the Kurdish provinces of Iraq" but are given no details of any missions.
  • Later, we read that "In June 1987 the movement suffered another severe set-back, as over 150 ansar fighters were killed." but are given no further details.
  • The article draws on a very limited range of sources. Also, the links to the two Arabic sources do not appear to be working
  • None of the images have sufficient details (publication, authorship) to establish that they are in the public domain in the USA.
  • One disambiguation link needs fixing.

With appropriate further development this could become a decnt article, but a lot more work needs to be done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time in Springfield

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping that it will reach GA status

Thanks, NoD'ohnuts (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)NoD'ohnuts[reply]

Note to NoD'ohnuts: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This sounds like a funny episode, and the article seems reasonably well-done although thin. It would be good to make it a bit broader, but it may be hard to find material about individual episodes, especially in a series that has run for so long. Here are a few suggestions for improvement:

Lead

  • "and is currently nominated for a two awards" - Rather than saying "currently", I'd specify the year.

Plot

  • I'd be inclined to merge the one-sentence orphan paragraph at the end of this section with the paragraph above it.

Production

  • This is an awfully short section. Could anything be added to make it more complete?

Cultural references

  • This one is even shorter. I don't know if you can find anything else that can be reliably sourced.

Images

  • It is not your fault, but the quite nice image, File:Anne Hathaway at the 2007 Deauville American Film Festival-01A.jpg, of Anne Hathaway is licensed at the original Flickr site as "non-commercial" (NC) CC-by-SA 2.0. (You can check this by clicking on the "Some rights reserved" license link on the Flickr page for the original.) The non-commercial clause makes it unusable on the Commons and on Wikipedia. The Commons uploader probably did not know about the NC problem. Unless you can persuade the Flickr uploader to re-license the image without the NC clause, it should be deleted.

Reception

  • "In all, the show was watched by 21.007 million viewers" - Should that be 21 million rather than the odd decimal fraction?
  • "The episode ranked 8th in the ratings becoming the second highest viewed show on FOX and top rated scripted show on FOX. The episode also came in 5th for the 18–48 rating becoming the top rated scripted programming of the week with a rating of 9.084 million watching and rating of 6.9." - These two sentences are too complex and run several different concepts together in a confusing way. I'd suggest re-writing them to make them more clear. Would it be helpful to include a brief explanation of the ratings and how they work? What, for example, are the differences among a "watching" rating, a "rating of 6.9" and an "18–48 rating"? They seem to be three different things.
  • "TV Fanatic sated "Well, as compared to any other episode, "Once Upon a Time in Springfield," was a fantastic outing by The Simpsons." although like Jason Hughes hated that The Simpsons weren't in the main plot." - The sentence does not make sense as written. "Sated" is a typo for "stated", and "although like Jason Hughes hated" seems to be missing a word or words.
  • "TV Fanatic gave the episode an A and stated in it's review" - "Its" rather than "it's".
  • "Anne Hathaway is also nominated for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance for her role as Princess Penelope running against Simpson cast members" - Misplaced modifier. Princess Penelope isn't running. Re-cast for clarity?

References

  • "Ponywether, Ariel (January 13, 2010)" - The date formatting in the reference section should be consistent. This one should be flipped to match the others. Ditto the first date in citation 14.
  • Citation 11 needs an author name. Some of the others may too. Generally, web citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all of these are known or can be found.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Deshastha Brahmin

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

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

  1. I need advice on what needs to be done to make this a good article (GA).
  2. Whether this article needs to be shortened. If so how?
  3. What should be done of some of the citation needed tags for which I could not find sources in published literature (yet).

Thanks, Zuggernaut (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are far too many EL that can be narrowed down (ive tagged it)
Certainly a good, informative article, dont think it needs shortening, not yet anyways. The requisite split-off pages already exist so its good there.
Some section however are uncited, where did that come from? "Attire" for example, and "Religious customs" and "Women" Regarding the ambedkar info does it exist on his page? If not using either online or offline source would be fine. Theres not harm in a fact tag (it exists for a reason) as a call to cites, should nothing be forthcoming say some 2-3 months down the line then it must go. But generally where the all the uncited info come from? Must be a lead from somewhere, even a school textbook, TV, etc. Otherwise i think it can be better than a GA, an A perhaps?
Also use the talk to ask people what questions they may have, theres already one that asks for clarification.
And do the list of brahmins have a link to the page on their page, I just saw Sonali Kulkarni doesnt.Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed rewritten the Attire, Death rituals, Wedding sections with citations. I've also merged the Women section with the Wedding section. The Birth ceremonies, Initiation and Kula devata sections still need to be worked on. I will do that in the next couple of days. Some clean up in the sections I've re-written is also required but I will wait to see if the changes spark any discussions. I will include links on prominent Deshasthas articles such as articles. Talk discussion has been addressed. I will also take up work on EL in the subsequent editing sessions. The first instance of the Ambedkar content is cited and the subsequent ones have {{cn}} tags. I didn't get which one you are referring to. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[6] better now, but still some para's without cites ("ref name=..." cites are okay too) The merge was good too. clear up some clutter.
For the ambedkar part i meant under "Treatment of Dalits" where there are 4 tags, can either cut or cite or remove them (although the latter would come if the call to refs is not forthcoming)Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the unnecessary External links, and we've added 9 new citations to paragraphs that lacked them. Some of the older citations have been re-used as well (ref name=). Three {{cn}} tags remain which I will remove if we are unable to find sources in a week or so. The Ambedkar section has been cited or cleaned up.
The clutter has been cleaned up as well. I've also added links to the article on the prominent Deshastha's articles such as Sonali Kulkarni, Dnyaneshwar, etc. Incoming links have also been added to articles on Marathi and Pune.
We will go for a A-class/GA nomination once all recommendations from this peer review are implemented. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I havent read it just now, but it seems good if you done all this. Should also boost the profile of the page somewhat per adding to other pages. (although was there a cite for the "famous" Deshastha Brahmin? Anyway, good luck.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing in Hong Kong

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I really, really, really, really want to get it to GA. As it was on DYK yesterday, I thought I would get some comments. I don't think I have enough, but I don't know where to go to, WP:FEED or WP:PR. An anon said PR should be better, so I'm asking here. So, ahem, what should I do to the article to bring it to GA?

By the way, please rate the article on the talk page, because it doesn't have one yet... I hope it's C-class. Oh, I almost forgot. I need someone good at this area to copy-edit it. Wikinewsies probably already know how many grammatical mistakes and awkward constructions and imprecise vocabulary and (well) typos I make. Thanks, Kayau Voting IS evil 06:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article - thnaks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GAN.

  • I agree that this needs a copyedit to clean up the prose - PR is more to identify issues that need to be fixed, but there are volunteer copyeditors listed at WP:PR/V at the bottom.
  • Per WP:LEAD, words in the lead should not be both bolded and linked.
  • I think the article would benefit from some brief background information on Hong Kong to provide context to the reader - if a brief history of the founding of Hong Kong and its early status as a British colony were included, for example, that woud make it clearer.
  • I also think the Early development section would be easier to follow in chronological order - as it is now, the first paragraph is about the industry prior to the 1950s, then the next paragraph is about the 1850s
  • The first sentence in Early developments says The manufacturing industry of Hong Kong was yet to be developed before the 1950s. which makes it sound as it there were no such industry before the 1950s, then the next six paragraphs are about the industry prior to the 1950s. perhaps "was poorly developed" would be better
  • The article has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which impede its flow - try to combine these with others or perhaps expand them in almost all cases.
  • Be consistent about phrasing - for example both From 1946 to 1948... and From 1952 – 1954... are used. Pick one and stick with it
  • In Industrialisation, I would perhaps add years to the headers, so "Early (years)"
  • Also avoid words like current or today - it is better to use things like "As of 2010" or "since YEAR" - things can get out of date quickly
  • For the sources in Chinese, I would provide a translation of the title etc. (as this is the English Wikipedia) See St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao for an example of this. The article also needs to identify these sources as being in Chinese (I know it should be obvious)
  • I am not sure what primary and secondary industires are in ...primary industry of Guangdong decreased from 70.7% to only 32.9%, while that of the secondary industry rose from 12.2% to 20.7%.
  • Any chance for more images - photos of factories or manufacturing districts?

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 ><>°° 02:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nueces Bay

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has potential to be a possible featured article candidate. Feedback, suggestions for improvement, and general comments on the article would be appreciated.

Thanks, William S. Saturn (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and broad in coverage but not yet comprehensive. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

Possibilities for expansion

  • Infobox: Consider switching to a geobox and adding more data, including a locator map showing where the bay is in Texas. You can find the geobox explanation at Template:Geobox. The Texas locator map is at File:Texas Locator Map.PNG. Installed in the geobox, it will automatically add a red dot corresponding to the coordinates you enter for the bay's location.
  • Hydrology: Add data about climate, rainfall, tides, or anything else affecting the flow of water into and out of the bay.
  • Geology: Add everything important that happened to the area before 9000 CE.
  • Pollution: I'd consider renaming the "Industry" section "Pollution", expanding the TMDL information, and adding anything else (storm-sewer run-off, for example) that affects the bay.
  • Recreation: I'd consider adding a recreation section to include sport fishing, boating, swimming, bird-watching, parks (if any).
  • Ecosystem: Add information about the flora in and near the water.
  • Watershed: Consider adding a section that includes the city information but also adds detail about the streams entering the bay. What governments or other entities have jurisdiction in the watershed? How much of the watershed is urban, and how much is agricultural? Any forests? Major highways? Airports? Port facilities? How big is the watershed? (You give the Nueces River watershed size but mention other small streams; it's not clear from this whether the bay watershed is identical to the river watershed.)

Lead

  • Could you add the correct pronunciation of "Nueces" to the opening line?
  • "To the west, the Odem Bay extension is formed, and is fed by Rincon Bayou and a large complex of marsh formed by the Nueces River delta." - I'm not sure a delta can form a marsh or that a bay can be said to be formed in the present tense. Would something purely descriptive work better? Maybe "To the west is the Odem Bay extension, fed by Rincon Bayou and a large marsh complex in the Nueces River delta."

History

  • "Nueces Bay formed approximately 9,000 years ago, as the sea level rose at the conclusion of the last ice age. The sea level stabilized 6,000 years later, shaping the present-day Nueces Bay." - To meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive, I think you need to expand the geology coverage by millions of years. Where did the oil come from, for example? Has anything been published about the proximity of the area to the Chicxulub crater?
  • "an 1835 map of Texas identified it as Papelote[4] or "wastepaper" Bay." - Any idea why it would have been called "wastepaper bay"? Is the translation reliable?
  • "In the next century, the Karankawa Indians arrived, and were present when Europeans came ashore." - Is it known when the Europeans arrive? Which specific Europeans? I assume they were Spanish since the date of the Spanish map is 1527 and precedes any of the other dates you mention in relation to the Europeans.
  • "After the railroad passed on the town in 1905" - Maybe "bypassed" rather than "passed on"?
  • "David Sinton and later Charles Phelps Taft, whose names are immortalized by the nearby towns of Sinton and Taft" - "Immortalized" is a bit flowery. Perhaps "David Sinton and later Charles Phelps Taft, after whom the nearby towns of Sinton and Taft were named,... "?
  • I'd consider breaking up the long last paragraph just to give readers a rest between towns. Maybe Corpus Christi could have its own paragraph, and the others could stay together in a second paragraph.

Features

  • I like the map, but it would be nice if it included the names of the points, if you can find room to add them.
  • "The bay leads back west to Whites Point on the north shore, which is largely used for agriculture." - What kinds of agriculture?
  • The oil and agriculture claims are sourced to a home page for Google topo maps. There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place, the link doesn't go directly to a map that verifies the claims. Secondly, it's not clear that the source is reliable since no author is named. Where did Google get the maps? Who made the maps? Do the maps really support descriptions like "Due south of Whites Point at the mouth of Odem Bay, is an oil field, situated against the backdrop of heavy industry on the shore to the southwest"? I have often linked to the map set published by TopoQuest, which uses United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps that are somewhat (not sure of the exact age) dated. I note with interest that Odem Bay does not appear on the USGS map here. I don't find an Odem Bay in the Geographic Names Information System listings, although here is Nueces Bay. Is it possible that the marshes were more extensive in the recent past and that Odem Bay did not exist? If so, were the marshes deliberately removed (dredged) to create essentially a new bay?

Ecosystem

  • Can something be added here about the flora in and near the water? What plants grow in the marshes, for example?
  • Can something be added about the diet of the fish? What microorganisms live in the water?
  • "hurting the natural oyster" - Link oyster here instead of later.
  • The bird names like Black Skimmer take initial caps.

Industry

  • Can you give any TMDL specifics? What parameters are being monitored? What are the TMDLs for each parameter and to what extent are they being met or exceeded?
  • "of oil leaked from a busted pipeline" - "Broken" rather than "busted", which is slang.

References

  • The date formatting in the citations must be consistent to pass FAC. In citation 25, for example, you use July 10, 2006, and 1 July 2010. I would suggest changing the second one to July 1, 2010, and using this format throughout.
  • You can use the "|format" parameter in citation 27 to say "subscription required" for the full JSTOR article.

Other

  • You might all alt text for the images, although that is not at the moment an FA requirement. WP:ALT has details.
  • The dab checker tool above finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred Shero

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The previous reviewer had to drop out due to other concerns feel free to add additional comments, and continue helping me improve this article Thank you--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like like to take this article to GA status, but have never written a GA before. I would like to know if it needs any kind of rewording, sub section headings, or any thing else that needs to be taken care of before I take it to GA nomination. I had some one look at it for grammar so hopefully there wont be too much wrong grammatically.


Thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'll have a go. I generally use a standard procedure for going GA reviews:
  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.
A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.
As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review. I guess this applies to PR as well.
If you disgree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage (from Philcha)

[edit]

Structure (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • (OK) I see no problems with how the sections are arranged. In particular, "Personal life" works easily in this article - I know of other articles where the career and biography influence each other, which can be rather complex. When I review the sections I'll look whether I think these are well-structured. --Philcha (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing career (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • "At age 13 Shero became a Canadian Bantamweight boxing champion[3] and had a chance to become a professional boxer" looks superfluous unless the boxing is shown as a defence against the bullies at school (in "Personal life"). --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - His boxing championship is mention in a couple of articles. Would it be appropriate to mention in another part of the article? I rethought it and a boxing title at age 13 probably isn't that notable any way.
Removed
  • In "His decision paid off (hockey), and as a 17 year old Shero was noticed by the New York Rangers and despite his father's reservations signed a professional contract with them"
Removed
Removed
Removed

Coaching career (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • (OK) I was concerned that this is very detailed. Unfortunately there are no GAs about coaches - we get to be the pioneers :-P However, the GAs about players are as detailed, in proportion to the length of the player's career. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Shero was never seriously considered to replace Emile Francis as head coach, due to his perceived alcohol problem" is ambiguous - whose "perceived alcohol problem". --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed
  • In "Shero decided to sneak out for a cigarette, before the press conference. However, he left the arena through a door with no re-entry and became locked outside, and no one knew where he was", IMO "decided to sneak out for a cigarette, before the press conference" is superfluous. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed and slightly rewrote.
  • "In the off-season Shero decided the he needed to coach the Flyers like he had coached his teams in the minors. Upon being elevated to the NHL, he had decided not to employ systems like he did during his minor league career stating that he had too much respect for NHL players. However, during the off season Shero decided that since he had the same kind of players on the Flyers as he did in the minors, he would use the same systems,[22] becoming the first coach to employ systems" is:
wikilinked systems
    • Poorly written:
      • "In the off-season Shero decided the he needed to coach the Flyers like he had coached his teams in the minors" looks superfluous, as "he would use the same systems" makes the same point. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote
I'm not sure what you mean because in the opening it states "first coach to employ systems; first to hire assistant coaches; first to employ in-season strength training; first to break down film; first to travel abroad to study Soviet influences; among the first to adopt morning skates."
  • In "The season also saw the beginning of one of Shero's trademark practices. Prior to a game Shero wrote a quote about commitment on the dressing room blackboard, and the team won the game. From then on Shero wrote inspirational quotes prior to games," IMO "The season also saw the beginning of one of Shero's trademark practices" is superfluous. Note that what remains should said that it was in the 1972–73 season. --Philcha (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed
It's not the first, its the first full-time, Harvey was also a player on the Blues - I italicized full-time to stress the difference
I think I removed all irrelevant passages.

Coaching style (from Philcha)

[edit]
touched up the section a little.

Personal life (from Philcha)

[edit]
  • IMO "Over 40 years later, Ray Shero became Johnston's boss as general manager of the Pittsburgh Penguins – a post Johnston himself had previously held. Johnston often muses to Ray Shero that if it wasn't for him then Ray wouldn't have been born. It's a statement Ray Shero says Johnston never lets him forget.[11] Ray Shero and Johnston won the Stanley Cup together with the Penguins in 2009" is irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed most of the statement however Ray Shero is mentioned in the intro and the fact that both father and son worked in the NHL in some capacity is notable.

It looks likely that several sentences may be cut. If so, there will be changes in the prose and we'll need review that in a 2nd round. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you for now. Please let me when you're done, then I'll check for citations, prose, etc. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Looks like I have some work to do :), I think I can probably adress everything in the next couple of days and we'll see how it goes from there--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still reviewing to see if I notice any thing else that is unnecessary.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I have address everything here. I trimmed quite a bit and I think everything left is important but I could have missed something and you might have a different opinion.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mo Rock...Monstrous. I'm sorry for not coming back to the PR, I must have missed it in my watchlist. You can can a PR and GA review at the same time, so this PR is officially closed. Good luck. --Philcha (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Michigan Wolverines football team

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I envision this as a potential FA-class article, but it could use some more eyes.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could use some advice on images. We don't have images for most of the players, but Tom Brady and Anthony Thomas have images. Should we add more recent professional football images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrapedApe's review

Overall, a great job. I read through the lead, background, award season, and the tables. I made some quick changes myself, here.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
    • "Michigan was declared the national champion by the..." This sentence has a reference, which is probably unnecessary for a lead, as long as that fact is covered in the artcle.
    • ...totaled 8 interceptions, James Hall who totaled..." Try varying those verbs.
    • Third paragraph has two sentences that start with "It..." There should be a better way to start those sentences.
  • "Background"
    • I'm not sold on starting the section with a discussion of the Rose Bowl, since the Rose Bowl came at the end of the season, plus that sentence doesn't have anything to do with the team's season itself. Try taking those sentences and making them another paragraph later in the section.
    • "The team lost three linemen in the..." Were these players who were lost fromn the previous season? It should be clarified.
    • "Only junior right offensive tackle Jon Jansen, who...been on the sidelines with a ruptured appendix". These two sentences could use some references.
  • Other
    • Chris Ziemann, DeWayne Patmon could probably be notable enough for an article.
    • References #69, #70, #71 are strangely placed. Is there a better way to cite those tables?
  • Award season
    • Don't start a sentence with a numerical number, like "56 of the previous 61 winners..." Also, I'm not sure that's really all that important of a fact.
    • Can you reference the vote totals?

Jweiss11's comments moved from TonyTheTiger's talk page

I had a couple thoughts about the 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team article.

  • First, the records you put in the box scores reflect records after the decision of that game. The standard in Template:Infobox NCAA football yearly game for articles about individual games seems to be to list records going into the game. See 1998 Rose Bowl for an example. The box scores should probably employ this standard. Also, you've included references in each of the box score headers. I think in all cases, these references are cited again in the body of that section, so those references can probably be dropped, which will improve the look of the article.
  • Second, I realized that the '97 Michigan team beat four coaches who have since been inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame: Hayden Frye, Joe Paterno, Barry Alvarez, and John Cooper. Plus Nick Saban is likely going to be there one day. Might make for an neat tidbit to work in somewhere.

Jweiss11 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from cbl62

This is the most important Michigan football team in the past 60 years, and it deserves a first-rate article. Tony has done an outstanding job compiling the facts and game-by-game accounts. I've worked on the lead section today, trying to improve the flow and focus it on the truly key points. The format is now in four paragraphs consisting of: para 1) overview/national championship; para 2) defensive unit overview; para 3) offensive unit overview; and para 4) miscellaneous awards and background.

The body of the article still needs some work. There are some VERY long paragraphs, for example, the game summaries. It would be helpful to flow and readability if some of this was broken down into more readable (and less intimidating) chunks. Though potentially controversial, I also think that the article would benefit from streamlining a bit by eliminating some of the less significant details. Will continue to pitch in as time permits. Cbl62 (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two smaller points: 1) I think the Anthony Thomas photo should be deleted. It shows him from the back side in a Bills uniform and is not particularly useful to this article; and 2) Though I don't feel strongly, I tend to think the schedule should precede the Background section. Many readers (myself included) rely on the schedule being placed immediately after the lead section in team articles. The schedule is in some ways a supplement tothe lead in that it provides a birds-eye overview of the season. Pushing it further down into the text makes it more difficult to find. Cbl62 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and switched a higher value foto of Dhani Jones in place of the rear-view A. Thomas in Bills uniform. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "The team led the Big Ten Conference in scoring defense for conference games (19.8 points per game) and all games (16.5)." This doesn't jive with the actual scoring figures. The team allowed only 114 points all season for an average of 9.6 points per game. Accordingly, the "points per game" figures reflected in the article appear to be erroneous. Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the points per game figures (9.8 conference games, 9.5 all games). The cited reference points to the right place in the Big Ten media guide. The numbers were just not entered correctly. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further suggestion: Delete the "Players selected in the 1998 NFL Draft" section. It's a subset of Team members advancing to the NFL and doesn't add materially to the article. Getting rid of one of the charts will also help with flow and reduce reduncancy. Cbl62 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most high quality (GA, FA) college football team articles are expected to enumerate draftees. This content should remain in the article although it might be merged with the NFL content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the content of the two charts seems like the best solution. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on my comment that there are parts of the article that are unnecessarily laden with extraneous details, here's an example of the type of detail that IMO can/should be removed. The section on Week 5 opens with a discussion of Steve Fisher's firing. While a point of interest to UM fans, it is extraneous to an encyclopedia article on the 1997 football team. I'd suggest deleting this sentence and others with similar extraneous information. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which is preferred, but there should be consistency with the treatment of one-digit numbers. The article goes back and fourth between "1-yard gain" or "3-yard ..." and in other cases using "two-yard ...", etc. Also, there's inconsistency in spacing, including the number of spaces between sentences. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing a masterful job at cleaning this up. Whichever way you go with the numbers is fine with me. I think maybe we should use numerical because in some cases these are in sentences with larger numbers that must be numerical. If you can remember add   between ### and the word yards when saying something like He passed for ### passing yards or ran for ## yards. I remembered sometimes and forgot others. At WP:FAC they will require consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now pretty much finished my re-working of the following sections: Lead, Background, and Statistical achievements. The individual game summary sections still require some copy-editing/tightening, if anyone wants to give it a shot. Cbl62 (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably our guy. I have compiled a bunch of facts and the Jman seems to be handling the tables. I am watching to make sure what you are doing is Kosher, but the first couple of games have been great.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright note from Raeky

Smallville (season 9)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The season 9 article of Smallville has potential to become a good article and achive the status. Before it is submited for Good Article status though, the article needs to be looked through and improved. Because of the length of the article, it would be a good idea to have the editors, familiar or not with the series, contribute to the article to achive this milestone. Any advice that is given is appreciated.

Thanks,  ChaosMasterChat 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article - sorry it has taken so long to be peer reviewed. I have not seen this series that I can recall, though I am familiar with the basics of the SUperman universe. Here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to GAN.

  • I almost always say a model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there is one FA about Smallville, Smallville (season 1). I am guessing the editors who have worked on this article used it as a model already, as the structure of this follows season 1 pretty closely. Still, for those who say this is too list-y, the FA gives a good counter-argument.
  • One thing I did notice when comparing the two articles (this on season 9 and the other on season 1) is that sason 1 has 20 kB of text that is not the episode table or refs or captions, while this article has only 13 kB of such text. Interestingly, this article is a fair amount bigger (61 kB total size on View History) than season 1 (54 kB). When I look at the episode descriptions, season 1 has 21 episodes, 4 of which are 4 lines of text long, and the other 17 of which are only 3 lines long (on my monitor). This article also has 21 episodes, but the shortest description is 4 lines for 14 episodes, 5 lines for 6, and 8 lines for the special double episode (or 4 lines for each half). So I think part of why this looks more like a list, is that the episode list has more material and the rest of the article has a lot less (compared to the FA season 1 article).
  • So I would try to tighten the epsiode descriptions where possible, and see if there is more material that can be added to the rest of the article
  • Try to keep the focus on season 9 - for example in the lead, I would rephrase In addition, after four seasons broadcasting on Thursday nights at 8:00 pm, Smallville was moved to Friday nights at 8:00 pm for season nine.[4][5] to something like In addition, Smallville was moved to Friday nights at 8:00 pm for season nine, after four seasons broadcasting on Thursday nights at 8:00 pm.[4][5]
  • I would add Metropolis to the lead somehow - the episodes mention it 3 times and only mention the town of Smallville twice, but the lead says The series recounts the early adventures of Kryptonian Clark Kent as he adjusts to life in the fictional town of Smallville, Kansas, during the years before he becomes Superman.
  • I think the language needs to be poolished / cleaned up in places - have already pointed out that the episode summaries could be tightened a bit, but there are also things like this (some examples only, not a complete list):
    • Missing word - With the loss of two series regulars, producers had to look for a new primary villain for [the] season. (by the way, it would help to explain that one or both of the former regulars were villains).
    • Tense - the season is over, but many parts of the article are still written as if it were a future event The characters Victor Stone and Dinah Lance are set to return for the season finale; ... The whole start of the writing section is this way too In an interview, Justin Hartley revealed that season nine will partially deal with Oliver having to battle his personal demons perhaps say "In an interview published before the season began, ...? I think in most cases it owuld be baetter to recast the sentences in past tense and to say what actually happened (and may appear in more epsidoes - well did this happen or not?)
    • Passive vs active voice - where possible try to use active voice - this is often a bit more more concise too. Example
      • After a date with Clark, Lois is shot with an arrow by a man dressed as the Green Arrow.
      • A man dressed as the Green Arrow shoots Lois with an arrow after her date with Clark.
  • Try to avoid writing from an in-universe perspective - for example expalin who Jor-El is in This season Clark takes his superhero persona into obsessive territory when he leaves behind those he cares for so that he can focus solely on Jor-El's training. - see WP:IN-U
  • ALong the same lines, I wonder if it would help to have some sort of Background section before the episodes (season 1 did not need this as there were no previous seasons to summarize). If there were a paragraph or two after the lead and before the episode list to help explain who the characters are and what important things have happened before, that would help those readers who have never seen the show, and I think it would help to reduce the episode summaries and beef up the rest of the article too.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example the Justice Society of America is linked 6 times in the article, at least twice in one episode summary.
  • Reception mentions the lowest rating for the series this season - I think that might be mentioned in the lead
  • Are there any free images of any of the cast or writers or directors or producers that could be used in the article?

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 ><>°° 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To try and address a couple things quickly before working on the rest of your comments, we're actually in the process of the reverse of what you suggested first. We're trying to beef up the episode plot for season 1 because it's actually very skimpy and you really only get a minute idea of what happened. There are several plot lines, though minor, that were initially left out for brevities sake because given that the MOS for TV was not in place at the time (which now suggests about 400 words), we didn't have anything to compare it to. To the background section, as much as that would be nice, that is why we have previous season articles. Films do not provide a background section when there is a series of sequels to explain where those characters are and if we were to provide a "background" for 8 previous seasons not only would it probably be lengthy given the number of main characters, but it would also add to your argument of more plot info than real world info.

Will Allen (urban farmer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see how else to improve the article.

Thanks, Phaeton23 (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this very interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should also say something like "usually known as Will Allen..." (i.e. give the name he is usually known by)
  • Some of the language is not very encyclopedic (kid) and seems to run afoul of WP:NPOV or at least WP:PEACOCK - for example When he played for the middle school team, he was a huge and powerful kid and proved to be unstoppable. (proved to be unstoppable is POV or at least a peacock phrase)
  • The article could use a copy edit to polish the prose, which is rough in places. For example there seems to be some words missing in He would never play an NBA game, but would go on [to play for] the ABA's Miami Floridians and then for Belgium in the European Professional League. Is there a link for the "European Professional League"?
  • The infobox lists one child (under "Children") but the article makes it clear he has three - also the spelling of Ericka / Erika is not consistent
  • The article has a lot of short (one or two setence) paragraphs, which impede the flow. In almost all cases, these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
  • Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Growing Power is linked 7 times in the article. Once each in the lead, body of the article, and infobox is enough.
  • Per WP:See also, the See also section is usually reserved for links that do not otherwise appear in the article
  • There is one diambiguation link, to ABA - spell out abbreviations on first use, followed by the abbreviation so American Basketball Association (ABA)
  • Units should be given in both English and metric units - the {{convert}} template does a great job of doing this.
  • I would use the Time magazine article as a ref, not an external link
  • He sounds like a wonderful person, but the article needs to give a balanced treatment of his life - for example, he is described as an excellent basketball player, so why did he never play in the NBA? What sort of statistics did he have as a professional and college player?
  • 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
  • In the refs, p. is used for a single page and pp. is used for multiple pages - the refs now use pp. for both
  • Avoid words like curent / currently as articles can become out of date quickly. It is better to use things like "As of 2010..." or "since YEAR"

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 ><>°° 12:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Visakha Valley School

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article seems to be not on a neutral point of view and I don't know where to start for cleaning up. (See talk page for details).

Thanks, JL 09 q?c 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First thing I'd say is to find some references about the school. Does it have a website? That might have some information.
  • Second, take a look at a featured school article: at random, Amador Valley High School. Most good+ school articles have the same basic structure: they begin with the school's history, which may be split into further sections if necessary. The next section, "academics", discusses basic school life, and might include the number of students, the timings of the day, the subjects taught, awards won etc. Again, it can be split further into sections. Be careful not to put too much detail - it's not intended to be a school prospectus. The next section, "extra curricular activities" would focus on stuff that the school does that isn't academic, such as sports, music, clubs etc. Finally, if applicable, a "notable alumni" section could be added at the end.
  • Note that the structure is just a guide. You can add or take away as you like. With this article, it already has a history section, but needs copyediting. To iron out the neutrality issues, simply state the facts without a bias on the issue (e.g. don't use the word "excellent" or "great"). You can then add the other sections, using references.

Hope this was helpful. I edited the article a bit to remove some POV. Bye for now. Aiken ♫ 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the comments above, I suggest the following:

  • Look at WP:WPSCH/AG for a detailed guide on article structure, neutrality, and other guidelines for good school articles.
  • See WP:GA#Education for list of school articles that have achieved Good Article status. Any of them will be good examples. Dhaka Residential Model College is a non-US school article that may be particularly useful.
  • Removed the hoax tag, since I think it is inaccurate. But I added an unreferenced tag, which means that the article has no references at all. Other than expanding the article, adding citations to websites, news articles, or books are the first thing you should to do improve it.

Thanks for your work on the article and I look forward to your future improvements. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petitcodiac River

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm getting this article ready for an FAC, and as a result, I would highly appreciate a peer review to iron out the kinks. A copy edit has been requested as well, but I anticipate it to be complete before the PRand has been completed. Anyhow, thanks in advance, and I'll take any advice I can get! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References
  • When short-citing, please divide in General and Specific content, makes it easier to see where the repetitive references are from.
Lead
  • The lead should not have any references in them. If anything is not references later it should then be repeated in main.
    • This has been under debate. WP:LEADCITE gives (what I find to be) a vague explanation to proceed, and there have been recent discussions ([7], [8]) on reforming the current rules. I do not want to remove everything I've done if it is later decided to be a bad move, so I'll take it to FAC with citations; unless I'm misunderstanding the concept of the guideline.
  • tributaries, wl
    • I'm not familiar with PR lingo, but I assume it meant wiki-link. Done.
  • % -> percent
    • Eliminated a few instances, left for numerals > 10.
Lists
  • Why do we need to know where all the crossings are? Seems irrelevant.
    • Just following the example of Aliso Creek (Orange County).
      • IS it a FA and was the subject brought up in the FAC?
        • It is an FA, and I don't see any mention at the nomination. WP:RIVER also recommends the list.
Cultural references
  • These section are not encouraged, could it be deleted?
    • Done.
Extra

Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usher discography

[edit]
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has the potential to be a featured list, but I want to know from you guys if it is good enough, has it got any errors, mistakes, please let me know in your reviews, as i'm not 100% sure.

Thanks, Rayman95 (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a very quick look one thing sticks out like a sore thumb: the references are simply bare URLs. They need to be formatted, showing the titles of pages, authors, publishing dates and accessdates et cetera. See the how-to guide on citation templates for more.

Thanks for the advice, I'll see that it gets fixed. Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice job so far in improving the article, but it has a long way to go and is no way a potential featured list right now. WP:LEAD, it should only have four paragraphs. Featured singles positions unsourced, album appearances unsourced, music videos unsourced, soundtracks unsourced, promotional singles and other charted songs and unsourced, and the biggest problem, the references are all out of whack. Look at another featured discog such as Rihanna discography or something, and make sure you learn how to format refs well. Right now out of 73 refs, only the Allmusic and the cert sources are cited correctly. Good luck, happy editing! Candyo32 17:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive criticism, i'll add in more references and i'll try to improve its formatting Rayman95 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me your opinion on the article now, and tell me whether it's feature worthy please. I think i've fixed(with some help from Adabow) the refernces and filled in the missing ones, Thanks. Rayman95 (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NZ certs from the last few years can be found at [9], others can be found on the RIANZ website by manipulating the url (see the New Zealand entry at WP:GOODCHARTS). Also, as File:Usherraymond (300dpi).jpg is used as the main image in the Usher (entertainer) article, maybe use a different one in the discography. Have a look at Category:Usher_Raymond. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the image, i'm not finished yet but what do you think of the references so far?
The dates are a bit funny. Format using either '2010-08-20', '20 August 2010' or 'August 20, 2010'. Italics should only be used for works in print, such as magazines and newspapers (this may require you to use the publisher field in {{cite web}}, rather than the work field). The certifications references still need adjusting. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by certifications references still need adjusting, could you be more specific?Rayman95 (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the NZ certifications with direct URLs (note "Moving Mountains" also went gold in NZ, which I added).
  • Was "Confessions Part II" released as a double A-Side with "My Boo" in the UK? If so, specify this. If not, why are the chart peaks in a single cell?
  • Why do "U Don't Have to Call" and "Confessions Part II" have superscript numbers next to them?

Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm pretty sure they were released as dual singles, where would I specify this though, should I label them and put it in the note section under singles?
  • I'm not sure why they have super script numbers next to them, but I took them off.

Rayman95 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see any other problems with the article? Rayman95 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, but this article is still no way ready to go up for FL candidate. In the lead several things are not sourced such as Usher being the first artist to have a #1 single in three decades. Make sure tidbits of info in the lead are all sourced. The Notes part in the singles section is redundant because the "-" notes if it wasn't released in a certain territory. Album appearances, and soundtracks are unsourced. According to WP:BADCHARTS, Acharts should not be used if there is another available source for chartings. Also in the references several sources are italicized that should not be. Allmusic, Allmovie, swedishcharts.com, charts.org are just examples of sources that are not publications and should not be italicized in the refs. This discog still needs quite a bit more work, good luck! Candyo32 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Higgins

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want that the article reach GA status.

Thanks, Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Armbrust: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – This is not the easiest type of review for me to do, both because I know nothing about snooker and because I am much more familiar with FA/FL criteria than GA. However, I do have some suggestions that should improve the article's chances at a potential GAN:

  • The first thing I notice is that the lead is a little thin, and the paragraphs are quite short. Consider merging a couple of the current paras and adding some content; trying to ensure that all sections have some representation is a good way of accomplishing this.
  • Some uncited parts of the article will need to be dealt with before a nomination will have a chance to succeed. For instance, most of the World titles sub-section has no sources; neither does a quote by Clive Everton in Legacy.
  • Most of the sources look quite reasonable, but I see a couple that are problematic. First, references 33 and 41 are to YouTube, which is not usually considered a reliable source, not to mention the possibility of copyright infringement of the videos. Also, I see reference 46 goes to a blog. Is the author a journalist or snooker expert. If not, this likely isn't reliable either.
  • Several references are missing items like dates of publication and access dates, which should be provided. Also, would it be possible to get a page number for reference 25 (the Robert Bryne book)?
  • "Higgins is often credited to have brought the game of snooker to a wider audience and contributing to its peak in the eighties." Feels a little awkward upon reading it. Try switching "contributing" to "contributed" to fix it.
  • Early life: "However, he never made the title...". I don't understand this. Is being a jockey a title in England, or was there some event he wanted to win and never did? I have a feeling I'm losing something in translation; is this phrase common in Britain?
  • The section on his career feels very short. There's a paragraph on the world championships, with a longer Post-retirement section. Isn't there anything else that can be added, or sources to add with? For example, why was he disciplined in 1982–83? I find it odd that the section on his personal life is longer than the section on his career.
  • Post retirement: "these comebacks ending in a first-round defeat by Garry Hardiman and Joe Delaney respectively." Since there were two losses, I think "in first round defeats" would be better grammar.
  • In different sections, I see a few random formatting items of note, like out-of-order references (lead and Illness and death), references before punctuation (Outside snooker and Illness and death) and a space before references (Post retirement). I'm not sure whether or not GAN reviewers consider these things when looking at articles, but it wouldn't hurt to do them beforehand and leave the article in the best shape possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, there are a few disambiguation links as indicated by the checker in the toolbox; it would be nice to see these sorted out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 Comments:

  • Four consecutive sentences in lead start with "Higgins", the next 2 with "He".
  • Lead needs expanding to take account of some more of his life: it should be a brief biography itself. I don't think it gives a flavour of the man.
  • Throughout the article, lots of sentences start with "he" which makes the article a bit hard to read. Also, in several places, sentences could be merged; for example, ""He turned professional at the age of 22, winning the World Snooker Championship at his first attempt in 1972 against John Spencer. The match was won with a 37–32 scoreline.[14] Higgins, at 23, was the youngest winner of the title until Stephen Hendry's 1990 victory at the age of 21" could be changed to "Turning professional at the age of 22, Higgins won the Snooker World Championship at the first attempt in 1972, beating John Spencer 37-32. Aged 23, he remained the youngest winner of the title until the 21 year old Stephen Hendry in 1990."
  • All the career stuff should really go in the same section rather than bits being spread out all over the article.
  • The detail in the article is very uneven. Early life is too detailed, with information about his eating habits, but in World Titles, his entire career is covered in one paragraph, with no mention of his other wins, or his ups and downs as a player. Then, Post retirement gives lots of details of just a couple of tournaments. As far as possible, you should detail at least his tournament wins or runner up spots. Personally, I might be inclined to run through his results, for the World Championship at the least, although this may make it a little long. Certainly, a paragraph on each of his seasons is needed to make the article comprehensive, instead of a list of his wins at the end.
  • You need to give some references for the description of his playing style. The stuff about his volatile personality, bans and 1990 stuff, really belongs in the previous section, which should chronologically detail his career.
  • This is an article about a very important figure in snooker and I'm not sure it captures his importance or the effect he had on audiences. He is credited (rightly or wrongly) with popularising the sport and leading to its boom in the 80s. The article should have more on this.
  • Did the throat cancer actually kill him or was it his general poor health as a result of the cancer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth obtaining some of the books published about him and use those as they're likely to be more detailed. Or wait for one updated with his death. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Mauna Kea

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing Mauna Kea because I need a review in leiu of a WP:FAC run. ResMar 20:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Noloop

[edit]

The lead has a lot of interesting stuff, but it is too long. A lead should be a punchy intro and a roadmap to what follows, not a place to develop ideas. The middle two paragraphs should be shortened. I like the balance of aspects in the lead: an intro, a paragraph on geology, a paragraph on culture, and its modern importance in astronomy.

I've tried, and I knew this would be coming in reviews. I've looked at it from all sorts of angles, and I can't shorten it any without cutting its respective view of the article :/ ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“As such the volcano is currently dormant, as indicated by steeper shape, lower eruption rates, and differing lava types “ Doesn’t "dormant" mean zero eruption rate and zero lava?

Nope. That's extinct. Dormant simply means that it is not erupting, but will probably erupt again. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt “astronomical” is the right word: “The first to detect activity would be telescopes on Mauna Kea's summit, as they can detect the sensitive astronomical changes that would result from the volcano's swelling”

Changed to coordinate. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes me nervous that there is typically only one source per paragraph. Usually there is some controversy about something, even with a non-controversial subject. For example, the article says: “Ancient Hawaiians arrived on the island in between 25 BC and 125 CE” But then I follow the wikilink to Ancient Hawaiians and I’m told they arrived between AD.300-800--there’s not even any overlap in those two periods. So relying on just one source might not be fair to the reader. Also, don’t mix secular and Christian dating terms: BCE + CE or BC + AD.

While one source per para is not a problem (especially check out the source! they're the official managment papers for the 2000 plan!), this date deficency is highly disturbing. I've querried Viriditas on this. The base source is of an impecable standard, being part of the official 2000 managment plan papers from the University of Hawaii, so this is very strange. ResMar 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problems: “chiefss” “coursly soiled rock” “the results of which is Lake Waiau.” “...and is prevent on much of the volcano's slope.” “during past glacial period.” “Glacial moraines formed on the volcano formed approximatly” “its flanks has seen virtually no lava flows within that time” “out the lowest possible hazard rating of 9 “

All done. ResMar 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a start. I didn’t finish the article, because I felt I found enough for you to work on. It really needs a good copyedit.

It’s very thoroughly researched, and has a lot of information. Good luck! Noloop (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific suggestions regarding the lead:
  • 2nd paragraph. Delete this and everything after it: "The great height of Mauna Kea is due..." By "delete" I mean 1) make sure it is in the body of the article, and then 2) delete from lead.
  • 3rd paragraph. My recommended version: "In Hawaiian mythology the peaks of the island of Hawai?i were sacred. Being the highest, Mauna Kea was the most sacred of all, and a kapu allowed only high-ranking tribal chiefs to visit its peak. Ancient Hawaiians living on Mauna Kea depended on its forests for food, and a large adze quarry contained dense basalts used for tool making. The arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century was a turning point. Settlers brought cattle and sheep which became feral, damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. The basal forest was rapidly destroyed to make room for sugar plantations and residences." Again, make sure the material I omitted is in the body.
Just some thoughts. I think my version above is an improvement on the lead. Naturally, there are many other ways to improve it too. Noloop (talk) 02:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with this is that it elimenates all mention of geology and all mention of ecology. ResMar 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't eliminate anything from article. It takes detail out of the lead, where detail doesn't belong. Noloop (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it kind of does. The lines after "The great height of Mauna Kea is due primarily to its age" are the geo summary. Also, your replacement for the other para removes ecology, only saying "...damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. The basal forest was rapidly destroyed to make room for sugar plantations and residences." ResMar 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all of Geology, and

LIke I said, it doesn't eliminate anything. Move detail out of the lead, where detail doesn't belong. Don't eliminate it. Noloop (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iridia

[edit]
Lead
[edit]

I'm going to have a stab at cutting this down. See what you think.

Mauna Kea (pronounced /ˌmɔːnə ˈkeɪ.ə/ or /ˌmaʊnə ˈkeɪ.ə/ in English, [ˈmounə ˈkɛjə] in Hawaiian) is a dormant volcano on the island of Hawaiʻi. In Hawaiian, Mauna Kea means "white mountain":[1] it is usually snow-capped in winter.[2] It is also known as Mauna o Wakea, or "Mountain of (the deity) Wākea."[3]
Mauna Kea stands 4,205 m (13,796 ft) above sea level, making it the highest point in the state of Hawaii. However, a significant part of the mountain is underwater; if instead it is measured from its oceanic base, Mauna Kea is over 10,000 m (33,000 ft), significantly taller than Mount Everest. This great height is due to its age of around one million years. Mauna Kea's most active shield stage was hundreds of thousands of years ago; in its current postshield stage, its erupted lavas were more viscous and created a steeper profile. The late volcanism has given it a much rougher appearance than its neighboring volcanoes, added to by cinder cones, the decentralization of its rift zones, glaciation on its peak, and the weathering effects of the prevailing trade winds on its windward flank.
In Hawaiian mythology, the peaks of the island of Hawaiʻi were sacred, and Mauna Kea the most sacred of all. A kapu allowed only high-ranking tribal chiefs to visit its peak. Ancient Hawaiians lived on the slopes of Mauna Kea; its forests provided food, and its dense basalts were used in tool production at a large adze quarry. The arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century was a turning point. Settlers brought cattle and sheep which became feral, and deliberately introduced invasive species as game animals, damaging Mauna Kea's ecology. Mauna Kea can be ecologically divided into three sections: an alpine climate at its summit, a māmane–naio forest on its flanks, and an Acacia koa–ʻōhiʻa forest at its base (now mostly destroyed). In recent times, the state was required to eradicate all feral species on the mountain.
Mauna Kea's summit is one of the world's best sites for an astronomical observatory, due to its combination of high altitude, dry environment, and stable airflow. Since the creation of an access road in 1964, 13 telescopes, some among the largest in the world, have been constructed by 11 countries at the summit. Mauna Kea Observatory has since become a point of debate both ecologically and religiously. Studies are ongoing to determine its effect on the summit ecology, particularly following the discovery of the rare wēkiu bug. Culturally, the construction represents the threat of development on a summit that had once been considered untouchable.

Iridia (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll adapt it to the page, thanks. ResMar 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
[edit]
  • No full geological map in the Geology section? Strange.
  • Geology: Structure needs major alteration. Detailed descriptions of the physical features of the volcano should surely be integrated as part of a coherent history: there's a good amount of material, but it's not arranged to present a geological history of the volcano. Considerable repetition of statements such as 'the volcano will erupt again'. This should start with the origin of the volcano in the context of the other Big Island volcanics, and move towards the present, with a subsection for the glaciation. Future activity should have a more detailed explanation of the hazard assessment.
  • Native history: no mention of Poliʻahu?
  • Natives, native Hawaiians, indigenous Hawaiians, Hawaiians...could this please be given a consistent usage throughout?
  • Archaeology: the locations given should inform the content in History, not be separated out.
  • quarries, shrines, umbilical cords, canoes, houses...severe overlinking should be reduced.
  • Modern era: chronological flow. Should this be a summary-style of History of Big Island or some such? Just needs more continuity, it jumps around a bit.
  • The controversy in Māmane-Naio forest paragraph 3 needs more citation for the language used than a single end-of-paragraph reference.
  • Summit observatory: rename just Observatory (they aren't elsewhere on the mountain, unlike the Volcanic Observatory across the way)
  • "has a total light gathering power 60 times that of the Hubble Telescope" - that's rather an amusing way of wording it. Perhaps a discussion of the diversity of telescope types (by wavelength), and the presence of a large number of large-aperture telescopes, would be more useful.
  • With all the discussion of this many acres for telescopes, that many acres for reserve, the footprint actually occupied by telescopes should be mentioned.
  • Also, why does imperial come before metric here, when it's the other way around for the altitude measurements?
  • There should also be mention of the future construction plans on the mountain (Pan-STARRS and TMT specifically), especially given its controversy.
  • I agree with the comments on the talk page: the balance in Recreational significance needs modifying. It's a dangerous location, and unsupervised visitors shouldn't go past HP. The HP article itself has about the right balance, and should be a Main article link for that section.

Iridia (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated. ResMar 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Barcelona

[edit]
Previous peer review
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Fresh from a failed FAC due to need of a copyedit. A good copyedit is the only thing missing, so if a kind soul could fix the horrible grammar, please have at it. Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 11:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Review by ResMar[reply]

Lead
  • The team was founded in 1899 by a group of Swiss, English and Spanish men led by Joan Gamper. "Men" really sticks out. I suggest futbol players.
  • The club has become a Catalan institution, hence the motto "Més que un club" (More than a club). Institution? In what way?
  • That's taken directly from the book. I guess he means a "focal point for Catalan culture and nationalism" as another author refers to it, if that makes it clearer. Any suggestions?
How about "Symbol of Catalan culture"? ResMar 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: Lots of "won."
  • In 2009, Barcelona became the first club in Spain to win the treble of La Liga, Copa del Rey and Champions League. FC Barcelona also became the first football team ever to win six out of six competitions in a single year thus completing the sextuple,... You link "the treble", but not "the sextuple."
Birth of FC Barcelona
  • As a result Foot-Ball Club Barcelona was born. Akward. I'm tempted to change it to "Thus Foot-Ball Club Barcelona was born."
  • FC Barcelona quickly emerged as one of the leading clubs in Spain, competing in the Campeonato de Cataluña and the Copa del Rey. In 1902, the club won its first trophy,... How was it one of the leading clubs if it only just won its first trophy?
  • In 1902, the club won its first trophy, the Copa Macaya, and also played in the first Copa del Rey final, losing 2–1 to Bizcaya. The first, as in the very first game, or their first appearence there? Clarify.
  • In 1908, Joan Gamper became club president, taking over the presidency in order to save the club from folding. I thought they were successful.
  • From 1910 to 1914 Barcelona participated in the Pyrenees Cup, which consisted of the best teams of Languedoc, Midi and Aquitaine (Southern France), the Basque Country and Catalonia, which was considered the finest competition open for participation in that time. Again, akward, specifically whether you are seperating seperate competitors with the apostraphe, or they are competing togethor (ae. Midi and Aquitaine; togethor or against each other?).
Rivera, Republic and Civil War (1923–1957)
  • He 'reminded' them that they were only playing due to the 'generosity of the regime'. Real Madrid dominated the match, thrashing Barça 11–1. I feel Barça is not appropriate in this context.
Stabilization years
  • In 1978 Josep Lluís Núñez became the first elected president of FC Barcelona, and since then the members of Barcelona have elected the club president. What was the process for selection beforehand?
Tisk, reference issues. So be it. ResMar 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • His presidency was to last for 22 years and it deeply affected the image of Barcelona, as Núñez held to a strict policy regarding wages and discipline, letting players such as Maradona, Romario and Ronaldo go rather than meeting their demands. Wikilinks please.
  • They beat Sampdoria in both the 1989 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup final and the 1992 European Cup final at Wembley with a free kick goal from Dutch international Ronald Koeman.
  • I'm not sure what you mean here but have removed "with a free kick goal from Dutch international Ronald Koeman.
Support
  • However, during the Spanish Civil War itself, members of both clubs like Josep Sunyol and Rafael Sánchez Guerra suffered at the hands of Franco supporters. No ref.
  • The 1960s saw the rivalry reach the European stage when they met twice at the knock-out stages of the European Cup. Same.
  • The crest consist of the St George Cross in the upper-left corner, the Catalan flag beside it with the colours of Barcelona in the bottom. Same!
Nt: I did a thourough copyedit, but it was lost to loss of session data. Bummer...ResMar 00:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All taken care of unless noted. Shame with the session loss, but your help is truly appreciated!

Comments from Elcobbola (talk · contribs)

  • File:Franco0001.PNG - No publication date at the source; how can we confirm it was first published (not the same as creation) more than 20 years ago? Also, image needs to be PD in the US; what is its US status?
    • Added publication, which was 1969. Link to PD claim.
  • File:Barcelona bombing.jpg - Incorrect license. Not a "simple photograph" as contemplated by Italian law.
    • Could you explain what constitutes a simple photograph versus one of art?
  • File:Johan Cruijff golfer cropped.jpg - Per title and summary, this is a crop. Where is the original image from which it was cropped?
    • added original
  • File:Culers.jpg - Fails NFCC#1. "The origin of the nickname culé for a Barcelona supporter, is derived from the Catalan cul (English: arse), as the spectators at the first stadium, Camp de la Indústria, sat with their culs over the stand" is free prose and conveys the understanding perfectly well. Now moot, but there is also no detailed and specific rationale/purpose (NFCC#10C).
  • File:FCB second crest.jpg - No license (!!!); nonsense (nonapplicable) FoP sentence. Эlcobbola talk 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of FC Barcelona

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get some feedback on whether this is a good summary of the clubs history, should it be longer or shorter in certain areas? Should I write it a bit more different than the corresponding section on FC Barcelona? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Knowing nothing of the club's history except what this article tells me, I don't see anything missing. The intersection of sport and politics makes the article more interesting, I think, than a simple rundown of scores, championships, players and coaches would be. I don't think overlap with companion articles matters much as long as this article is internally coherent, which this one largely is. That said, the article could use yet another proofing. I noticed and fixed some small errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, and I note some others below. However, I don't think I caught them all, so another run-through by a native speaker of English who likes proofreading would be a good idea. Here are my other suggestions:

  • The lead is quite short for an article of this size. If you can imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can probably see what would make sense to add. Generally, the lead should summarize the whole article and include enough detail to make the article inviting. You'd like for a reader who reads the lead to think, "Gosh, this sounds interesting; I must read the rest".

Birth of FC Barcelona (1899–1922)

  • The head, "Birth of FC Barcelona (1899–1922)" would be better if shortened to "Birth (1899–1922)" to avoid repeating the article title.
  • "placed an advert in Los Deportes" - "Advert" is slang; "advertisement" would be better. Also, names of newspapers like Los Deportes should appear in italics.
  • "there has been different theories to the origin of those colours, but in Catalunia" - "There have been" rather than "there has been" since "theories" is plural. Also, should Catalunia be Catalonia?
  • "in order to save the club from folding" - "Folding" is slang. Would "disbanding" be better? Or "going out of business"?
  • "One of his main achievements was to help Barça acquire its own stadium" - Should Barça be explained here? It seems to be a nickname for Barcelona.
  • "For many fans participating in the club had less to do with the game itself and more with being a part of the clubs collective identity." - Insert a comma after "fans"? Also, "clubs" should be changed to the possessive, "club's".
  • "The match was against local side Terrassa, and was won 6–2." - Which team won?
  • "This saw the club's fortunes begin to improve on the field." - Maybe "After he was hired, the club's fortunes... "?

Rivera, Republic and Civil War (1923–1957)

  • "inspired by the heroic performance of the Barcelona keeper" - Should "keeper" be linked or explained? I assume it means "goalkeeper".
  • "Being dubbed the martyr of barcelonisme, the murder was a defining moment in the history of FC Barcelona and Catalan identity." - Suggestion: "He was dubbed the martyr of barcelonisme, and

his murder is seen as a defining moment... ".

  • "He 'reminded' them that they were only playing due to the 'generosity of the regime'." - The Manual of Style suggests using double quotes rather than single quotes in most situations. If these two quoted phrases are direct quotations, they need in-line citations to the source(s).

Núñez and the stabilization years (1978–2000)

  • "The group, identified with a left-wing separatism, repeatedly demanded the resignation of Núñez and openly defied through chants and banners on matches." - Openly defied whom or what?
  • "At the same time Barcelona experienced an eruption in skinheads" - Link or explain "skinheads"?
  • "the 1992 European Cup final at Wembley with a legendary free kick goal" - "Legendary" seems excessive.
  • "both causing fractions within the group and a sudden support for Núñez's presidency" - Maybe "which caused divisions within the group... "?

References

  • A bibliographic entry for a book should include the place of publication.

Images

  • File:Alberti002.jpg is an excellent image, but is the photographer really Nemo, who took the photo in 1978? If not, does someone else hold the copyright? If the licensing turns out to be OK, the image would look better on the left with Alberti looking into the page.
    • We have to assume good faith. Copyright issues is a real killer, so when I find a free pic on commons I really don't want to be dragged into it. A PfD would be the way. When I upload pictures it's only fair that I follow the rules, but researching images is a real pain. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VII Advent Children

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is one of the first film articles I have worked in, and I have various doubts about some sections such as the casting, the plot and if the official tie-ins section is adequate.

Thanks, Tintor2 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For most films, Rotten Tomatoes is a good indicator of critical reception, but based on only 6 reviews, it suffers from small sample size bias and ultimately doesn't really tell you anything about reception. Same for the other review aggregators. In this case, you might want to take a look at some of the reviews listed and incorporate them into the next paragraph where you detail specific reviewer comments (although that paragraph is looking a bit long too). If you can't fit them in comfortably, then just axe the review aggregators entirely since they don't provide useful data. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Removed aggregators. About the reviews, most of the ones shown in the reception section I got them from the aggregator site GameRankings. About adding reviews from Metacritic, I don't I should add the sites besides 1UP and IGN since I don't think those are WP:Reliable sources.Tintor2 (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to remove them entirely. I'll try to take a closer look at the article at some point soon. Thanks for stepping up and working on it. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • 1st para seems really listy. Try to zero in on key people and trim the rest. You might then have some more room to explain what FFVII is (optional).
  • 2nd para: "It takes place", no antecedent in the new paragraph. "and set" --> "and is set". 2nd sentence tries to convey too many ideas in one sentence, break it up. The release info in the second half of this para might be swapped with the CoFFVII info from the first para which could be expanded to give more background on the events of FFVII that led to this film.
  • "positive and mixed" choose one. "got relatively better reviews" got is too informal.
  • Plot
    • 1st sentence tries to do too much again.
    • "While going to meet the Turks, a group that performs operations with the megacorporation Shinra, who have a job for him, Cloud is attacked by three men, Kadaj, Loz, and Yazoo, who believe that he has hidden their "mother"" - break it up
    • "survived to the events of the original title" huh?
    • "but fails as he Cloud refuses and leaves"
    • 2nd para has a lot of passive voice
    • "shoots them, damaging them" - awkward
    • "in pursuit of them", also more passive voice and some grammar issues in this para
    • "Both prepare" who is both?
  • Production
    • Last 2 sentences of 1st para are a bit clunky and hard to understand
  • Has anyone copyedited the whole article? That might be the best immediate option. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm getting ready to nominate the article as a Featured Article candidate. The article has recently undergone major expansion and was recently promoted to Good Article status.

Thanks, KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-auto peer review: [10] T3h 1337 b0y 04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


General

  • In general, a very good effort at a top level summary article, which is difficult to do since its main job is to summarize and redirect for more information. It needs some work before it would be ready for FAC. Hopefully the comments which follow will help.
  • A good copyeditor could help the article, and you should enlist one if you plan to move forward with an FAC. The quality of the prose would likely be the main obstacle it would face there. The article is generally very well written, with minor glitches, but is not up to the level of polish that would be expected at a FAC. Examples include an idiosyncratic use of commas (or omission of same), and other issues like:
    • The breaking of the deal by Nintendo, was the result of the increasing financial problems  Done
    • However due to a strong opposition from a majority present (should be However, due to a strong opposition…)  Done
  • There are other similar and slightly odd constructions too numerous to list here, but that a good copyedit would quickly resolve. Try the volunteers at WP:PRV#General copyediting
  • While the article appears comprehensive to me, I am not an expert. Comparison to the FA Playstation 3 would be a good benchmark. I note that you have listed this at WP:VGPR as well. Hopefully the expert editors there can provide a more educated opinion.
  • Infamous, PSX and [Quore]] lead to disambiguations pages. You should edit them to point directly to the page you want.  Done
  • There are several dead links. Use the tool here to check them.  Done

Lead

  • The Lead could use a good rewrite. The lead should summarize the entire article, closely matching the relative weight of the topics the article discusses. I notice several omission here, like Controllers, Software, and Reception. A good rule of thumb is that each header should be mentioned in the lead in some way.
  • The infobox seems very lean compared to the FA Playstation 3. Could this one be similarly expanded?
  • the first "computer entertainment platform"… why is this quoted? Is it something someone said? If so, it should be sourced.  Done
  • “The PlayStation Network is a unified online service…” I do not know what that means. Can you explain (or delete) “unified”?  Done
  • “…a premium online service known as PlayStation Plus…” Does premium mean it costs money? Can you explain?  Done
  • Likewise, a brief description of motion gaming would help here.  Done
  • Citations always go after the punctuation. Note six is backwards here. Check for this throughout.  Done

History

  • I suspect that the image PlayStation_Prototype_Logos.png‎ would be challenged at FAC. I am not an image expert, but I can tell you that the fair-use rationale for logos such as this is frequently questioned and often disallowed. If you plan to take this to FAC, I would get an opinion from WP:MCQ or one of the editors who does a lot of image reviews at FAC, like user:elcobbola or user:Fasach Nua.
  • “…and would later be dubbed as "The Father of the PlayStation". By whom?  Done
  • “..who in response appointed Kutaragi with the responsibility of the continued development PlayStation project to rival Nintendo with his full support” This sentence does not read right. What is it trying to say?  Done
  • with Nintendo offering Sony a "non-gaming role". Again, who said so?
  • “was finally greenlit by Sony executives…” Is greenlit too jargon?  Done Greenlit in my knowledge is not too jargon Yousou (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consoles

  • For the main article hatnotes, combine them at the top of the section, like this {{main article | Article 1 | Article 2}} instead of interspersing them throughout the section
  • The images are very small. Don’t force the px size of the images. Let the reader’s preferences determine the image size.
  • the PlayStation, which took "9 years and 6 months since launch". You have to cite the quote. In general, you need to cite the quote right after the quoted passage, even if you repeat the citation for the rest of the sentence (as I suspect you meant to do here).
  • In the table the link to non-unified service is not intuitive. The link actually goes to Playstation 2 Online play (which does not seem to exist).  Done
  • Check for WP:OVERLINKing throughout. Sony, Sony Computer Entertainment, UMD, and flash memory are just a few examples of things that are linked more than once. It needs to be checked carefully.

Future

  • “UK video game magazine, Develop,” Magazine titles should be in italics.  Done

Other hardware

  • “The PocketStation was a miniature game console” Should not be bold. Later in the section, it should not be in italics, either.  Done

Online services

  • The images PSN logo color trans.png and Home logo.png might have problems too. See above. =
  • Life with PlayStation and other game/application titles like Infamous and LittleBigPlanet should be in italics.  Done
  • “Life with PlayStation is a Folding@home” Do not bold.  Done

Media

  • You should list the magazine in prose and not as bullets. See WP:EL.  Done
  • The image Kevin Butler.jpg almost certainly fails as fair use. And the press kit license requires sourcing to an actual press kit. This one is sourced to Facebook. This is very likely a copyright violation and should be deleted entirely.  Done
  • I have to question why the list of slogans is part of this article. It feels like trivia to me. If it must be included, it should have a separate list article that is linked from here.
  • The same for the Notable advertising campaigns. They feel egregious here.

Reception

  • The expansion tag should be addressed and removed. Surely in the sixteen year history of the platform we can find more critical commentary. Importantly, it should reflect the bad along with the good.

References

  • I am not an expert on video game sources, but can tell you that these kinds of sources are frequently challenged at FAC. For a flavor of that, what makes Edge Magazine, IGN.com, Engadget, Eurogamer, Gamespot, etc. , reliable sources?
  • To determine the reliability of a site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
  • Things like blogs (note 98 and 104, for example) are specifically NOT reliable sources in most cases.
  • The article relies very heavily on Sony sources and “enthusiast” websites. It would be improved through more extensive use of mainstream media sites. Surely there are books on the topic we can source to? What does Google books turn up, as a start?

External links

  • I would delete the links the Facebook and Twitter. See WP:EL  Done

I hope these few comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Kevin Butler.jpg is used in the article Kevin Butler (character). It may be fair use there. It is almost certainly not fair use here. In either case, the press kit license is suspect. An expert opinion would be valuable. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma (medicine)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is rated top quality but seems to be stuck at C class. What can I do to improve the article? Thanks!

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 03:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments. I'm not sure that people outside of medical profession (not to mention a single wikipedian) can tackle the subject. Recruitment of competent contributors is the main priority.

Another priority is to focus the article, starting with the definition. Right now the lead begins with: "Physical trauma refers to a physical injury that poses a threat to life or limb". But the article is about trauma in general, not just physical. The reader is confused: what if neither life nor limb are threatened? A broken clavicle does not threaten life or any of the limbs (at least in developed societies). And it's treated by trauma surgeons in a trauma ward. Why was it excluded? The line between injury and trauma must be explained very clearly. Note that different cultures and different jurisdictions have different definitions of trauma, injury, accident, incident, disability etc. Start with just one, well-researched environment and check everything against this system.

Example: the lead is sourced to the Trauma Manual printed in the U.S. This roughly sets the system of definitions. But the chart of "incidence of accidents" is based on a Danish source. Their underlying criteria of an accident may be completely different from the U.S. practice. So someone must reconcile Danish and American sources and, when necessary, explain the difference in the caption.

Cheers, East of Borschov 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) I mixed the Trauma Manual and the Taber's Medical Dictionary definitions and came to the conclusion of "Physical trauma refers to a physical injury that poses a threat to life or limb". I believe they meant that if a limb could be threatened if not treated, should add that it is only a threat if not treated? 2) Do you know where I could acquire information to replace the Danish table? I brought it up on the talk page and never got a proper response. Peter.C • talk 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Model 27 and 127

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi y'all, I've put down everything I can think of or find about the subject, and now I'd enjoy hearing what you think about it. Thank you! Txinviolet (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Here are some initial thoughts on a first-pass reading.
    • The article needs some clean-up to be consistent with WP:MOS, especially WP:MOS#Section_headings.
    • There are many sections in this article that have no citations, and in some cases they read like they are copied verbatim from your sources. The phrase "We have already mentioned Allen B. Wilson, inventor of the vibrating shuttle, and D'Arcy Porter and George W. Baker, inventors of the White Sewing Machine Company machine that made successful use of it...." sounds suspiciously like it is copied from something else. If that's not the case, be sure to avoid the use of "we", "this article", and other similar non-encyclopedic phrasing.
    • In the Identification Guide section, the phrasing "The following identification guide will help you decide which machine you have..." reads like a how-to guide, not an encyclopedia. I would suggest changing the heading to just "Identification", and reword to be more encyclopedic. Avoid using "you" and "your". This section also needs citations.
    • The Vibrating Shuttle section needs citations.
    • I would suggest that this article is about the Singer machine, not the vibrating shuttle, and the info on the invention of the vibrating shuttle is digressive since Singer did not invent it. You might make a separate article on the vibrating shuttle, summarized here with a main article link.
    • The Power section needs citations throughout.
    • - PKM (talk)

Thank you PKM, working on it now... Txinviolet (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of your suggestions are now implemented. Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Txinviolet (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Rename the section "Design credit" as History and make it the first major section, including any necessary sub-sections.
  • Call the second section "Technical details" or some such, and state all the pertinent features. Try to state as many pertinent details as possible in prose ie, remove some of the description from the tops of the tables and put it into paragraphs.
  • With each technical detail that is described, add (See gallery/table below). This can be turned into a hotlink which will jump to the appropriate gallery or table, if your reader wishes to do so.
  • Technical details should include the "Identification" section.
  • Don't overstate matters. Vintage Singer sewing machines all look alike implies that they literally cannot be told apart. I have not the slightest doubt that you can tell them apart very easily!
  • Don't talk to your reader. If this was a custom manual it would be find to say "This guide will help you decide which machine you have..." but this is an ancyclopedia and must simply state facts. Don't presume your reader owns a machine and wants to identify it. This section needs entirely rewriting. Something like:
While most vintage Singer Sewing machines have (such and such similarities), the Model 27 and Model 127 can be identified by (so and so differences)
  • Power, treadle, bobbin winder etc are all subheadings to "Technical details" (Any info that has crept in which is of an historical nature needs putting up above.
  • Group the tables and galleries at the end of the article, giving each a simple heading.
Hope that this is helpful! Amandajm (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Amandajm, you and PKM have given me a lot of work to do! Txinviolet (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of your suggestions are now implemented, with the exception of some of the re-sectioning advice, about which I have different opinions. :) Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. Txinviolet (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm going to try and get this article up to FA standard, obviously it is nowhere near that standard at the moment, although with some hard work I feel I can achieve my goal of finally getting this article to FA, after a number of years, any feedback is welcome

Thanks, NapHit (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mr.Kennedy1: Hi, this is my first time doing this so obviously it will not be very good advice but i'll try my best. I watch alot of football so I should know a bit about how to improve it. Hopefully.

Infobox: The nickname should be italicized (excuse the spelling).

Lead: I think the first paragraph of the lead is not very suitable as it just lists how many cups and league titles they have, you should focus more on the foundation of the club in the first paragraph (WP:LEAD).

Colours and crest: You should put a caption in the picture for current kit.

Training ground: This section is far too short, it should be either expanded or merged with another section.

Overall: I think this is article isn't far from FA status because all it has is small problems and is full of good references and content.

I have requested PR on Phil Taylor. It would be great if you could review it (Wikipedia:Peer_review#Phil_Taylor). Mr.Kennedy1 talk 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jmorrison230582

[edit]

Hello. I've already made some changes to the article where I can help from my own (limited) knowledge.

  • I know its all factually accurate, but I'm not a fan of the way the "doubles and trebles" section is presented. I would prefer it if the entries with "double of such and such - as part of such, such and such treble" were removed, with perhaps a footnote explaining that a "double" of such and such was won as part of each treble. With the layout as it is this section (which is borderline original research) is taking up more space than the actual list of honours, which can't be right. Another concern with this is that it is unreferenced at present. That also applies to the basic list of honours. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the ownership section is guilty of recentism, which the history section is admirably not. There is possibly too much detail about the present regime - perhaps a daughter article should be considered, similar to Arsenal - with at least some history of the previous ownerships of the club, particularly if they had some sort of significant influence (good or bad) on the club's direction. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to rectify this, but there is surprisingly little information about the history of the ownership of Liverpool, anyway I've had a bash at it, see what you think. NapHit (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine as far as I'm concerned. I have made one or two tweaks myself to pare down some of the recent stuff. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fridtjof Nansen

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Nansen was one of the most significant European figures of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. An innovative scientist in several disciplines, he first won international renown as a pioneer of modern Arctic exploration, though these exploits were perhaps transcended by his work for refugees in the 1920s, on behalf of the League of Nations. I have been expanding this article for some time, and have had useful help from a couple of Norwegian editors. The article now needs a full review; any suggestions as to how it might be further improved will be gratefully received. I hope that in due course this will become a featured article, and that eventually it may be TFA on an appropriate date. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I'm happy to say that after a close reading, I could find little to grumble about. This is a fascinating account, beautifully written, exceptionally well-illustrated, and excellent in every way. (Side note: I was pleased to see Ealdgyth's photo of Fram as well as Ruhrfisch's marvelous maps.) I will be glad to support when this goes to FAC. Here is a paltry list of quibbles:

Ancestry

  • On my computer screen, the 19th Christiana image displaces the "Early life" subhead. Would the image be better on the right?
    I've moved the image up in the section. I don't want to swithch it to the right, because that would spoil my zig-zag (yes, I ought to get out more). The image is there mainly for decoration, but I'd like to keep it if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Student and adventurer

  • "His samples also demonstrated that the Gulf Stream flows beneath a colder layer of upper water." - "Upper water" sounds a bit odd. Maybe "an upper layer of colder water"?
    I agree my version was inelegant. The source refers to a cold layer of "surface water", so I've amended to that. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Nansen did not return to the university." - Would it be useful to explain in this paragraph in what sense he did not return since the paper described in the last sentence of the paragraph mentions his doctorate? The curatorship apparently counted as part of his formal degree work at the university, but the paragraph does not say this explicitly. That he completed his doctorate at the University of Christiana becomes clear later, in the "Planning" section, but maybe something in this paragraph would be useful too.
    This is a bit tricky. Bergen Museum is entirely separate from the University of Christiania; Nansen ceased fromal study at the university when he went to Bergen. Instead, he studied informally with Hansen and Daniellsen at Bergen, not on the basis of a set curriculum. There's no evidence that he took a bachelor's degree. Nevertheless, in the scholarly community the standing of figures such as Hansen and Danillssen was such that the university was prepared to accept Nansen's doctoral thesis. Whether such an arrangement would be accepted now I don't know - particularly in an English university where procedures are rather inflexible. I will add a liile more explanatory text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

  • "Both had set out from Disko Bay on the western coast, and had travelled about 160 kilometres (100 mi) eastward before turning back." - I couldn't help but wonder here how far it was from Disko Bay to their intended turn-around point on the east coast.
    Neither was attempting a west-east crossing, they were merely investigating the interior. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition

  • "believed would offer a route up on to the icecap" - Should "onto" be one word, or is this a BE, AE difference? If proper BE, never mind.
    "onto" is sometimes used in BE, but purists (i.e. pedants) like me who had classical educations tend to avoid it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interlude and marriage

  • "Nansen accepted the position of Curator of the University of Christiania's zoology collection" - Lower-case "curator"?
    Yes.
  • "the University was satisfied by the association" - Lower-case "university"?
    Yes

Oceanographer and traveller

  • "Biographer Roland Huntford had asserted that Nansen and Kathleen Scott enjoyed a brief love affair." - Should that be "has asserted"?
    Yes

That's all I could find. I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your swift, helpful and encouraging response to my review request. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me. As requested, here are some very nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • The German Wikipedia does not allow fair use images, so all its images should be free. There are some in the German article on Nansen not used here - not sure if they would be useful or not, but thought I would make you aware of them.
    I had looked here - the "Nansen in old age" images comes from the German article. Others are used in the main Fram expdition article. I don't particularly see a need for others, but I'm always open to suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had not bothered to read the captions and saw the picture of him on skis in front of Jackson's cabin. Not realizing it was from the Fram expedition, I thought it could be used in the section where his youthful prowess on skis was described, but do not think it would work there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give the years of the Fram expedition in the lead - most of the other major events in his life in the lead have years.
    Done
  • Since he earned his doctorate, I would mention that in the lead (not just studied at university)
    See my response to Finetooth, above. Nansen's relationship to the University of Christiania was unorthodox; he began his studies there, but his main place of study was the Bergen Museum. The Univ. of Christiania accepted his doctoral thesis although he had not prepared it under the university's aegis. I have slightly altered the wording, to try and make this point clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your call, but I think most articles about people who earned a doctorate mention that fact (the doctorate). I realize it is difficult to summarize easily in the lead though. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be better to say whatever the university name was when Nansen attended it? He began his studies at the university in Christiania early in 1881.[10] Since University of Christiana is used later (in the Greenland Crossing section), I think it would be clearer here (could add the current name after)
    This has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link seal hunting in Before sealing started, Nansen concentrated on his scientific work.[12]?
    As "sealer" has been linked (to seal hunting) in the previous sentence, is a second link on "sealing" really necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sorry I missed that. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100 miles in the caption needs km too Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, whose 1883 expedition had penetrated 100 miles into the Greenland icecap Actually kilometres should be first to be consistent with the rest of the article.
    Done
  • Northernmost known extremity? On 31 May, by Nansen's calculations, they were only 50 nautical miles (93 km; 58 mi) from Cape Fligely, the northern known extremity of Franz Josef Land.[71]
    Altered per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review so far. I'll look forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continued

  • Add a comma? bruzzi had consulted him, as had the Belgian Adrien de Gerlache[,] each of whom took expeditions to the Antarctic.[96]
  • Should son or daughter be added for Irmelin (assume a daughter) and Odd (though he is linked) The other three children are identified as son or daughter
  • I think it might help to indicate that King Oscar remained king of Sweden This was held on 13 August 1905 and resulted in an overwhelming vote for separation, at which point King Oscar relinquished the crown of Norway.
  • Is anything known of the cause of his wife Eva's death?
  • It really looks good to me - I did not find anything else to correct. Please let me know when this is at FAC.

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 ><>°° 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more Although there is a dab note and link at top, the article does not mention the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate or the ship named for him in Legacy. Seems like it should. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a line to the Legacy section. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have also dealt with the last few points, above. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt comments Here are a few comments. I did not find much, for such a long article.

  • Lede
Second sentence. Just a bit too long I think, nice to split it.
  • It doesn't split readily, but I've shortened it
Is it worth a few words to mention the office also won the Nobel Peace Prize in lede?
  • OK, done
  • Ancestry
"burgomeister" Surely since he's Danish it should be "borgmester" as a pipe?
  • Good point. The sources use the anglicized "burgomaster", but your suggestion is elegant, and I've adopted it. If anyone at FAC objects I will refer them to you.
"Supreme Court of Norway" wl
  • Done
Is it possible that "reporter" is short for "reporter of decisions"?
  • I'd say almost certainly yes, though the sources I have don't explain the role in this way. However, I have tweaked the footnote to work in your link.
  • Early life
"Meantime he had started school," I guess it is conventional to start the paragraph by naming who you are talking about. It is also a bit odd to start a paragraph with "meantime" which refers to something else by definition, which in this case is in the prior paragraph ...
  • Reworded (simplified)
  • Student and adventurer. I really don't have anything. You are certainly writing dramatically! Wonder if it will be commented on at FAC.
  • Doesn't seem to be particularly dramatic, but I made a slight tweak to avoid "rooted in his mind".
  • Crossing of Greenland
"on the basis of a small party of six". Perhaps shorten to "for a small party of six".
"plenty of" You are writing in a slightly more informal way than usual, but this raised my eyebrows a bit.
" Telemark, but his approaches were rebuffed." This feels a bit odd. Telemark is a region. It is rather like saying "attempted to recruit from Cornwall, but his approaches were rebuffed." Do regions such as Telemark rebuff?
  • Done all the above.
  • Interlude
"the Prince of Wales and future King Edward VII" Gee, I know he was a big guy, but surely there weren't two of him! Suggest rephrase.
" The couple had met at the skiing resort of Frognerseteren, some years previously, " Perhaps "The couple had met some years previously at the ..."
  • Given that Nansen first saw his bride topsy turvy in the snow, you might wan to say something like "Despite the circumstances of their meeting, Eva was an accomplished skier ..."
  • All the above done
  • Fram
" begun to form in Nansen's mind" This is the third time we have been informed of what is going on in Nansen's mind. You might want to mix things up a bit.
  • Agreed. I have reworded appropriately.
"In the approximate location of Jeannette's sinking the ship would enter the ice, and then drift with the current ..." This sentence needs work.
  • Reworded
" Using some of the hardest ..." This sentence is working too hard. I'd divide it.
"Hjalmar Johansen, the party's dog-driving expert," We have very recently met Johansen and his canine expertise. Suggest no need to reintroduce him in such detail.
  • Above items fixed
"they had been killing the weakest regularly since 24 April, to feed the others." Dare I ask who ate the last dog?
  • No idea. Probably had half each.
  • National figure
There seems to be some discrepancy about Nansen going to talk with Prince Charles of Denmark Body: "ichelsen sent Nansen to Copenhagen on a secret mission to persuade Charles to accept the Norwegian throne.[107] Nansen was successful" Lede: " and was largely responsible for persuading Prince Charles of Denmark to accept the throne of the newly-independent Norway." It seems to me that the lede gives Nansen a greater role than the body.
  • Altered lead wording to "was instrumental in"
"diplomatic duties hard to bear." You might want to say why. I can guess but ...
  • He found them frivolous and boring. I've added that.
"This reflected the general character" What is "This"? You are discussing two different things in the previous sentence.
"thence by the Trans-Siberian Railway" Perhaps "then traveled by the ..."
" a League of Nations, able to resolve disputes between nations by peaceful means" Might want to rephrase this, as the problem with the L of N is that they were not able to resolve such disputes! i know you are not addressing that point, but the informed reader will likely think that.
"Despite his pleas, Russia's revolutionary government was feared and distrusted internationally," This makes it sound like Nansen was trying to make Russia's government not be feared and distrusted internationally.
  • These two points addressed
"Among the more distinguished holders of Nansen passports were the artist Marc Chagall, the composer Igor Stravinsky, and the dancer Anna Pavlova." Was this before they became distinguished? If so, I'd throw a mention that it was prior to their fame.
  • No, they were all long-established figures of international repute by the 1920s.
" Despite this failure his name remains revered among the Armenian people." Hyperbole?
  • It's what the source says, but I've moderated it a little.
  • Death and legacy
"Nansen's daughter recorded ..." He had two, didn't he?
  • Well spotted, amended.

That's all I have. Well written as always, though once or twice, as I indicated, the tone seemed a little odd. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this review. As you see. I have adopted pretty well all your suggestions and the article is the better for it. It will lie here for another week, because after Friday I'm away for the following six days & would be unable to defend the article at FAC. Perhaps further helpful comments will transpire. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message: I am away from Wikipedia until 26 or 27 August. I am leaving this review open and will deal with any additional comments on my return. Many thanks again to all who have contributed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture in the United Kingdom

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because rather to my surprise, it failed a GAN, and I'd like to know whether that decision was justified.

Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 17:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you fixed the article based on the issues raised? I think some were reasonable, like the use of more modern sources, and clearer structure. In the reviewer's opinion, at least one of the GA criteria were not met, so it's acceptable that it failed. Knowing nothing about the subject, it might be useful to model the article on a similar one that has been rated GA or higher. I can't find an example, but I'm sure you can find one. Aiken ♫ 17:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't amended the article at all. My immediate reaction was that I thought the reviewer was entirely wrong in every respect. I felt the sourcing was appropriate (sure, there's a source from 1949, but there are plenty of others from the 21st century; and the things I've used from the 1949 source are still true. The country's soil still dates back to the last ice age, and that hasn't changed in the last 70 years...) and I thought the article's structure was perfectly easy to follow. On seeing that GA review, I assumed it resulted from the reviewer's inexperience, that being the first GA review he'd ever done, so rather than jump in and do a whole lot of work revamping the article, I thought I'd ask for a fresh view from a third party.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with the GA reviewer or asking for a review of his review—I'm asking for a completely fresh assessment.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: The prose generally seems fine; the individual sentences and paragraphs make sense and are easy to read. However, I think the article would be much stronger if re-organized chronologically and trimmed in places. Here are a few suggestions:

  • The article begins like a news story, focused on the early 21st century, even though the article title suggests something much more broad. The "History" section is not mentioned in the lead, which is surprising, and is buried deep in the article. Rather than starting with contemporary issues, I'd think about re-organizing the article chronologically and moving the "History" section to the top, just beneath the lead.
  • Even though the U.K. did not technically exist before 1707, the land certainly did. I would suggest expanding the "History" section backwards to include a brief summary of earlier agriculture, including the earliest forms. When did farming begin in this region?
  • Bits of history appear here and there in other sections. An example from the "Land reclamation" subsection is "In Britain the process of converting virgin land to farms has been going on for at least four thousand years. Larger-scale attempts to reclaim land have been in hand since the Stuart era, particularly between 1760 and 1860 and particularly in the Fen district." I would suggest moving material like this to the "History" section in a way that flows naturally.
  • Beneath the "History" section, the article could logically proceed to "Current issues", which perhaps might better be called "Twenty-first century issues". Under this general heading, "Overview", which is really an overview of certain aspects of contemporary agriculture in the U.K., could become a subhead, followed by "Organic farming", "Biofuel", and so on.
  • I would move the general information about agriculture in the "Land", "Arable farming", and "Pastoral farming" to last place in the article and shorten it partly by moving the history bits to the "History" section and eliminating some of the subsections, and by tightening the prose. For example, I'm not sure the subsections "Manure", "Nitrogen", "Phosphates", and "Potash" belong in this article since they are not specific to the U.K. The sentence (with links), "It is traditionally fertilised with manure, nitrogen, phosphates, and potash" is enough. In addition, I'd look for sentences that don't add information that readers are not already aware of; for example, I'm not sure it's necessary to tell readers in the "Diseases" subsection that "High-profile diseases tend to be animal borne, especially those that can spread to humans. Outbreaks of these typically cause international headlines and widespread concern."
  • The article has way too many extremely short subsections. Through one process or another (expansion, deletion, merger) these should be altered to make the article less choppy.
  • After re-organizing the article along the lines above (or something like it), I'd re-write the lead as a true summary of the main text. The existing lead does not meet the guidelines of WP:LEAD.

This is not a complete line-by-line review by any means, but I hope these general suggestions will prove helpful. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Crusade

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed First Crusade for peer review because I would like to have comments on this article before I take it to FAC. The article looks much better than when it was demoted from FA, so any further suggestions for improvement of this article would be welcome and appreciated.

Thanks, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikilinking could be improved, but is minor and I will work on that.
  • This sentence strikes me as inane: "Generally, subsequent historians have either followed Erdmann, with further expansions upon his thesis, or rejected it." Are there really any other options other than following him or rejecting him? (from Historiography section)
  • "The motives of the nobility are somewhat clearer than those of the peasants; greed was apparently not a major factor. It is commonly assumed, for example by Runciman as mentioned above, that only younger members of a family went on crusade, looking for wealth and adventure elsewhere, as they had no prospects for advancement at home. Riley-Smith has shown that this was not always the case." Citations on these specific sentences would be nice, though there are cites on examples later in the paragraph. (from Recruitment)
  • Stylistically, I find that having a section with one sub-section to be stylistically poor. I would raise "Recruitment" to section level; and either do the same for "Attacks on Jews in the Rhineland", or just remove that heading so that it is seamlessly part of "People's Crusade". carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of spells in Harry Potter

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I believe that this article has good content, length, etc. It just needs a few more tweaks. If the rest of Wikipedia feels the same way, then it's on its way to a featured list nomination. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 01:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 11:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a fundamental problem with sources. Referring to a quiz in the BBC is unacceptable. Most of the BBC sources seem to be entertainment for kids. This will have a hard time at the FLC I'm afraid. Also use a proper template, e.g. {cite web} for internet ' references, don't leave bare URLs as " http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/docs/jkrtrialday1.txt."
  • Go through each of the sources and see if you think they will pass scrutiny and meet WP:RS.
  • To be honest, the whole list seems a) incomplete or b) original research.

Comment Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Herb?

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I helped improve it to GA status and am wondering if anything more is needed before nominating it as a Featured Article Candidate.

Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Interesting, but needs a lot of prose attention if it is to pass FAC. I recommend a thorough copyedit from an uninvolved editor (easier said than done, I know). I hope tese suggestion are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose
    • Rather than just saying: "...in 1985 and 1986", the sentence would look more complete with "...that ran in 1985 and 1986".
    • "They called on fans..." To what, or "whom", does "they" refer?
    • Repetion such as "...the promotion. The promotion..." should be avoided.
    • "...the last campaign that the J. Walter Thompson firm was hired to design for Burger King." Rather clumsy. JWT should be described as an "agency" rather than a "firm". "Hired to design" is unnecessarily wordy: I suggest "...the last campaign that the J. Walter Thompson agency designed for Burger King".
    • "When the commercials were created, Burger King was suffering due to their marketing efforts." I take it you mean that before the commercials were created, Burger King was suffering...etc. But you need to be more specific: how was Burger King suffering? Do you mean Burger King's sales were suffering? If so, say so. And "due to their marketing efforts" is not very informative. I would say "suffering from poor marketing".
    • Suggest you begin the following sentence: "The new promotion was designed to counter the successful marketing efforts of..."
    • "which was" → "who were"
    • No need to specify "US" dollars. "$80 to 100 million" looks awkward and would be better as "80 to 100 million dollars"
    • "and Wendy's" → "and of Wendy's"
    • "Donald Dempsey, J. Walter Thompson's Executive Vice President of Marketing..." Maybe just "Thompson's" here."
    • "Everyone in the restaurant when Herb was discovered was also entered into a draw for the promotion's grand prize of $1 million." Perhaps: "All the customers in the restaurant when Herb was discovered would also be entered..." etc
  • General
    • Neither of the first two paragraphs of the "Reception" section are to do with the campaign's reception. Perhaps the section heading should be broadened.
    • Ref 12 (The Wrestlecrap Book of Lists): Is this a high quality encyclopedic source?
    • Ref 14: Does the NYT article have a title?
    • The nature of the source described in ref 19 is unclear.

If possible, please help us be reviewing one of the items in the WP:PR backlog. We are very short of reviewers at the moment, and any assistance would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Up

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it easily can pass the featured list candidature, but the first criteria (Prose. It features professional standards of writing.) is always a problem in my edits, because I am not a native speaker of English. Any comment is welcome. Thank you TbhotchTalk C. 03:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it possible to frame the title so that it is clear that "Up" refers to a film? The word is so commonplace, and the film is not so universally known that the meaning, as it stands, is obvious. Possible ways of doing this: italicize Up? or add (film) to the title?

Actually it is in italics (Up is a 2009 computer-animated film), and add something like "The film Up is a 2009 computer-animated movie" would be fine, but I'm basing in the WALL-E and Ratatouille (film) accolades, so I don't know if it is a rule. TbhotchTalk C. 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the Wikipedia article for the film is Up (2009 film). As there are other films called Up, it is essential that the right film is represented in this list's title. Therefore move to "List of accolades received by Up (2009 film)". Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The (2009 film) is for distinguish pages, if the List of accolades received by Up exist, it should be moved, but only won an Academy Award and a Jury Prize, while the other film is Up!, so its own page should be List of accolades received by Up!. Actually, the List of accolades received by Avatar is not called List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film). TbhotchTalk C. 03:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This film certainly won an impressive batch of awards. The table looks good. There are no dabs, no dead links. References look good. The image license has a dead link to the original Flickr image; that would make me nervous if I were the main contributor, but it may be OK since a reviewer apparently checked it when the url still worked. I have a few suggestions about the prose in the lead, as follows:

  • "The film premiered on May 29, 2009, in North America, and opened the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, becoming the first animated and 3D film to do so." - This might seem like a minor quibble, but it was the only animated 3D film to open the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, so it must have been the first. I think what you actually mean is that it was the first animated 3D film to ever open the Cannes Festival. Suggestion: "The film, which premiered on May 29, 2009, in North America, became the first animated 3D film to open the Cannes Film Festival."
  • "The movie was released with both critical acclaim and box office success, opening in 3,766 theaters domestically, debuting at number one with $68,108,790 dollars, and grossing $731,342,724 worldwide.[3] and receiving the Golden Tomato, from the website Rotten Tomatoes, for highest rating feature in 2009,[4] with an approval of 98% from film critics, based on 259 reviews." - Too complex. Split into two separate sentences?
  • "It is the second fully animated film to be nominated for Best Picture, the other being Beauty and the Beast,[6] and also become the third consecutive Pixar film to win the Academy Award for Animated Feature, after Ratatouille and WALL-E." - Split this one too? Suggestion: "It is the second fully animated film to be nominated for Best Picture; the other was Beauty and the Beast.[6] Up also was the third consecutive Pixar film to win the Academy Award for Animated Feature, after Ratatouille and WALL-E."
  • The second paragraph gets a bit heavy with detail toward the end. "Rivera received the Motion Pictures Motion Picture Producer of the Year Award, for Animated Theatrical Motion Pictures, given by the Producers Guild of America, while Docter and Peterson were honored by the British Academy Film Awards with the BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film, and Giacchino the BAFTA Award for Best Film Music." Would this be better if trimmed somewhat to shorten the long string of nouns starting with capital letters? Maybe something like: "Rivera received a Producer of the Year award from Producers Guild of America, while Docter, Peterson, and Giacchino won British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) awards for their work on the film"?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. TbhotchTalk C. 06:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Masia

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The fabled academy of Barcelona. I took it from this to it's current state, and I belive it's really good, but it needs some help from a native Englishman.

Thanks, Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jappalang

History

  • Jose Guardiola
    Why do we suddenly jump from Tort to Guardiola? How is coaching Barca's first team relevant to the youth academy? The chronology of his involvement seems scattered to me; why are we going into his first team details and such here?
  • How is Hernández supposed to "fill" Guardiolas role when they are playing together? Was he a substitute or understudy to Guardiolas or what?
  • "... Cryuff's management ..."
    Manager of what (team or academy)? When did this happen?
  • History seems a bit too detailed; some information should probably be moved to other sections.
  • It also seems to be victim to recentism, there is no mention or details of the academy from 1979 to 2007.

Organisation

  • What is the point of Xavi's quote?

Philosophy

  • This is like a bunch of quotes; I am not really certain what concrete second-hand interpretation is presented here if any. In other words, is there any evidence or agreement by outside parties (not involved with Barca) that these philosophies are in force at La Masia?

Impact

  • What is the Ballon d'Or or its significance? Make this clear to readers (through a brief explanation); do not expect them to click a link just to find out.
  • The source provided for the record, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2010/0709/1224274347554.html, only backs up Iniesta and Pedro as La Masia's graduates; where is the source for the others?
    • This is the only information I checked the source to verify against, so other reviewers might like to check the other sources.
      • I believe it is stated further down in the article.

Alumni

  • I am not going to get embroiled into the whole flag things again, so be prepared to defend why you should have flags here (especially why each club should have a flag) if you are going to bring this to higher levels of evaluation.
    • Removed

Images

The article seems quite bare bones, lacking the first 28 years of its history. It seems to me the points are not well-organised (scattered) or not fleshed out. That aside, it could be that the article needs a heavy rewrite to bring its idea across (from the copyright and peer review request) and I was not intuitive enough to capture the gist of the messages. I did what I could, but someone could very likely do a better job. Jappalang (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Steinbrenner

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has a ton of fantastic information and may soon qualify for featured article candidacy. However, I would like to have some members look it over first to point out what they think could be improved.

Thanks, Alex (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Steinbrenner is in the news lately because of his recent death, and it would be good to have a good article about him. The existing article does, as you say, contain a lot of information, but much is unsourced, and the organization leaves much to be desired. With a lot of work, it might become GA or even someday FA, but it is nowhere near GA yet. Here are some suggestions for improvement:

  • Generally, an article should be free of major clean-up tags before being considered ready for peer review. The existing article has two major tags.
  • Much of the article lacks sourcing. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as any claim that has been questioned or is apt to be questioned, any direct quote, and every set of statistics.
  • The "In the media" section is essentially a list of trivia. I'd suggest shrinking this to a single paragraph that mentions only the most important items and reduces the rest to "among others" or words to that effect.
  • The "Seinfeld caricature" section is also about trivial matters. I would mention it only briefly, probably as part of the single paragraph mentioned above.
  • I think a chronological structure would make more sense than the existing one. The article begins with a chronological arrangement but doesn't stick to it, going forwards for while, then backwards from 1991 to 1981 to 1978, then forwards again. Most of the items in the "Honors" section could be placed within a chronological structure, and such things as buildings named after Steinbrenner could be merged with the "Death" section to form a "Death and legacy" section.
  • Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed and will need to be fixed.
  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead is quite short and doesn't do justice to the full article. WP:LEAD has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Robinson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to turn this into a Good Article, so I'd appreciate any feedback.

Thanks, Aiken ♫ 15:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1
General

  • Lots of sentences start with "In XXXX," or with "Robinson". It would be better to have some more variety.
  • Many details are sparse in the article, and it needs quite a lot of expansion: there are several very short sections and short paragraphs.
  • Refs seem fine except ref 8 is a dead link and 11 and 19 are redirects.

Early life

  • Why is the Bullingdon Club notorious?
  • The crash needs a reference and some more details would be good.
  • "severely burned" seems to be a quote, so it needs attribution.
  • "Brian Redhead later encouraged Robinson's career in political journalism, giving him a copy of Tony Benn's Arguments for Socialism for his birthday.[1]": I'm not too sure that this is important enough to include.
  • "however, in an interview with David Rowan, the UK editor of Wired News, he insisted "that his involvement (with the Conservatives) ceased 20 years ago"." When did he give this interview? It may be better to simply state that he later said he ended his involvement in XXXX.

Early career

  • Is there no better word than "gofer" (even though it's linked)?
  • Could his role be expanded further: what would he have done as producer or deputy editor?
  • "he wrote an internal BBC memorandum suggesting lines of defence over an interview with Prime Minister John Major": What does this mean? What are "lines of defence" in this context?
  • "who perceived it as the legitimised denial of equal time in the run up to local elections" Ditto: what is the context here, it needs some background and Robinson's role needs spelling out more.

In front of the camera

  • Given that some of this is on the radio, is the heading not misleading?
  • Again, could his role be spelt out? What did he do as political correspondent? What did he do when he covered the election?
  • Is the blog important enough to include here? Any references to it being influential or widely read?

ITN political editor

  • Three years are covered by two sentences. Are there no more details, for example press comments on his performance or reputation? I think this needs much more coverage.
  • "caused a major stir": This is POV if not referenced. As it reads, it sounds like Blair was attacked by journalists, of whom Robinson was just one. Is there any detail on his specific role?

Return to the BBC

  • No details about his job, role, reputation or performance here. There is too much trivia and just a list of unrelated facts.
  • There are seven sentences about his encounters with Bush which seems extreme given the amount written about his actual jobs.
  • The information reads as a selection of anecdotes, which is not encyclopedic.

Criticism

  • Not sure how relevant this is. It is not criticism of Robinson himself, and if merely there to give his views, it does not need it's own section.

Personal life

  • "However" is not necessary here. And "sails and enjoys the theatre" is simply likes and dislikes which does not seem important.
  • This is very short and needs expanding. It should be merged with another paragraph if there is no more info. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I've edited the article quite a bit. Some of your suggestions I have implemented, some I haven't as I don't really agree. One point you have raised is lack of detail - the issue here is that none of the references I have go into that much detail on his early career. It can probably be safely assumed he did what all producers do, and produced programmes without much issue - other than the Panorama incident.
Re. the personal life section: you've stated some bits don't seem important, and yet you think it's too short. There's only so much personal life information out there. Let's face it - he's famous in Britain, but not really anywhere else. He's not a famous actor, he's just a TV journalist. As for merging, I don't know what section they should be merged into - they don't really fit anywhere. Bye for now. Aiken ♫ 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack to the Apocalypse

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an available copyedit and a third party reviewer. Althoiugh the article is somewhat short, I am hoping it meets FA criteria, and if the peer would not mind, I would like for it to pre-reviewed for FA, using the criteria as a guide. Thank you, CrowzRSA 17:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: There are quite serious prose issues with this article, which appears to need a very thorough copyedit. I have listed points from the lead and first section:-

  • Lead
    • "...both music from previous albums, unreleased material, and live film." "Both" means two things, not three. Suggest you delete the word
    • The word "plus", while convenient verbal shorthand, does not read well in text. Suggest "with the addition of"
    • MOS suggests that numbers greater than 10 should be written numerically, hence "14" rather than "fourteen"
    • "After a discussion arose with the box set idea as a topic, they informed their record company of the idea. At first, the idea was declined, but was later approved by the record company." These reads extremely clunkily. It is not clear what "they" refers to, but presumably it's the band. Therefore something like: "After discussing among themselves the idea of the box set, the band informed their record company, who initially disliked but later approved the idea."
    • Second paragraph: I'm not certain that the first two sentences add anything; the paragraph could easily start "The box set has been released into the public domain five times..." and with "between" instead of "spanning from".
    • I think the lead needs some expansion to fulfil the WP:LEAD requirement that it summarises the whole article. For example, there ids nothing about the production of the set, which has a main section in the article.
  • Conception
    • inspired
    • label/record company
    • decided or believed/hoped?
    • The sentence beginning "Slayer approached the record company..." needs sorting out. At present it's impossibly convoluted. Verbalisms such as "due to the fact that" should always be avoided.
    • "...instructing them to return a disc of what they felt to be the best items" What does "return a disc" mean?
    • Avoid contractions such as "he'd". And what does this mean: "Having every magazine he'd ever seen the group inside..."?

On a general point, is it really necessary to list all 30+ members of the production team? I've never seen anything similar on other album-type articles.

I hope that these comments are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo TV Tour

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to nominate this article for Featured Article status, but I feel it's a little too soon after its Good Article promotion, and I would like to identify/address any outstanding issues that may exist. As this was one of the most well-covered rock tours in history, the article is lengthy and covers nearly every aspect of this tour. This includes musical, technical, and political topics. As such, I want to make sure that the article is readable and comprehensible by an everyday reader (e.g. aiming for generality). I'm not worried about the article not being broad in coverage or missing any key points - rather, I'm interested in making sure the article is cohesive, and offers the proper amount of detail.

Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Y2kcrazyjoker4: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me - seems comprehensive and generally well written. Here are some mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

  • In the lead, perhaps link dichotomous to Dichotomy in The tour's concept was inspired by dichotomous television programming...? It is not that common of a word.
  • Bono's personas in the lead are listed in quotation marks - per WP:MOSQUOTE things in direct quotes usually need a ref.
  • In the lead would it make sense to note that the arenas are indoors and the stadiums are outdoors in After the first two legs of the tour took place in [indoor] arenas, the final three legs mostly visited [outside] stadiums and were branded as "Outside Broadcast", "Zooropa", and "Zoomerang/New Zooland", respectively. Also, did the first two legs have their own names?
  • Could this sentence be rewritten to avoid using tour twice in one sentence: The tour was seen by approximately 5.3 million people and was the highest-grossing tour in North America of 1992. Perhaps something like Approximately 5.3 million people saw Zoo TV, which was the highest-grossing tour in North America of 1992.?
  • I would say that the Lovetown Tour was in support of Rattle and Hum, Their 1989 Lovetown Tour did not visit the United States...
  • Add the year to On 14 June, the first tour production meeting was held, ...?
  • I would add the year(s) for the War Tour in The Zoo TV stages were designed by Willie Williams, U2's stage designer since the War Tour.
  • Per the MOS, this needs metric units too The set was expanded to include a 248 by 80-foot stage... The {{convert}} template does this {{convert|248|by|80|ft|m|adj=on}} gives 248-by-80-foot (76 by 24 m)
  • Same for the various inch size speakers (need meters) and the weight of the stage - assume it is short tons
  • Poland is a country, the rest are cities - is the city in Poland known (Warsaw?) McGuinness had planned larger outdoor concerts in Berlin, Turin, Poland, and Vienna to help the tour break even...
  • Could this be made clearer? The difficulty of assembling the large outdoor production and the destruction of the largest screen in a windstorm delayed the official leg-opening Giants Stadium show by a day only six days beforehand.[48][49] (6 days beforehand is murky)
  • In the Main set section, the article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
  • Is is MacPhisto or Mr. MacPhisto (sp)?
  • I would mention that the Pixies were an opening act before the Impact and legacy section
  • This has 50 kB of readable prose - I am not sure how concert tour articles are organized - could the 5 tables of tour dates be split off into a separate list article? I also thought the personas section seemed fluffiest if something needs to be trimmed back a bit.

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 ><>°° 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Prescott

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like input concerning any areas which need more work on before it's ready to be taken to the next step. I've pretty much written this from scratch, with some assistance with copy-editing and so forth. I think prose quality is a possible issue.

Comments Sandman. I took the liberty to correct your next step. Thanks, Claritas § 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "bibliographical citations" -> only wl citations per WP:EGG
Fixed. Claritas § 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Main
  • "Prescott enrolled at Harvard College as a sophomore in August 1811," aged?
15. Fixed. Claritas § 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was not particularly distinguished academically, and although he excelled at Latin and Greek, he found mathematics extremely difficult." he excelled yet was not distinguished?
I've clarified this. He overall was not considered a distinguished student, despite the fact that his ability at classical languages was recognized. Claritas § 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although unable to understand mathematical demonstrations, he was able to memorize them word-for-word with ease, which allowed him to hide his ignorance of the subject" - "Although he found it hard to..."
I've amended this as suggested. Claritas § 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prescott's problems with his eyesight were a direct result of being hit in the eye with a crust of bread during a food fight as a student.[17] " Havn't mentioned any problems before.
Check the lead- line 3 on my screen reads "Despite suffering from serious visual impairment, which at times prevented him from reading or writing for himself". I think that's a sufficient mention. Claritas § 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He relied on his wife, friends and later paid assistants to read for him, and resorted to using a noctograph to write with. Prescott considered his admission to the Phi Beta Kappa Society as a senior a great personal honour.[18] He graduated from Harvard in 1814" when did he get married? Is this in chronological order?
I've rewritten this section so it is in chronological order. Claritas § 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a short period of courtship, he married Susan Amory, the daughter of Thomas Coffin Amory and Hannah Rowe Linzee, on May 4, 1820.[24] " Now he gets married!
  • "Ticknor notes that the couple's ancestors fought on opposite sides of the American Revolutionary War—Captain Linzee having fought for the British at the Battle of Gloucester, whereas Colonel William Prescott fought for the United States at the Battle of Bunker Hill.[25]" Perhaps, but it is not overly interesting.
Yeah, this is a WP:TRIVIA one. I've removed it, as well as the fact that he, his father, and his son W.G.P coincidentally had the same room in Harvard, because it doesn't really have any real importance in the context of Prescott's life. Claritas § 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1821, Prescott abandoned the idea of a legal career because of his poor health and resolved to devote himself to literature" is this the eyes again or something else?
It was essentially the eyes, looking at the source I've cited - the major issue was that he couldn't read unaided all the time. Claritas § 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Spanish, Italian and French literature are not worthy of wikilinks.
Thanks for fixing. Claritas § 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the works he studied during this period were such classics as Dante's La Divina Commedia and Boccacio's Decameron." Hmm, could this be rewritten. "His interest in poetry made him study, amongst others, Dante's La Divina Commedia and Boccacio's Decameron" Isn't it Divine Comedy in English?
It's Divine Comedy in English. Your re-write looks better isolated, but in the context of the sentences before and after, both which explicitly refer to his interested/studies of Italian poetry, I think there's no good reason to change the sentence. However, if you think it would improve the prose quality, go ahead. Claritas § 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first of these, published in 1824,[28] was titled Italian Narrative Poetry, and became somewhat controversial after it was heavily criticized in an Italian review by Lorenzo Da Ponte, the librettist of Mozart's Don Giovanni.[29] " Full stop after poetry.
  • "Da Ponte published the criticisms as an appendix to his translation of Dodley's Economy of Human life, which resulted in it being noticed rather late by Prescott.[30] Prescott's friend, the Harvard academic George Ticknor, gave him copies of his lectures on Spanish literature, resulting in Prescott's lifelong interest in the history of Spain." awkard change in focus. The flow in the rest has some of the same awkwardness. Check WP:1a.
I've split the paragraph up and re-organized some of the content. Claritas § 08:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • list prose is not encouraged. try convert to ordinary prose.
I've turned it into ordinary prose, but there is very little information about his children (nothing in any of the biographies). I'll have a go at finding a little more. Claritas § 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Published works
  • This could benefit from being a seperate list with additional explanation of the works..
Yep. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy of "bibliography"&dq=William+H.+Prescott+"bibliography"&hl=en&ei=-8p6TJ-9HYfKONi2xeQO&sa=X&o this, would be a useful asset, but it would be a fairly big venture to create a reasonably complete list of academic papers. For the purposes of the author's article, would it be appropriate to remove the list of papers, and simply leave the books/extended works, or would it be preferable to remove the whole section for the time being ? Claritas § 21:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article has remained stable at GA level for nearly four months, since then extra attention has been paid to images, citation formatting, sources, structure and copyediting. I am considering nominating the article for FA status, does it meet the criteria? The article is a biography of a well known writer, thus occasionally subject to poor edits, but these art usually removed quickly by editors who watch the article.

1. With the length, does the prose and strucuture sustain a reader's interest? It should be a pleasurable read.

2. Is everything explained properly, does it presume any information to a reader who is unfamiliar with the topic?

3. Are there any parts you doubt?

4. Where is there too much detail, too little?

Thanks, Ktlynch (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I am delighted to see this article coming up for review, with a view to a future FAC nomination. FAC is a tough place these days, and in my view this article, though substantial, well researched and pleasantly written, still needs considerable work. Here are some suggestions for action.

Lead

Several problems here:-

  • The first paragraph needs rewriting so that, instead of summarising Wilde's early years it follows the initial identifying sentence with something which encapsualtes the most significant and memorable aspect of Wilde's life. I would suggest sometning like this:-

Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (16 October 1854 – 30 November 1900) was an Irish writer, poet, and prominent aesthete who became a leading figure in London's social and literary circles in the late 19th century. At the height of his fame he was brought down, in 1895, by a scandal arising from his homosexual relationships. As a result, Wilde spent two years in prison, followed by voluntary exile which lasted until his death.

  • The lead at present seems a little over-detailed, and would benefit from a broader-brush approach.
  • It would be useful if the major events mentioned in the lead were dated.
  • The significant outcome of the libel case is not that the charge against Queensberry was dropped, but that Queensberry's allegations were held to be justified. It was this that prompted Wilde's arrest. The last paragaph of the lead should reflect this.
Inappropriate section and subsection headings

Headings should be simple and explanatory, rather than cryptic or literary. The following should be renamed:-

  • All the World's a Stage: 1892–1895
  • Oscar goes to the theatre
  • Feasting with panthers

I am also a little bit dubious of "Apprenticeship of an aesthete".

Infobox

I am not a particular fan of infoboxes, but if there is to be one, it could be more informative than this. There are other fields in the Infobox Writer template, e.g. parents, spouse, children, which could be employed.

Structural point

It looks odd and wrong to see a section with a single subsection in it. The opening paragraphs of the "Themes and influences" should be given one or more subheadings.

Uncited statements

There are numerous instances of uncited statements, often at the ends of paragraphs. Here are a few examples where citations would seem to be acquired:-

  • "Originally planned to last four months, it was continued for over a year due to the commercial success."
  • "During rehearsal Alexander requested that Wilde shorten the play from four acts to three, which the author did."
  • "In 1946, Hesketh Pearson published The Life of Oscar Wilde (Methuen), it contains material derived from conversations with many who had known or worked with Wilde. It gives a vivid impression of what Wilde's presence must have been like, although dated."

As well as the above and many other instances in the main text, none of the footnoted information is cited to a source.

Prose glitches

I've not had time to make a close reading of the text, but in skimming through I noticed these:

  • "Wilde was one of the most well-known personalities of his day" (rather than "best-known"?)
  • "Rehearsals, including Sarah Bernhardt began, ..."
  • "By 1893 Wilde was infatuated with Douglas and they consorted together regularly in tempestuous affair."

I also noticed some phrasing that sounded distinctly POV. For example: "Unlike Wilde's idealised, pederastic relations with..." Whose choice of wording is this?

Image licensing

Most of the older images have the wrong licences, and/or lack other information. I realise that you are not responsible for uploading these, but before the article goes to FAC these issues will need to be resolved. Here is a list of the problems:-

Miscelaneous points
  • Source needed for current value estimation
  • Some references are lacking publisher information
  • Bibliography: publication date required for Famous Trials
  • Links need checking. That for Robbie Ross goes to an Australian rugby player
  • Accuracy: Richard D'Oyly Carte was an American? No way, no way.

I hope these comments are helpful, and I shall watch the article's progress with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jevons paradox

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because User:Lawrencekhoo and I have worked on it for some time and I want an outside perspective on the article. Is there too much cruft? Should there be more explanatory text for the nonexpert reader, or conversely more technical content? Any biases in the article? Any good examples we could add? Etc. Just looking for general ways to improve here.

Thanks, CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty good article. I don't notice much needing changes. I wonder if the 'rebound effect' really needs a paragraph in the lede, which I don't think covers the effect very well. --Gwern (contribs) 13:07 8 August 2010 (GMT)
Thanks for the kind words. About the second paragraph of the lead, it is not really about the rebound effect, instead it's a summary of how the Jevons paradox occurs. I've edited a bit to clear up this point. Regards, LK (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 15:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Consider a simple case: ..." <- this is simply not clear enough, reads like something from a textbook. There's no need for the extensive use of (in)elastic, a plainer more intuitive example would help the general reader.
  • In general never have a whole paragraph uncited.

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting article about a paradox I'd never heard of. It made me think, which is good, but I found myself not entirely satisfied with its clarity, its sourcing, its focus, and its breadth. I should add that I'm not an economist, and I have no special knowledge of the language or methods of economics. Here are my thoughts:

  • The paradox is defined in the first sentence as applying to all resources. Jevons focused on coal, apparently, and others have focused on other energy resources. I couldn't help but wonder if the paradox has been studied in relation to other resources such as water. It might make the article a bit stronger and broader if examples from areas other than energy-related industry were included.
  • Even though the article is well-sourced in places, parts of it lack in-line citations to a reliable source. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, every extraordinary claim, and every direct quotation. The second paragraph of the "History" section, for example, cites no source(s) even though it contains information that is not common knowledge.
  • "Hence, it would tend to increase, rather than reduce, the rate at which England's deposits of coal were being depleted.[4][2]" - This is a minor point, but the standard practice with serial citations is to arrange them in ascending order; i.e., [2][4].
  • The "Rebound effect" subsection has the tone of a textbook rather than an encyclopedia. The difference is subtle, but the voice speaking in "Rebound effect" sounds like the voice of someone who knows and is explaining to someone who doesn't know. This is different from the voice of someone who is reporting what the experts have said. Instead of saying "One way to understand the Jevons paradox is to observe that an increase... ", you might write something like "Alcott Blake, professor of something at somewhere, explains the Jevons... ". In other words, attribute explanations to an expert rather than presenting them without attribution. The beginning of the second paragraph of this subsection leaps out because it addresses the reader directly: "Consider a simple case... ". This is the voice of a teacher explaining something to a class rather than the voice of someone neutral reporting the observations of an expert. I might add that the explanation is not only not directly attributed to anyone, it is not sourced to anyone. Ditto for the next paragraph. So where does it come from? Incidentally, the voice is better in the "Khazzoom-Brookes postulate" subsection, where ideas are directly attributed by name to three economists.
  • Link UK Atomic Energy Authority and California Energy Commission?
  • Briefly explain neo-classical growth theory? Most readers will know nothing about it.
  • "Several points can be raised against this argument." - In this final section, the article seems to turn into a direct argument rather than the reporting of a controversy. Is the controversy about the paradox, or is the controversy about something else?
  • "As the Jevons paradox only applies to technological improvements that increase fuel efficiency, interventions that impose conservation standards that simultaneously increase costs do not display the Jevons paradox." - This is the unsourced finale, but it seems circular in its logic and not quite consistent with the first sentence of the lead. Does the Jevons paradox apply only to fuels, or does it apply to a broader class of resources? Does any expert (or anyone at all) think that the Jevons paradox would apply to a carbon tax? If not, the last sentence simply states the obvious, saying essentially that the Jevons paradox does not apply to things to which it does not apply.
  • Should any further macroeconomic ideas be included in the article? You mention peak oil, and Jevons was concerned about dwindling coal reserves. Did Jevons include any end-game calculations? Did he, for example, calculate a likely rate-of-change in coal consumption in the U.K. and match total consumption over time against total known reserves? Did he have any notion of something we might call "peak coal"? Do contemporary economists like Khazzoom and Brookes say anything about "peak energy" from all sources? Do they say what they think will happen economically if no government action is taken to conserve energy? Have they got models for that, I mean? Do any economists think that the best government policy with regard to energy consumption is to let unregulated markets do whatever they like? If so, who are they, and what is their reasoning? Do some economists fall between the extremes of "no regulation" and "carbon tax or the equivalent"?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shield nickel

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I intend to nominate it for FA. It is short but comprehensive.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niagara

  • When images use the thumb parameter, the size shouldn't be included as its default size is specified by a user's preferences.
  • "Business strikes" → I don't know if there is a MOS that requires this but, I've never heard that phrase before (usually hearing it called "circulation" instead).
  • Make the table sortable.
  • "...to be made out of copper-nickel, the same alloy of which American nickels are struck today."
    • Tweaked: "...to be made out of copper-nickel; the same alloy of which all modern American nickels are struck."
Problem is, there, the War Nickels.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a difference in using "piece" instead of "coin" (i.e. "three-cent piece" vs. "three-cent coin")?
None at all, I am just trying to avoid using the same word repeatedly.
  • Because "Shield nickel" is used everywhere else in the article, should the "Nickel" in the infobox title also be lower-case?
  • "...confused contemporary observers."
    • Why was this confusing? Also who/what are "contemporary observers"?
I will strike this out, since I can't give any further info.
  • "As with many denominations of United States coins, there are two major varieties of the 1873 piece, the "closed 3" and "open 3"."
    • Why were the different varieties made in the first place?
Explained in detail.
  • What source did you use for the mintage numbers? I looked it up a book I've got, and some of the numbers of proofs were slightly different.
Peters. If it is helpful, I can change it to the Red Book. Some of them, Bowers explains are estimates based on die usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That works (the book I have is the Blue Book); placing a footnote explaining how Bowers came up with the estimates would work as well. Also if, one source is being used to cite the entire table, I usually place the citation in the column header, as a citation in the last entry in the table could be confused with a citation for only that particular entry. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 18:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll work on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the current set of external links satisfy WP:EL (namely #1 in WP:ELNO).

Being a numismatist myself, I found this to be a very interesting article. FA is possible; length shouldn't be a problem (I think there are FA tropical storms that are shorter than this article). If these comments were useful, consider reviewing an article in the backlog, which is how one found yours. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 03:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I'll play with these--Wehwalt (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working up a sortable table in my sandbox, but it may take me a while. Lots of pain in the neck stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Tribes communities

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I just admitted defeat for a while waiting for my academic institution to re-subscribe to Newsbank in the mean time I would like someone independent outside of the usuals at WP:NRM and User:Cirt to look at the the article and hopefully remove see about giving it a good look over. I hope to get rid of the "primary sources" "refimprove" and The "neutrality" tags out of there. As i feel it has substantially improved since i really started around here [11]. Weaponbb7 (talk) 4:22 pm, Today (UTC−4) Thanks, Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I found this article to be quite interesting, and it's clear that a lot of research and thought have gone into it. Writing about controversial subjects without taking sides or appearing to take sides can be quite difficult. I have a couple of suggestions about point-of-view, and I'm glad you are taking steps to make the article as neutral as possible. PR is generally meant for articles that have no major clean-up tags. Dealing with the issues mentioned in the tags would be the first order of business, as you have noted in your request above. Here are a few more ideas:

I felt PR was appropriate as a Ealier request on NRM project failed to get any repsonses. I am glad you found it interesting as i find it is interesting. I am kinda doing this article as a litature review for my own work wish i hope publish in the next few years on them thus. My own studying of the group has made me weary of unintentional WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOR violations on my part (which I feared happened in Doctrine/beliefs but intend to fix since a recent journal article has become available as secondary source ). I also wanted to get an outside view on wether those issues have been satisifed since the original tagging of the article with those issues. As i think think it is best to always have third parties remove such tagsWeaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.
Can do Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should not include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text. The location of the Spriggs' house, for example, should appear in the first paragraph of the History section and not just in the lead.

Oh good point Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good point Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A series of deprogrammings" - This probably should be linked or explained to readers who may not know what "deprogrammings" refers to. I'd suggest looking for other jargon or special terms in the article that a foreigner or anyone outside the Judeo-Christian tradition might not understand. For example, a reference to a Bible verse or chapter may mean little or nothing to a non-Christian unless it is explained in some way.
Hmm metaphysical stuff is always hard to explain without Jargon but i follow Will work to improve. Its a difficult rewrite but seems feasible enough. I thought the wikilink for Deprograming would be enough for that. I am not sure how to explain that in text may be a <ref name= "deprograming"="note"/>
  • In the "History" section, a phrase says, "assisted by one of the Chattanooga Police Department's detectives in falsifying charges" - This is the sort of claim that I'd be reluctant to publish without the support of more than one reliable source. Suppose the single source is wrong even if reliable per WP:RS. If that is the case, then the Chattanooga Police Department has been unfairly blamed in a Wikipedia article. I'd suggest beefing up the support or deleting the claim. Later in the article, a sentence says, "Eddie Wiseman's public defender, Jean Swantko, who had been present during the raid, later joined and married Wiseman." This sets off the WP:COI (conflict of interest) gongs. The single source for the police detective claim is an article by Swantko
I was aware of the possible problems with the source thus i made not within text statement of her marriage to Wiseman. (as suggested by another member of WP:NRM Workgroup). That user felt that PR Article in a respectable peer reviewed journal met necessary RS qualifications of extraordinary sources for extraordinary claims despite the possible COI. A revised and expanded version was also published by Oxford University Press by Swantko neither are exsactly exposes in Freedom Magazine so i am comfortable. Both Articles are cited as example within relevant Alternative/Minority Religion literature. I'll cite to both and make sure the quote is accurate to what the source says. I'll also Double check contemporary sources to the event as i think there is one but unsure that mentions the heroic assistance of Chattanoogan-PD. If I am mistaken on the existence of such a seconday source will take it up at RSN for wider consensus. However otherwise I am pretty comfortable with leaving as is once i add the second source in since the two have been cited in later articles on the group and Relevant literature. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Child labor" subsection, the lightbulb and wheeelbarrow claim seems fairly spectacular, but the reliable source supports it carefully. I would suggest correcting the citation to reflect the article's complete title: "Healing Buildings and Healing Souls in the Catskills". This may seem like a trifling difference, but I'd be especially careful with the little details in an article dealing so heavily with controversy.
Fixed
  1. ^ "Looking towards Mauna Kea volcano from the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory". USGS. 9 August 2005. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
  2. ^ Brandon Doo and Ken Rubin (25 February 2008). "Mauna Kea". School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
  3. ^ "Visitor Information Station - Bulletin". Institute for Astronomy - University of Hawaii. Retrieved 9 August 2010.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/August_2010&oldid=704354165"