Wikipedia:Peer review/December 2009

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.

---

Braathens destinations

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is close to the quality needed for FL. However, there have not been any prior airline destination articles up for FLC, and I want community feedback to spot anything that would need improvement or corrections. I am not among the projects best prose writers, and would also appropriate a check to grammar and flow, although MOS should be pretty tight. Two things that I have actively chosen to do is to not make the table sortable (I don't understand why the reader would want to sort it) and not used the title "List of...". If anyone disagrees with those two choices, it would be nice to hear their reasoning.

Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the section "Destinations". The series of images are displayed first, then the table, rendering a large whitespace between the text and the table. Geschichte (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I agree with User:Geschichte. The first thing I noticed was the huge white space. Looking at Featured Lists at WP:FL#Transport, I see there must be a way to reduce the table width and move the table up until it's snug against the text. The images can still be stacked vertically but to the table's right. See List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations for an example.

• The images will need alt text to pass FLC. Alt text is meant to describe images to readers who can't see them, and it's not identical to captions. Please see WP:ALT for a full explanation.
• It's getting late, so I'll stop for the nonce and come back tomorrow with more comments. Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. After looking far and wide, I eventually found that somehow I had asked the table to be exactly 725 pixles wide. This caused the table to be unnecessarily wide, causing the whitespacee. Also added alt-text. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: The layout looks much much better. I'm glad you found and fixed the problem. The alt text looks good too, but one image Image:BraathensGardermoen.JPG still needs alt text. (I used the alt-text reader in the toolbox at the top of this review page to check these; the unfinished ones show up as pink blanks). Here are a few further suggestions.

Lead

• "The airline has served 53 airports serving 50 cities, of which 25 airports serving 23 cities were in Norway and 6 destinations and cities in Sweden." - This sentence repeats "serve" too many times. Also, it's not clear whether this means that the 6 destinations and cities in Sweden were part of the 25 or whether this means 25 plus 6. Perhaps simplifying to this would be more clear: "The airline has used a total of 53 airports serving 50 destinations, 23 of which were in Norway and 6 in Sweden."
• "Braathens provided international services to 23 airports serving 24 cities in 18 counties." - "Countries" rather than "counties"?
• "In addition, Braathens has served numerous destinations as both regular and ad-hoc charter." - Maybe "as both a regular and an ad-hoc charter airline"?

History

• "Kristiansund was taken into use in 1970 and Molde in 1972." - Since you're using the phrase "taken into use" to refer to airplane types, it might be better to differentiate here by saying, "Kristiansund was added as a destination in 1970 and Molde in 1972."
• "Málaga and Alicante were introduced in 2000." - Perhaps "Málaga and Alicante were introduced as destinations in 2000"?

Destinations

• "The list includes the city, the airport's code by the International Air Transport Association (IATA airport code) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO airport code), and the airport's name." - Tighten to "The list includes the city, the airport's code by the International Air Transport Association (IATA airport code) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO airport code), and the airport's name"?

Notes and Bibliography

• Citations 26 and 27 could be combined using "ref = name".
• "Sæthre" appears to be misspelled in citation 24.
• The book in the bibliography lacks a publisher.
• To reduce page clutter, the "Tjomsland and Wilsberg, 1995" entries could be shortened to "Tjomsland," plus the page number(s).

General

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds a link that goes to a disambiguation page instead of its intended target.

• Captions that consist solely of a sentence fragment do not take terminal periods, but captions that are complete sentences or a combination of a complete sentence and a fragment or fragments need terminal periods. I tweaked the first two in the article as examples.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I find this sort of feedback useful, as it gradually improves my writing abilities. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Gulfton, Houston

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this article to featured article status. Please consider the comments made in the last failed FA nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulfton, Houston/archive2

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am glad to see this has improved considerably since I reviewed it before. I also want to applaud the editors working on this - it is clearly a labor of love and Wikipedia needs quality articles on neighborhoods too. Having read and thought a lot about the article, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I read the second FAC comments and found them to be accurate as far as I can tell (not sure how much the article has been edited since the FAC closed). I have to confess that I am a bit confused by the direction to look at the FAC for reviewers. I usually tell editors to treat an unsuccessful FAC as a very thorough peer review and to address all the points in it, then ask the FAC reviewers if they could take a second look at the article. Anyway, I agree that the prose still needs work and that organization is still an issue, as is providing more context / background in places (and a bit less detail in others). Here goes with some specific suggestions.
• I looked at the WP:CITY suggested outline for US cities and see this follows it. I also looked at the one FA on a neighborhood / part of a city I could find (South Side (Chicago)) for ideas as a model article - it was promoted in 2007 and standards have tightened since, so it might not be the best model. Part of why I did this was because I found that I did not have a clear understanding reading the article about many aspects of Gulfton and I wondered if having a different article structure might help.
• My first idea is that the lead is supposed to be an introduction to the whole article and so I worry that the lead could do a better job of summarizing the article for the reader. At first I thought about adding a section called "Overview" between the lead and the History section, with bits on the location, the fact that this is part of Houston and not its own city, etc. The more I thought about that though, the more I thought that a revised lead and the beginning of History could probably address these issues.
• I think the History section could start a bit earlier in time chronologically - since Gulfton is part of Houston, I might start with that. Perhaps something like, "Although Gulfton was not developed until the mid-1950s, it is a part of Houston, which was founded in 1836 about X miles (y km) to the northeast of the current location of Gulfton." Other bits of history that could be added are the dates of establishment of Harris County and Bellaire, and the dates of construction for I-610 and the outer loop (since these are used as geographic locators). My guess is a bit on the whole growth of Houston outward / urban sprawl might be added too, then the current History section could start.
• First sentence of History is an example of how the prose still needs work: Before the 1950s, Gulfton consisted of greenfield land, and much of the area was part of a settlement called Westmoreland Farms.[3] The term greenfield is consistent with a farm (land that has never been built on, farm fields or natural) but calling it a settlement is just confusing (as a settlement is populated place like a village or town). How about a slight omission: Before the 1950s, Gulfton consisted of greenfield land, and much of the area was part of a settlement called Westmoreland Farms.[3]
• I read the article on the Shenandoah neighborhood (which is confusingly at Shenandoah, Houston, Texas, while this is just at Gulfton, Texas). This article does not make clear that Shenandoah is surrounded by Gulfton, but should.
• Who named the area Gulfton? Who built the network of streets in the "widely spaced grid road pattern" - were these from its farm days? Unincorporated Harris County or perhaps twonship roads? When did Houston annex the land?
• The History section focuses on the apartment complexes. Later we read about schools and when they opened In 1953, Cunningham Elementary School, the first elementary school to serve Gulfton, was built with a capacity for 300 students.[132][149] Braeburn Elementary School opened in 1956. Long Middle School, which as of 2008 serves Gulfton, opened in 1957.[132] I think that this would be better in the history section. It owuld also help to know if these schools are actually in Gulfton or if they are in nearby neghborhoos like Shenandoah.
• Back to the previous point on schools - watch needless repetition. So we get In 1953, Cunningham Elementary School, the first elementary school to serve Gulfton, was built with a capacity for 300 students.[132][149] then two sentences later a new paragraph starts In 1979, Cunningham Elementary School, which was built for 300 students in 1953, had 436 students. There is no need to repeat the original date and original capacity. Perhaps something like In 1979, Cunningham Elementary School had 436 students, or 145 percent of its original capacity.
• The names of the school officials and constables seem like too much detail to me. Too much detail means more important things are lost in a sea of trivia. I do not doubt that these are fine people, but I am not sure they meet WP:NN (even the looser standard for inclusion in an article). Removing their names would also mean less future maintenance work on the article - no need to update the new constable's name.
• I agree that the maps are less than clear. I also wonder if an infobox could be added to put a map an image right at the top with the lead. I think a locator map more like File:Interstate 610 map (Texas).svg would be better - fewer details (need to label Bellaire and the outer loop, perhaps add the southern boundary road.
• The picture of the Krogers could be improved if it were of the left hand side with everything in SPanish and the colors matching the Mexican flag (red, green, white). Unless you click on the photo and study it, it looks like almost any supermarket anywhere in the US.
• I checked the tools and there is one dab link and several dead / problem external links which will need to be fixed.
• Also the article has no alt text for images but will need to have it for FAC - see WP:ALT
• This ref list some interesting things about businesses in Gulfton - for example the ADOC footwear has only store in the US (and many in Central America) but this is not in the article here.
• The word "costed" is not grammatical in In 2001 a partnership formed between Ed Farris of Farris & Associates and U.S. Builders began construction on the Plaza de Americas, a 30,000 square feet (2,800 m2) shopping center adjacent to the Kroger in Gulfton; the project, which was scheduled to attract retailers attracting Hispanic clients, costed $4 million.
• Public libraries section is only 3 sentences - could it be combined with another section? Perhaps "Community colleges and libraries"?
• The Education section seems especially bloated to me - are all the street addresses necessary here (and in the rest of 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 _><>°^° 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Laugh, Laugh

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FAC if it can be improved enough. There was a previous peer review, after which the article passed GAN last month. I've found feedback to be most helpful, so I would greatly appreciate all suggestions related to prose, style, sourcing, and anything else that needs attention.

Thanks,  Gongshow ^Talk 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

oncamera writes

I read through the article and couldn't find any big issues that stood out to me! Maybe there's a little issue with WP:OVERLINK, but maybe not. Cheers, oncamera^(t) 02:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for reading the article. Any specific examples on what should not be linked?  Gongshow ^Talk 19:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It's hard to find anything to complain about here. This is an interesting, highly readable article, well-sourced and apparently comprehensive. The image will need alt text, but writing just one of these should be easy, and my other three suggestions are minor.

• The image lacks alt text, and it will need it to pass FAC. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it's not the same as a caption. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it. You can look in at WP:FAC to see recent examples as well.

Release and reception

• ""Laugh, Laugh" was the first hit single to respond to the British Invasion from a burgeoning San Francisco music scene[19][20] which included such bands as Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, We Five, Moby Grape, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Country Joe and the Fish." - Since the British Invasion wasn't from San Francisco, it might be better to re-cast this somehow. Suggestion: "Laugh, Laugh" was the first hit single from a burgeoning San Francisco music scene—including such bands as Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, We Five, Moby Grape, Quicksilver Messenger Service and Country Joe and the Fish—to respond to the British Invasion.

• "issue of Billboard which credited the use of harmonica in folk, pop, and R&B music for sparking... " - Spell out Rhythm and blues (R&B) on first use?

Other versions

• Surf rock group The Astronauts covered "Laugh, Laugh" on their 1967 album... " - It might be a good idea to wikilink covered on first use.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the suggestions, which I have implemented into the article. I reviewed another article, as well. Thanks again for your help!  Gongshow ^Talk 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Manitoba

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it passed GA a while ago and I'm looking for some suggestions to (hopefully) get it to FAC sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Mindmatrix

I think that the list of hospitals is misplaced (link at top of "Economy" section). Perhaps a public services section could be created, highlighting health care, education etc. In my opinion, there is undue weight given to the official languages and armed forces sections. The latter may warrant a CAF presence by province article, splitting that section off as appropriate and leaving only a short section paragraph in its place. I also think the education section is weak - there's no mention of student demographics, number of schools or their sizes, role of private schooling, etc. (Aside: I don't like the phrase "the provincial education system" linking to Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Manitoba).) The intro needs work, especially the second and third paragraphs. Mindmatrix 16:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: there's a History of Manitoba that could benefit from some of the material at Manitoba#History. The main article's history section is far too long, and portions of it should be merged to the more specific article. Mindmatrix 16:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Mindmatrix. I've shrunk the official languages and armed forces slightly. Language in particular has been a big issue in Manitoba, so I would argue that it merits some weight here. I've also worked on adding some details to education and fixing the lead. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Steve Smith

This is not the sort of article I generally write/review (historical political biography), so I'm slightly outside my comfort zone, but I think I can make some useful comments. Because of my general lack of familiarity with this type of article, I've identified three current featured articles that I think are comparable in subject matter: Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia. I'm letting those articles inform my thoughts on this one.

In general, I think this article needs improvement before it hits FAC, though there's obviously been enormous amounts of good work put into it so far (this is a tough kind of article to write, which is why I generally stick to biography). Many parts of the article emphasize listing facts rather than incorporating them into the kind of prose I'd expect of an FA

I've responded in-line, hope you don't mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Organization and other high level stuff

• The lead is too short, leaves out many important pieces of information (for example, the only thing said about the history is the date it entered Confederation), and contains other information that probably doesn't belong there (that the BNA Act, 1867 was rechristened the Constitution Act, 1867, could not possibly be one of the things about Manitoba that it's more important for a reader to know).

I've expanded it slightly and taken out the bit about the renaming, but I agree it still needs work.

• The Geography section could stand to be better organized. All of the non-climate physical geography is found under the main heading, and information about human geography is limited to a single table listing the largest cities. I'd suggest emulating the state articles, and dividing it into "Geology and terrain/Topography" (possibly with a subsection for Hydrography, if you think it's warranted), "Climate", "Flora and fauna" (a subject not currently covered in the article), and "Human geography". These are only suggestions, obviously, and there are any number of legitimate ways that this section could be re-organized. Though the presence of a link to List of Manitoba parks is well-taken, I think they also merit mention in this main article.

"Human geography" is mostly covered under "Demographics", so I've put the table there. The other subsections are now in place, and I'll be working on tweaking the "Flora and fauna" section.

• I'm inclined to agree with Mindmatrix that history is relatively over-emphasized, and I find some of the choices of what to include and exclude a little strange. In the last two subsections, political and especially electoral history seem slightly overrepresented. I also think that Manitoba's role in scuttling Meech Lake could stand to be trimmed. More could be said about the Great Depression; right now all that's mentioned is that it produced the Manitoba Social Credit Party and the Manitoba CCF, the former of which I don't think is important enough to be mentioned in a survey article about the entire province. Information about economic history is sorely lacking; while there's a subsection devoted to it later on (I think it should be integrated into "History" rather than "Economy", but that's subjective), it only goes up to 1853; I'd like to see information about the history of agriculture in Manitoba, for example. I don't know a great deal about Manitoba's history (and what I do know is mostly on the political side), so I don't have much more in the way of specific suggestions, but I hope that general stuff is helpful.

I've shrunk history somewhat, added more details about the Depression and economic history (although I've left that as a subsection of economy for now...might change it later), and refocused the last couple of subsections.

• I'm not sure "religion" merits its own subsection, since the article doesn't have a great deal to say on the subject, and it's not as though the "Demographics" section is long enough to require extensive subdivision. I'd like to see some information about language here, especially given what we learn in the "History" section about Louis Riel, the Manitoba Schools Question (which was nominally about religion, but which was closely tied to language), etc. There's a brief mention of the concentration of the population in Winnipeg, but little further about urbanization, etc. This might also be a good place to include a paragraph about the current condition of aboriginals in Manitoba. In contrast to "History", I think "Demography" needs expansion (I think Virginia does this especially well).

Religion is now incorporated into the main section text, and urbanization and aboriginal population have been briefly addressed.

• "Transportation" is fundamentally sound (I'll have some nitpicks when I get to that part of the review, but I don't think it needs to be overhauled).
• "Economy" does a good job of explaining the components of Manitoba's economy, but there's all sorts of data that should be included. How prosperous is Manitoba relative to other parts of Canada? What are the typical unemployment rates? Does reliance on agriculture make for an especially cyclical economy? What is the typical approach of government to the economy? In light of the 1919 strike and the strength of the NDP, what's the state of organized labour in Manitoba? As noted earlier, I think "Economic history" should be integrated into "History", especially given the redundancy currently in there (especially surrounding the fur trade, etc.)

I've tried to add some more data about economic conditions in Manitoba, and removed some of the redundancies in the history.

• "Government"'s not too bad (though what's with that single sentence about MERLIN tacked on to the end of it?), I'd like to see more about the "politics" (possibly in a separate section, if you'd rather not mix politics and government): the three main parties are listed, but we're not told much else about them. Does Manitoba change governments often (more often than Alberta, at least)? What issues dominate politics there? What role does Manitoba play in federal politics? A little bit (a small-ish paragraph?) about the law of Manitoba might also be good, just briefly describing the court system to go along with the descriptions of the legislative and executive branches already in there. There should also be something about municipal government. I'm also wondering if the bit about official languages isn't a little over-emphasized, and wouldn't be better dealt with in a section of Demography devoted to language in general. Finally, I have to note that the article's somewhat inaccurate in its description of the Westminster system ("The executive branch is formed by the majority party").

MERLIN removed and three main parties described in more detail (along with some political history). I've also added some details about the judiciary.

• "Education"'s pretty good, though I'd like to see something about how schools are organized (are there school districts? How autonomous are they?) and maybe something about how educated Manitobans are relative to national averages.

School districts have been added, but I haven't yet found an objective ruling on education levels...I'll keep looking for that.

• "Sports" is generally fine. In light of its brevity (which I think is appropriate), I might suggest incorporating it into a new "Culture" section (information on non-sport culture is conspicuously absent from the article), though I note that both Oklahoma and Virginia keep their "Sports" sections separate from their "Culture" ones. Minnesota takes a different approach, combining its "Sports" section with one about outdoor recreation in the province (I assume that outdoor recreation is big in Manitoba, since it has so much outdoors).

I've added a Culture section, but opted to keep it separate from sports

• "Armed Forces" is good. I'd almost suggest incorporating it as a subsection of "Economy", since the importance of the Armed Forces to Manitoba specifically seems to be primarily economic (broadly defined).

Ummm...maybe. For now I've left it separate.

• Besides culture (definitely) and outdoor recreation (maybe), all three state articles include sections about health, media, and state symbols. The only one of those that I think absolutely must be included is media, and it could be incorporated into a culture section. Provincial symbols are adequately dealt with in the infobox, I think, and unless you can think of something to say beyond what they are I'd advise not creating such a section. Health could be created, or some health-related information could be added to "Demographics".

Media has been added as a subsection of Culture

I'll have more to say later about things like referencing and prose, and pictures/visual layout, but I thought I'd start with the big stuff. I hope it was helpful. Steve Smith (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I'm of two minds on the referencing. On the one hand, the article seems to break a lot of Wikipedia's policies on the matter, relying as it does extensively on primary sources. I'm a firm believer in using secondary sources, because they're able not only to verify facts, but also to frame these facts in a meaningful way and allow us to assess relative importance of various facts and views, and this article doesn't do that.

On the other hand, this is an extremely broad topic, which makes high quality secondary sources dealing with the entire subject rare (what scholar publishes an academic paper on Manitoba as a whole)? Moreover, in this broad an article, framing facts is often of less importance than providing them, which makes reliance on primary sources somewhat more acceptable. Finally, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia all make more extensive use of primary sources than I would expect a featured article to do, which suggests to me that this is an accepted approach to this sort of article. All sources do seem to be reliable for the claims they support.

Even so, I'd encourage the use of secondary sources independent of the subject wherever possible, and especially in cases where the facts are something other than indisputable statistics. Steve Smith (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Images and graphic layout

Not much to complain about here. Image choices range from good to excellent, and those that are not free seem to come with adequate fair use rationales (though the one in File:G manitoba.gif could use some beefing up). A couple of specific concerns:

• File:Carberrydesert.jpg could use more information (author, date, description, etc.)
• Likewise File:Winnipeg skyline from 55 Nassau.jpg
• Also File:Parliamentwinnipeg manitoba.jpg

I'm also wondering if it would be possible to have text wrap around some of the thinner tables, as occurs in (for example) the "Demographics" section of Virginia; some of the tables currently disrupt the text a little. Alt text isn't really my forte, but what's in there seems pretty good to me. Does Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada not support it yet? Steve Smith (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Prose

I'm going through and doing some prose tightening; feel free to revert anything that you feel diminishes the article. I'm concerned that even with my edits the prose still needs a lot of work; flow is often lacking, and redundancy abounds. Some specific points:

• "Manitoba's capital and largest city, Winnipeg, is also Canada's eighth-largest Census Metropolitan Area, and has Canada's seventh-largest municipality." Manitoba is the municipality, no?

No, part of Winnipeg is the municipality. Manitoba is the province, Winnipeg is the city, but for StatsCan, it is simultaneously a CMA, a city and a municipality, only counting different parts.

• Also, the second part of that sentence doesn't seem to be in the article's body.
• I'm still not sold on the lead; I think it gives too much emphasis to some points (the founding of the NDP, for example) and leaves out some others. Given the length of the article, it could probably be expanded to better summarize the article.

Agreed

• Besides that, some of the sentences in the lead are exactly like sentences from elsewhere in the article, which shouldn't be the case.
• "The province has the largest saltwater coastline bordering Hudson Bay" - I read this to mean that its Hudson Bay coastline is longer than any of Ontario's, Quebec's, or Nunavut's. Is that the intended meaning?

I'm not quite sure, but I'll find out.

• Can you wikilink "watershed"? I'd do it myself, but I'm not clear on which meaning is intended.

Will do

• "Many uninhabited islands can be found along the shores of this lake." The islands are along the shore?

Yes, but that's not clearly worded...the islands are spread out near the shore (as opposed to in the middle of the lake)

• "The most common type of farm found in rural areas is cattle farming (34.6%),[14] followed by other grains (19.0%)" Grains other than cattle?

"Other grains" here refers to a grouping of assorted grains not covered by "wheat" and other prominent crops. Since it's unclear, I'll find a way to word it better.

More later.

---

National Youth Leadership Training

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have added substantial content to it over the past few weeks. It is comprehensive, well-sourced, relatively well-written, and otherwise appears ready for a GA review. But I'm sure there remains room for improvement.

Thanks, -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, I am not sure it is ready yet for WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The tools in the box at upper right show two disambiguation links, four dead external links used as references, and no alt text for the one image - see WP:ALT. I would recommend fixing all of these before GAN
• The lead seems a bit short to me - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
• Avoid vague time terms like currently in Youth leadership training is currently conducted at three levels, with a possible fourth under development:[1] It is better to say either something like "As of 2009, youth leadership training is conducted at three levels,..." or perhaps "Youth leadership training has been conducted at three levels since 19xx, with a possible fourth under development as of 2009." (put in the year for 19xx obviously)
• The lead (and article) need to give a clearer understanding of the program to someone who is not already familiar with it. It was not until the fifth sentence of the first paragraph of the third overall section (Origins) that I finally was sure this was for boys, and not adult leaders.
• Wikipedia articles need references that are from independent, third-party sources as much as possible - almost all of the sources here are from the Boy Scouts and not independent. What have third-party sources written about this program? See WP:RS
• Article needs more references in at least one spot, the first paragraph of Origins has no refs, nor does the end of the Course contents modifed section. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. Current REf 34 (description of NYLT) is from the Rip van Winkle Council and this needs to be added as the publisher. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Ref 36 does not appear to meet WP:RS at all (discussion boards and blogs are not usually reliable sources)
• Avoid excessive detail - does the reader really need the names of all the local attendees in the paragraph starting The local attendees also represented the top council leadership.? See WP:NN
• Article has serious WP:OVERLINKing issues. For example Béla H. Bánáthy is linked four times in the article and White Stag Leadership Development Program is linked 8 times, but each only needs to be linked twice (lead and first appearance in body of the article)
• Also try to avoid needless repetition - do we need to be told Herold Hunt was a professor at Harvard twice? Or that Bela taught Hungarian twice?
• Section headers do not really follow WP:HEAD
• Article needs a copyedit to polish the prose

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 _><>°^° 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Tyne Tees Television

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on this for over two years and it's time another pair of eyes went through it. Copy editing isn't my forte, so it would be helpful if some kind, gifted soul could either massage the prose, or spell improvements out to me (vague criticisms like "some problems with logical flow" are unhelpful). I would like to get the article to GA.

Thanks, The JPS^{talk to me} 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad in coverage and possibly comprehensive, well-sourced, stable, and neutral. I think it's about ready for GA, though the prose could use some more polish. I did quite a bit of minor copyediting as I went, but I didn't fix everything (like the large number of single quotes). Here are specific suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead is pretty short for such a long article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text.
• "Currently, it forms part of a non-franchise ITV... " - Rather than using non-specific references to time like "currently", it's usually better to say something like "as of 2009".
• I'd suggest merging the third paragraph, a one-sentence orphan, with paragraph 2.

Launch, and the 1960s

• "ITA considered the original name, 'North East England', was imprecise. Some of the consortium's suggestions were rejected: 'Three Rivers Television' for being obscure, and 'Tyne, Wear, and Tees'... " - Double quotes are preferred to single quotes in cases like these. Ditto for the many other similar instances throughout the article. An exception would be any place these sorts of quotation marks appear inside a direct quotation. Then the singles are used to visually distinguish them from the doubles.
• "Television sets required a new aerial, the Yagi array" - Wikilink Yagi array?
• "The daughter of Mr Welch is Denise, who would become a well-known actress and personality." - Rather than using "Mr", Wikipedia uses the first name without the title, "Mr".

1970s

• "The ident also introduced the blue and yellow colour scheme... " - "Ident" is slang. "Identity"?
• "Trident Television was formed in March 1969 as a joint venture to sell adverts for Tyne Tees and Yorkshire." - "Advert" is slang. "Advertisement"?

1980s

• "The ident was redesigned in 1988." - "Identity"?

1990s

• "On 16 March 1996, the presentation department in Newcastle was closed, with continuity being centralised in Leeds (transmission for the station had already been handled by Yorkshire since 1993)." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction, and the complete sentence inside the parentheses needs slightly different punctuation. Suggestion: "On 16 March 1996, the presentation department in Newcastle was closed, and continuity was centralised in Leeds. (Transmission for the station had already been handled by Yorkshire since 1993).
• "and "3" was the preset used by most television sets and VCRs for ITV" - Wikilink preset? Spell out and link Videocassette recorder (VCR) on first use?
• "by Mark Knopfler regularly accompanying ident sequences" - Another "ident".
• "In 1999, the cost of the tender fee that Tyne Tees... " Wikilink tender fee?
• "Politicians have expressed concern, however, that the merger would affect the quality of news for southern Scotland, in particular, would fall if it lost its customised bulletins." - Should that be "fail" rather than "fall"?
• "Between December 2008 and February 2009, around 50 staff at the station were made redundant or accepted voluntary redundancy" - Wikilink redundant?

"2000s"

• "The Tube was axed in 1987 as a result of falling audience figures, with Jools Holland swearing during a live trailer not helping." - "Axed" is slang, and "with" doesn't make a good conjunction. "Trailer" should probably be linked. Suggestion: "The Tube was dropped in 1987 as a result of falling audience figures and an incident involving Jools Holland, who cursed during a live trailer.

Specific

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent throughout. You can use either d-m-y or yyyy-mm-dd, but the style guidelines advise against a mixture of the two formats.

Images

• Two of the images lack alt text.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your extensive copyediting and suggestions. I've enacted most of them (still to do the lead, and I'm unsure about the invalidity of "ident"). The JPS^{talk to me} 10:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Marsupial Lion

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I've just looked over this article and think it looks good. There does not appear to be any flaws, but I would like some feedback on whether it is good enough for GA or FA nomination. Thanks, Twilight Helryx 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You are not a contributing editor to this article. It seems that the most active contributors have ceased to be interested in the page; however, before bringing for peer review it would be a good idea if you showed a personal commitment by tackling some of the more obvious problems with the page, namely:-

• The shortage of citations. Many statements made in the article need to be cited. At present whole paragraphs, and even whole sections, are completely uncited. One "citation needed" tag has been placed, but there could be many more.
• The citations that are present are not formatted correctly. Online citations require, minimally, title, publisher and access date. One of the citations is to another Wikipedia article. The "bibliography" does not appear to have been used in the preparation of the article.
• There are disambiguation links that need fixing
• The images lack alt text.

These are the fixes that need immdiate attention. Please note that Peer Review is "intended for high quality articles that have already undergone extensive work." I will happy to review the article more thoroughly after these basic issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Getting to work on those issues. I should read the rules more carefully. x.x" --Twilight Helryx 19:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...Tell you what; I'm closing this discussion until this article is properly cleaned up. Again, thank you for your time and I apologize for not being more vigilant. Cheers!--Twilight Helryx 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Jay Pritzker Pavilion

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:CHIFTD (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Millennium Park is currently a WP:GT) now is only two FAs from a WP:FT after the third article passed yesterday. I think the next FAC has a good chance of passing, meaning that this article could take a topic from GT to FT if we can get some good feedback to clean it up.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Neville Chamberlain

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I intend to nom it for FA in due course. I would appreciate others' help in smoothing off the rough edges before I do so.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I'm working on input into the review - this is a very substantial article, but I expect to have completed my suggestions in the next couple of days. More soonest - Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask, before wading in - is the spelling for the article to be U.S. or UK? At present it is a mixture of both, and it needs to be one or the other. - Tim riley (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be UK as as British politician. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to make it UK, but as I am American, well, that is why I asked for a PR.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a thoroughly-researched and well-proportioned article. I note the commendably wide variety of authorities quoted. Up to the final paragraphs it seemed to me admirably well-balanced, but I did just wonder if there was a hint of special pleading in the Apologia Pro Vita Sua section at the end, though (i) I found the facts as presented pretty convincing and (ii) I am not an historian, and I hope another reviewer, better equipped than I, can comment more authoritatively on the thrust of the section.

The article doesn't shrink from dealing with NC's less appealing characteristics – his jealousy of rivals is not dodged. A quite vivid picture of the man emerges. My comments below are mostly on the prose rather than on the content.

As requested, I have turned U.S. spelling, and occasionally usage, into UK ditto.

• General
  • Capitalisation: Though it is largely a matter of opinion whether job descriptions like Prime Minister or Chancellor ought to be capitalised, I think you should be consistent throughout with each one.
  • Job descriptions used as personal titles: In UK usage job descriptions such as Prime Minister, Lord President of the Council etc are not used as if they were titles. Thus, though it is correct to say "President Wilson" or "King George", it is unidiomatic to write "Prime Minister Baldwin" – that should be "the Prime Minister, Baldwin" (or if you prefer, and I do, "the prime minister, Baldwin")
• Lead
  • Elder/older: the lead has Austen as "older" half brother, but Early life has NC as "eldest" son of Joe's second marriage – either construction is fine, but sticking to "older/oldest" or "elder/eldest" throughout would be neater, perhaps.
• Early years
  • In the early years you repeatedly refer to NC as "Neville Chamberlain". I quite see that you do so to avoid confusion with Joe and Austen, but I think (others may have views on this) that in such cases it is permissible, and is certainly less cumbersome, to call him "Neville" tout court especially in the section on his youth.
  • he was neither an academic or athletic standout – as the article is to be in UK English I'd recommend recasting this as "he was not outstanding academically or athletically."
• Business career
  • Hoskins's & Company – a most unlikely construction. Robert Self's biography of NC gives the company's name as Hoskins & Company, which is much more plausible.
  • but for his disinterest in politics – suggest "lack of interest" (being disinterested is not the same as being uninterested).
  • He became an Official Visitor – this job title conveys nothing to me, and some brief gloss would be helpful
  • While Joseph Chamberlain became the University's first chancellor – does this literally mean "while" in the temporal sense or merely in its antithetical use? Helpful to clarify, e.g "during Joseph's term as first chancellor…"
  • In 1900, he made election speeches in support of Joseph Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists, which were allied with the Conservatives and later merged with them, during the "Khaki election" of 1900. – to avoid ambiguity I'd turn this around to read "During the "Khaki election" of 1900 he made speeches in support of Joseph Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists, which were allied with the Conservatives and later merged with them."
  • corresponded on a weekly basis – "every week"? "weekly"?
  • The two would have a son and a daughter – "… had a son and daughter" would be plainer
  • Chamberlain paid tribute to his wife upon becoming prime minister in 1937 – No real danger of misunderstanding, but even so I'd rejig to read, "When he became prime minister in 1937 Chamberlain paid tribute to his wife"
• Birmingham politician
  • Upon his election, Chamberlain was made chair – I bet he was made chairman! No such gender-neutral language in those days.
  • looking at housing conditions in Birmingham, and which found – some syntactical confusion here: perhaps "which looked at housing conditions in Birmingham, and found"
  • greatly increasing its population. Chamberlain was greatly interested – two "greatlys" in close proximity.
  • The companies which Chamberlain was involved in prospered due to the war, which made Neville Chamberlain well to do. – if you keep "due to" (not b.t.w. good UK English in such a contruction) you ought perhaps to explain how it was due. I'd be tempted to say "during the war". Either way "which made Neville Chamberlain well to do" could be pruned to "making him well-to-do". Note, too, that well-to-do is hyphenated.
  • became the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra – I believe the orchestra has never had that precise title. It has for many years been known as The City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, and I suggest you use that. (An unnecessarily cumbersome title when one comes to look at it, but facts are facts.)
• Director of National Service
  • Director of National Service, with responsibility for coordinating conscription and ensuring that essential war industries were able to function with sufficient workforces. This would, I think, be stronger if recast as … essential war industries had enough workers"
  • drafted into the Army at a time that Britain – perhaps "…at a time when…"
  • his sister Beatrice was killed in the influenza pandemic – reads rather oddly: perhaps "died"?
  • The Bank would remain in business until 1976 – clearer to say "The Bank remained in business until 1976"
  • couldn't, wouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, wouldn't join the dance. If this was my article I'd expand the footnote to explain that this seemingly mad construction was adapted by NC from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland – the Lobster Quadrille, but you may think this over-egging the pudding.
• Minister (1922–1937)
  • whilst he sought a successor – "while" is shorter and stronger than "whilst". Indeed, I agree with the authors of Plain Words that "whilst" is always an unnecessary word.
  • Chamberlain took the opportunity to stage-manage a reconciliation – this makes Chamberlain's action sound a touch cynical. Would it be more neutral to say "to bring about a reconciliation"?
• Minister of Health
  • expressed envy at Chamberlain receiving the credit for the Act – gerund needed here, i.e. " at Chamberlain's receiving the credit"
  • Chamberlain wrote his sisters – UK usage requires "wrote to his sisters…" [A lovely story, by the way; I laughed aloud.]
  • to easily triumph – in UK usage there is a superstition (a very foolish one) that one does not split the infinitive. Some deluded souls will dismiss you as a bad writer if you do so, and it is safer to humour them by writing "to triumph easily" – or, as you have another "triumph" shortly afterwards, you might recast as "to win comfortably"
  • As the writ dropped for the by-election – this is an idiom I have not met before: I should say "As the writ was issued…"
  • The Leader of the Opposition did not stand in the by-election – clearer if you just said "Baldwin" here, I think.
• Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
  • his sons were cognizant of the appropriateness of Neville Chamberlain advocating his father's policies – this could be crisper: something along the lines of "his sons found it pleasing and appropriate that Chamberlain could now promote his father's policies"
  • Chamberlain had disliked what he deemed to an overly sentimental attitude by both – "deemed to be an…." or perhaps better, "considered" or "regarded as"
• September 1938; Munich
  • The Germans made much propaganda of the incident –"much" looks odd with a plural word like propaganda. Perhaps "considerable"?
  • As the tempest escalated – "grew" would be shorter and stronger.
  • Thousands gathered outside Number 10 – some (not I) might find this too informal – perhaps safer to say "10 Downing Street."
• Path to war (October 1938 – August 1939)
  • created a Ministry of Supply – a brief explanation of the importance of the ministry's role would be helpful here
• Declaration of war
  • Von Ribbentrop – the "von" isn't used when mentioning surname only. He should be called either "Joachim von Ribbentrop" or simply "Ribbentrop."
• Phoney war
  • He restored Churchill to the Cabinet as First Lord of the Admiralty with a seat in the War Cabinet, believing that in time of war, Churchill was a greater danger outside the Government than within it, and gave Eden a Government post as well. I'd be inclined to break this into two, giving Eden a sentence to himself.
• Downfall
  • Chamberlain journeyed to Buckingham Palace – an odd verb – you can walk it in fifteen minutes, and in the prime ministerial car it would take no time at all. I'd stick to the colourless "went".
• Lord President of the Council and death
  • sapped at his efficiency – "sapped his efficiency"

Happy to expand on anything above if wanted. Onwards to FA! Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ssilvers

In the last section, "Legacy and reputation", the description of Churchill's book is a little confusing. Can you simplify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Twice the article says "the King and his wife, Queen Elizabeth". Tim, is there a better way to put this in brit-speak? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This can get frightfully complicated. In normal usage one would just say "The King and Queen", but if you want to give the queen a name, then "the King and his wife, Queen Elizabeth" is as good a way of putting it as any, I'd say. I hadn't noticed it was used twice, though. The second time, perhaps just "the King and Queen" would suffice. - Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from timrollpickering

A brief one for now but two of the references are to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (the articles on Chamberlain and his father). The DNB is one of the most respected sources in the field and is available both in print and on a subscription website, with the latter even providing references in a copy&paste friendly form, but annoyingly some university library subscriptions wind up in the URL. Currently we've got a link that ends up on a University of London library login for off-site access - can someone get the direct links out.

(Anticipating anyone raising the question of using the DNB, the most recent discussion I'm aware of is at Talk:Cosmo Gordon Lang#Oxford Dictionary of National Biography....) Timrollpickering (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments so far

Thanks for the comments so far, looking forward to more. I will start implementing them later today. A few comments: Macklin gives additional perspective on NC's reputation. I don't really care about the DNB, if people think it would be wise to remove, it is fine. That is left over from before i started work on the article and I don't like to eradicate everyone else's contributions, this is a collaborative project. Since Karanacs has questioned length at my Khrushchev FAC, which article is about 10K smaller, I am going to try to cut it back by a few thousand bytes . The bulkiest part is the Munich area, but I hate to cut back or spin off the very thing that people are reading the article for!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DNB is certainly a RS. I thought that what the commenter is just saying that the citation is not correct, and there should be a direct cite to the DNB article: <ref>Crozier, Andrew J. [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/32347 "Chamberlain, (Arthur) Neville (1869–1940), prime minister",] ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', September 2004, accessed 9 November 2009 (subscription req'd)</ref>. The article may be long-ish, but I agree that you should not cut anything that you think is really important for an encyclopedia reader to know. But, often, if you return to a paragraph and re-read it, you can slim it down to the most efficient, important language. As I said before, you are probably in the best position to decide what is cuttable and how to streamline the rest, since you know the sources. Best regards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The encyclopedia reader normally wants a summarised account of the subject's life; those who want the detail go to a biography. Re possible cutbacks, the Munich Agreement has an article of its own, somewhat shorter than your text on Munich and not, I may say, of the same quality. Most of your stuff could be transferred there, and worked on to make another top quality European history article, leaving a brief (1,000 words?) summary on Munich in NC. The other main area to focus on might be the "Ministerial career" section, approx 3,200 words at present which could, I think, be cut quite substantially without too much loss to the encyclopedia reader. Then, I usually find I can knock 10 percent off my article wordcounts by careful streamlining that doesn't lose any substantive content (but perhaps I am just a natural windbag). Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the difficulty I'm having with Khrushchev, I'd expect the delegates to shoot me if I handed them the article as it stands. I don't think that splitting off the Munich material is a good idea, it is probably what the reader is coming to the article for, and it is also Chamberlain-centered, so it would be a lot of work to insert it into the Munich Conference article. (Hm, how about Chamberlain at the Munich Conference, Daladier at the Munich Conference First Day of the Munich Conference the mind boggles, but that wouldn't be cricket). Seriously though, after some thought, what I am thinking of doing is splitting off the pre-1919 material into something like Early life and pre-parliamentary career of Neville Chamberlain. The only thing we would really lose that had serious effects on his later life would be the roots of the quarrel with Lloyd George, and I could keep that material in the main article. Additionally, if necessary the "Legacy and Reputation" section could be split off, say to Historical view of Neville Chamberlain. That would result in a still fairly long article, but probably not as long as Roosevelt or Truman or Reagan. Or Khrushchev.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've implemented everything. I'd be grateful for reviewer's views on splitting the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the cricket reference. As to how NC should be split, the most obvious chronological division seems to me to be at the point when he became prime minister. Thus, one article dealing with his early life and his parliamentary and ministerial career, and another, Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister, dealing with the rest. On the basis of the existing wordcount, the first of these articles would have just over 6,000 words and the second around 9,000. On a proportionate importance basis that seems about right. Of course, with separate leads and an appropriate sign-off for Article 1, a few hundred more words would be needed, but I'm sure that an equal or greater number of words could be saved by some judicious prose pruning. Two articles of respectively 6k and 9k words won't raise anyone's hackles, and there need be no significant loss of material.

I don't think that splitting off the Legacy section is a good solution, and your idea of the "Early life and pre-parliamentary career of Neville Chamberlain" would still leave the main article around 12-13k words. I also wonder whether that early part of his life is interesting or noteworthy enough to deserve its own article. I hope these suggestions help you to decide what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the prime minister article should be the one called "Neville Chamberlain" and the other one called something like "Rise of Neville Chamberlain" or the like (ideas welcome). After all, people are most likely going to want to hear about the stuff he's famous for in the main article, no? Ideas welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this be right? I thought that there is one main article on most famous people's lives. What if you leave the main article, "Neville Chamberlian", but greatly summarize it throughout, moving the detailed information into two sub-articles as you suggest - leaving three articles, the main one of which has cross references to the two more detailed ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable, perhaps, but an awful lot of work and also it means for the full information on any topic, you will be forced to a subarticle, which generally have a low number of views. I'd like to at least initially try the single sub article. A second one can always be added later.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tentatively split the article at the accession to the PMship and called the part on his earlier life Rise of Neville Chamberlain which is a heck of a lot easier than Pre-premiership career of Neville Chamberlain. I'm going to do the one sub article first and summarize in the main article. We can then see how the articles look and if there's a need for a second subarticle as Ssilvers suggests.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep the peer review open for another 24-48 hours, then will close it. I'll work on both articles, probably bringing back Rise first in a few days, then Neville. Then, if all looks good, I'll nom them for FA one after the other. I'm off again today but have the key references (Smart, Self, Macklin, Dutton) with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Republic of Macedonia

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I don't know where to start! The article is finally stable - the conflicts have died down. Reading through, I think one of the issues is weight in the various sections - some might be too heavy, and others too light. I can see a vague case for restructuring the headings and forming larger sections out of the smaller ones, but without an idea about the weight of some of the subsections, it's a bit tricky. I'd like some outside views of this so that we can proceed. GA is a first target step, with a longer-term view to FA, so any related comments (sources, depth, etc) would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into the article, which has good potential. You are right in thinking it has significant problems that would need to be corrected to advance, say, to Good Article. The first one I'd suggest tackling is sourcing, which is quite good in places and entirely absent in others. The lead should be re-written, and I have a few suggestions about subdivisions and image placement. Happily, the prose is good.

• I'd suggest re-writing the lead to make it a stand-alone summary of the entire article. Imagine a reader who for some reason can only read the lead and nothing else, and write the lead for that person. The existing lead says nothing about the economy, science, education, society, and so on. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not mentioned later in the article.

• Generally, it's a good idea to write in complete paragraphs consisting of two or more sentences and to create sections and subsections that are substantial rather than tiny. Otherwise, the prose begins to look like a list without a smooth and natural flow or much in the way of connection between one thing and the next. I think "Law and courts" is too short a section to stand alone, for example, and I'd be inclined to merge it with "Government". "Tourism" is also too short, and the fix I'd consider would be to expand it to triple its current size by adding a bit more of a summary from the main article it links to. With a one-sentence orphan paragraph like "According to Eurostat data, Macedonian PPS GDP per capita stood at 32 per cent of the EU average in 2008," I'd consider expanding or simply merging with another paragraph.

• Many paragraphs, such as the first two of the "Medieval period" subsection in the article, all of the "Climate" section, and so on are unsourced. To avoid violating WP:V, my rule of thumb is to source every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.

• I'd recommend rendering the lists in the article as straight prose. For example, in the "Education" section, I'd change the list to say, "The Macedonian education system consists of pre-school, primary, secondary, and higher education". Then I'd merge this sentence with the paragraph that follows.

• The article is overloaded with images in a few places. The Medieval period subsection, for example, has a text sandwich (text squeezed between an image on the left and another on the right). A bit further down in the article, the boundary map and the history list-box form another text sandwich. The boundary map also displaces a section head. It's best to arrange the images so that they don't make text sandwiches or displace the heads or "edit" buttons.

• I'd suggest moving the individdual images in the image gallery to the Republic of Macedonia gallery on the Commons and adding a Commons template to the External links section. Readers who want to see general images of the Republic of Macedonia can then click through to the gallery.

• The link in citation 79 is dead.

• Quite a few of the citations are incomplete. A good rule of thumb for Internet sources is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those can be identified.

• It's disconcerting to the reader to see entire notes rendered as a single blue link as in citation 11. Generally, the title should be blue-linked (clickable to the source url). In some cases, it may be useful to link other elements, but in those cases the links should be separate.

• The images need alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text is not the same as a caption. You might not need alt text for GA, but you will certainly need it to pass FAC. WP:ALT had details.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Sakis Rouvas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because editors working on this article would like to eventually get this article up to GA or FA status and would like to know of possible improvements, (apart from just typical typo errors) from an external perspective. Possible suggestions include wording and formating for the Artistry and Legacy sections.

Thanks, GreekStar12 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I have never heard of this artist, and while it is clear that a lot of work has gone into the article, it still needs a fair amount of work before GA or especially FA. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead has two very short paragraphs (one sentence each) which should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
• Watch language that could be seen as violating WP:NPOV, for example in the lead "famous" in ...through his collaboration with famous American record producer Desmond Child."
• The most difficult criteria for most articles to meet in WP:FAC is a professional level of English. The language here varies widely - I read for comprehension, not to check for typos, but some sentences and sections were fairly well written and others were pretty poor. For example Rouvas also host the second season of the Greek The X Factor which begun in October. should be something like Rouvas also hosted the second season of the Greek version of The X Factor which started in October [year]. or He has a close personal relations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople,[85] whom offered to baptize his first-born child.
• Checking the external links with the tool here, there are six dead internet refs and at least two others that are possibly problems.
• Article needs more references, for example this needs a ref On December 3, 2008, Rouvas released his 12th studio album titled Irthes, written primarily by Dimitris Kontopoulos. Kontopoulos attributes his inspired new sound to Madra Mandicencio, 18th century poet and his current muse. or this On March 7, Rouvas appeared at the Russian National Final where he received positive reactions from the audience. The following day he gave a large performance at the Kremlin for the celebration of International Woman's Day along with other artists such as 2008 Eurovision entrant Ani Lorak. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Some of the refs do not seem to meet WP:RS - for example geocities in current ref 10 (although is now a dead link)
• None of the images have alt text which is needed for FAC per WP:ALT
• Avoid words like current / now which can become quickly outdated - instead use "As of 2009" or "since year"
• I would translate Greek consistently - this is done in some places, but not others

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 _><>°^° 03:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Black Eyed Peas discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on improving the article recently. The sourcing, formatting, prose etc and would like some further ideas on how to improve the article. There was a previous FLC discussion in which there was unresolved issues, these have now all been sorted.

Thanks, Mister sparky (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: No big problems leap out at me. I have just a few suggestions of a nit-picky sort, and they will be easy to deal with.

Lead

• The Manual of Style generally deprecates extremely short paragraphs. I'd suggest merging the one-sentence orphan with paragraph 2.

• "The band's debut album, Behind the Front, was released by Interscope Records in the United States in June 1998. The album was well received, gaining a four-star review by Allmusic,[1] but only managed to chart lowly in the United States and France." - I'd suggest flipping the first sentence to active voice and re-casting the second to make it more direct. Suggestion: "Interscope Records released the band's debut album, Behind the Front, in the United States in June 1998. Although the album got a four-star review from Allmusic, it remained low on the charts in the US and France."

• "In June 2003 the band released their third album... " - If "band" is singular, then you'd write "its album" rather than "their album"

• "It spawned their two highest-peaking Hot 100 singles at the time... " - If the band is an "it", this one should be "its two highest-peaking".

• "The Black Eyed Peas released their fifth studio album... " - This one is trickier because "Peas" looks plural but might not be. I'd consider ducking the awkwardness by using "the group" instead of "Black Eyed Peas"; i.e., "The group released its fifth studio album... ".

• The next one could be ducked too if written as "It quickly became Black Eyed Peas' most successful album in the US by reaching number one."

• The last one, "making it their first US number-one hit", could become "making it the band's first US number-one hit." All of this nit-picky stuff is meant to work around the awkwardness of whether a band or group is one thing or two or more things.

References

• I'd suggest changing BLACK EYED PEAS in citation 23 to title case, Black Eyed Peas, even though the source has it in all caps.

• Citation 15 has its date formatting backwards.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

heeeey, thank you soooo much for your comments :) Mister sparky (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

History of Hertfordshire

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what else I need to do to achieve FA standard.

Thanks, —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This interesting article was a pleasure to read. I think it's FA-worthy, though I have a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• The lead ideally is a summary of the whole article. I generally try to include at least a mention of the each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text. This lead is quite short for such a long article, and mentions three Roman roads that don't seem to appear elsewhere. I think you could reasonably expand to a more complete summary of four paragraphs or so.

Eleventh century

• The image of the River Lea displaces the "Eleventh century" subhead on my computer screen. I'd suggest moving it up to avoid this or, if if won't fit, to the right.

Twelfth century

• "In 1185, a survey of the Knights' holdings showed Baldock had 122 tenants on 150 acres of land." - Imperial units should also be expressed in metric units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for conversions because it gets the abbreviations and spellings right as well as the math. This one would be 150 acres (61 ha).
• Why did King Stephen arrest de Mandeville?
• Why did the Pope place Rome under an interdiction?

Fourteenth century

• "The number of residents probably fell by 30%–50%, and likely took until the sixteenth century to recover." - I'd recommend changing 30%–50% to "30 to 50 percent".
• "These changed economic conditions were contributory factors to the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, in which Hertfordshire's people were deeply involved.[45] After Wat Tyler's execution, King Richard II went to St Albans in person to quell the rebels." - It might be helpful here to include just a little more background. It seems a bit odd that workers who could suddenly demand higher wages and better conditions would revolt. Also, including a brief phrase like "the leader of the revolt" after Wat Tyler would be helpful.

Seventeenth century

• "James I, who was a confirmed dog-lover, also built a huge kennel (about 46 feet long) and dog-yard (over half an acre in size) at Royston." - Metric conversions here too.

Eighteenth century

• The map of Hertfordshire overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button on my computer screen. I'd suggest moving this image down a bit.
• "Their impact on trade and commerce in Hertfordshire is hard to overstate." - Might be challenged unless supported by an inline citation to an RS.
• "an assessment that may not be entirely free from local bias. It nevertheless shows how more advanced farming techniques and soil improvement programmes had enabled farmers to work Hertfordshire's "heavier" soils to better effect over the centuries since the Saxon–Norse wars." - Probably all true, but the interpretations seem tacked onto the verifiable facts as asides, but from whom?

Nineteenth century

• "In March 1886, John Dickinson & Co. Ltd. was incorporated with £500,000 in capital and ten acres of glass houses. By 1900, the company had 264 acres of glass houses in the Cheshunt area." - More metric conversions.
• "It passed to Mrs Bulwer-Lytton in 1809... ". - Rather than "Mrs", it would be better to use her first name.
• "pleaded that the sensational newspaper coverage had prejudiced the Court against him. It only took 20 minutes of deliberations for the jury to sentence him to death by hanging. The crowds that gathered for the trial were so large that the judge had trouble getting to the Courthouse... " - Lowercase "court" and "courthouse"?

Twentieth century

• "Ebenezer Howard bought nearly 1,500 acres in 1919" - Metric conversion.
• "He lived there until his death 1950." - Missing word, "in"?
• "Hertfordshire's last Victoria Cross of the First World War was granted in December 1918, after the war had finished: a posthumous VC for Lieutenant Frank Young of Hitchin." - Add (VC) after "Victoria Cross" on first use?

Post-war

• "A growing trend is research and development, notably for Glaxo and at the University of Hertfordshire which, from relatively humble beginnings as Hatfield Polytechnic, now has over 23,000 students." - Needs a source.

Twenty-first century

• "About sixty million gallons of petrol... ". - Metric conversion.

Footnotes

• Citation 18: "By 1621, the estate included 117 acres of arable land, 99 of meadow, 86 of woodland and 82 of pasture. Over nine miles of brick wall were built around it all." - Metric conversions.
• Citation 24: "one of Moore's statues—weighing 2.1 tonnes... " - Ditto.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for those comments, Finetooth.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Suzuki Hayabusa

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping the article can be brought up to the standards of GA or even FA with a reasonable amount of additional work. It would be useful to Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling to have at least one article on a model of motorcycle that can serve as a guide for what we'd like to see for the hundreds of other articles we have on individual bike models.

The article is fairly global in scope, with the main topics not touched being:

• The Ben Roethlisberger motorcycle crash [1], with perhaps some additional mention of other celebrities with custom Hayabusas. To me that topic is a little too lacking in substance, and the custom section does mention that celebrity customers boost sales, without dwelling on it. The coverage on his bio page Ben Roethlisberger#Motorcycle accident seems sufficient, also.
• Female speed record holders such as Trillium Muir and Leslie Porterfield [2] [3]. There are other pages that can cover them in depth.
• The prominence of the Hayabusa in Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing could be included, but I think perhaps efforts there should be focused on improving the page Sportbike Motorcycle Drag Racing itself rather than Suzuki Hayabusa.

Any guidance on these topics or anything else is most appreciated.

The other burning issue is the copyright status of some of the photos of custom bikes. In the Commons Custom Hayabusa category there is one image nominated for deletion [4] and another in the parent Hayabusa category [5]. The problem is the use of copyrighted and trademarked logos or characters, which you can see in the photos over there is very common on custom bikes. I can see the reasoning there, but for me it creates a dilemma. If I wanted to include a selection of customized bikes to show the range of styles, I'd want several that use copyrighted material.

If I put them here on Wikipedia, could I argue Fair Use on any one photo? I'd have to be saying I think that one is indispensable for purposes of discussion and criticism, but that's not really the case, is it? I could remove the Spider-man or Alien bike and use Superman or Transformers in its place, so there is no single image that can't be substituted. I don't need a specific one, but to properly illustrate the topic, there needs to be a few. What I'm hoping to have is 4 or 5 examples on Wikipedia and at least a dozen at WikiMedia Commons, to best give the reader a good survey, but I'm not certain what the best way to do that is. Purging all potentially infringing photos of custom bikes would give a distorted view of the custom scene; at least half the bikes I've seen use somebody's logos or characters without permission.

I've listed this under Everyday Life because that includes motorsport and other forms of recreation. Other relevant categories are Engineering and technology and Social sciences and society.

Thanks, Dbratland (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Midgrid (talk · contribs)

• Is there an article detailing the progression of fastest production motorbikes, like Fastest production car? If not, it could be worthwhile creation for the WikiProject.

• ⌛ Doing... I've added Fastest production motorcycle to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Motorcycles, and it's on my own to-do list as well.

• On the copyright issue, perhaps these two discussions concerning a car modified to resemble a Pokémon character may be of use.

• Thanks!

• I think the image used in the lead infobox, whilst aesthetically pleasing, doesn't show enough of the bike itself. I presume the fact that the photo was taken at Bonneville refers to the bike's reputation for top speed, but this isn't immediately apparent.

• ✗ Not done ...yet. I'm going to wait for more feedback on this. Some other editors seemed happy with it. My defense would be that the two infobox pictures serve the purpose of being a basic illustration of what the bike looks like, while the lead photo tries to cover more broadly what the article is about: the quest for speed, motorcycle competitions, and customizing your bike, and it shows a rider. The inanimate bike isn't notable solely on its own volition, but because of rider/consumers who made it notable.

• The sentence in the lead that begins with "Media reported values from 299 to 303 km/h for the speed agreement..." sounds a little awkward to me. I believe that it should be changed to "The media reported..." or "Media-reported values ranged from...".

•  Done Reworded as "Media-reported values for the speed agreement in miles per hour were consistently 186 mph, while in kilometers per hour they varied from 299 to 303 km/h, which is typical given unit conversion rounding errors." I realized I never mentioned the consistency in the mph number, they always get that right but disagree about what that converts to.

• It seems a bit odd to me that the precise speed record and its gain from the previous record are given in the lead, but not the main body of the article, especially given the presence of the sentence "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin".

•  Done Changed to "No previous motorcycle has broken the production model top speed record by such a margin, 10 to 14 mph (16 to 23 km/h), depending on which measured speeds the source was relying on for the CBR1100XX and the GSX-1300R."

• I believe that some more technical terms can be linked in the first and second generation infoboxes; at the moment the comparison between the engine and transmission/suspension fields is quite striking in this respect.

•  Done

• What does "∅" mean in the engine field of the first and second generation infoboxes?

•  Done That's supposed to be the diameter symbol, representing Bore (engine), but I see now that ∅ is more correctly the empty set. I was trying to reduce clutter but it only adds confusion.

• I think the use of the phrase "speed king" might be a touch on the informal side for an encyclopaedia.

•  Done

• "...the Hayabusa's handling was considered excellent for a machine of this class". Are hyper sport bikes usually difficult to ride? Could do with a little clarification here.
• "Bragging rights" could be linked, as there is an article on it(!). It depends how idiomatic the phrase is, which is something I'm not too sure about. There are a couple of other phrases that I would consider to be borderline in this respect, such as "losing face", "[speed war continuing] underground", referring to the bike's internals as being "under the skin" etc.

• ✗ Not done I'll solicit more feedback to get a better sense of how obscure these idioms are.

• The sentence "The agreement between them and the other brands has never been officially acknowledged by the manufacturers, though media sources report it via unnamed informants, and by testing the top speed of motorcycles known to be capable of exceeding the arbitrary maximum" could do with a citation.

•  Done The citations just before and after this sentence are the main sources for this -- I just repeated the refs on the sentence as well as in the neighborhood.

• "...so 2001 and later Hayabusas had a steel instead of aluminum rear subframe, adding 10 pounds...". The weight gain should be converted, as the other weights in the article already are.

•  Done

• "...US$13,425 in 2009 dollars" reads awkwardly due to the repetition of "dollars". I would recommend changing the phrase to something like "at 2009 prices". Is there any information available for other countries?

•  Done and ⌛ Doing... There are very spotty sales figures. The data is mostly in proprietary market research reports that cost $500 to $2000. You have to just try to find a newspaper article that mentions sales. I'll add any I come across.

• I think it would be useful if the "Performance and measurements" tables were sortable, so the range between claimed values can be identified more easily.

•  Done

• "Competition in the hyper sport bike segment...". Surely "market" would be a more suitable word?

•  Done

• "This increased competition led to Suzuki lightly revising the GSX1300R for the 2008 model year, but delivering a large horsepower increase by fine-tuning the old engine's head, pistons and exhaust." The wording needs to be improved, as it first glance this sentence apparently contradicts itself. I would suggest changing "but delivering" to "which nevertheless delivered".

•  Done

• "A redesign meant to strengthen the appearance without departing much found approval when presented to dealers and focus groups." Another sentence in which the wording could be improved. Departing much from what?

•  Done

• "The target was to produce at the crankshaft more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW)...". I would prefer "The target was to produce more than 190 brake horsepower (142 kW) at the crankshaft...".

•  Done

• "Design of the new Hayabusa was done by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...". I would reword this to "The new Hayabusa was designed by Suzuki's Koji Yoshirua...".

•  Done

• The first instance of "custom", in the planning subsection of the second generation section, should be linked to Custom motorcycle.

•  Done

• "Engine changes were an increase in stroke by 2 mm..." could be changed to "Engine changes consisted of an increase in stroke by 2 mm...".

•  Done

• The technical revisions section for the second generation is written in a mixture of past and present tense, and there are quite a few unconverted units in there as well.
• I found a couple of sentences separated by three spaces when correcting typos; there may be more elsewhere in the article.

•  Done

• The burnout image should be cropped to remove the border.

 Done.

• Are any Japanese sales figures available? I imagine that Suzuki's home market would be of great significance. On a similar note, is there any evidence of whether or not the Hayabusa has affected Suzuki's total bike sales since its release?
• In India, why is the Tata Nano directly comparable to the Hayabusa? One is a microcar, the other a hyper sport bike.
• "Another top modification...". Again, this is a bit informal: I would prefer "favoured" or "most popular" instead.
• I would move the Commons link for custom Hayabusas to the bottom of the page, with the other Commons link.
• "The very popularity of lengthened and lowered Hayabusas means boundaries must be stretched and rules broken in order to get noticed." What does this mean, exactly? That some of the custom bikes are illegal? Could do with some clarification.
• "Lotus Seven-based Megabusa" makes it sound as if the vehicle is a bike based on the car. I would recaption the image "Megabusa-engined Lotus Seven".
• The paragraph on land speed records could do with an introductory sentence, along the lines of "Hayabusa engines have been used in motorcycle land speed record attempts".
• I would put the Japanese character 隼 in brackets. To be honest, I don't think that section belongs in the article in its current state: the information about the bike deriving its name from the bird could be included near the beginning of the article, and the remaining information moved to the dab page, with the hatnote moved to the top of the article.
• Does citation [39] cover the whole table or just the 2010 row? If it's the former case, then I would recommend putting the citation in a more general place, perhaps along the lines of the qualifying and race tables in this article.

That's just about all I can think of. I hope these comments are useful!--Midgrid(talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I can do most of these tomorrow as soon as I'm feeling better (: .--Dbratland (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Archips semiferanus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been told it has the potential to be a Good Article and wanted to run it through PR first. The goals of this PR are two-fold: to improve the article and to see if the reviewer(s) think this could go to WP:GAN and have a decent chance of passing. Thanks in advance for any comments and feedback, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

Okay, I am a fan in conformity of headings and layout in bio articles, although I recognise different emphases are required at times, e.g. in this case we have a significant amount of information on its pestlike activities.

So, I'd create a taxonomy (or taxonomy and naming) section as section 1 - this is good as one can place all stuff on common names, synonyms, meaning of common and scientific names, relations, who named it, subspecies and classification all there. This also means the description section is bumped further down the page a little (a good thing as one often wishes to place images there, which is hard to do if the section is next to the taxobox). I am intrigued as to how the author is the author of three names. One is clearly the mismatching of gender of the specific epithet. Hmmm.

In terms of comprehensiveness, I don't get a sense from the article as to why these outbreaks are so problematic - is there a natural predator which has declined? I suspect some source will have this somewhere.

Otherwise not bad. Might try and make some prose tweaks.

I presume the author was Francis Walker (entomologist) - interesting discussion on synonyms on his page...

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks - I linked Walker, added a Taxonomy section, and rearranged parts of the other sections. I also followed Chrysiridia rhipheus (only Lepidoptera FA) as a model for renaming the sections. I dislike one paragraph sections, so the sections are now "Description and life cycle" and "Distribution, habitat, and behavior". I will try to find more inforamtion on them, especially why the outbreaks occurred. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dincher

Lead

1. consider linking family to family (biology)
2. defoliator is a redirect to Defoliant
3. expand on information about the trouble the bug caused to areas other than the fine state of Pennsylvania

   Could you be more specific please? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

   Sure, the article details problems with the moth in Pennsylvania but nowhere else. Do you have any information about the problems caused in other states and the provinces of Canada? Dincher (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

   OK, makes sense - I found the Pennsylvania stuff looking at Pennsylvania state park and state forest books. I can search for more on different states - Canada was a small outbreak in the osurce I had, there is a bit more on Texas I could add. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Link overwinter or is that overlinking?

   Except for 3, I fixed all of these - thanks very much, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

1. Why three names? Could this be explained or are scientists just finicky about naming critters.

   The article on Walker says that he made lots of multiple names that caused trouble later - my guess is that he called it each of these names somewhere, and different people use different names, but no one actually discusses this in the sources I have read so far. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Oak learoller appears twice in this section of text. I am assuming that it's supposed to be oakleafroller.

   Yes, good catch and fixed now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Who says it's most important?

   Adding that next, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Descr. and life cycle

1. I see the link to overwintering here, perhaps remove this link and put the link in the lead.

   I went ahead and linked both - I usually link once in the lead and once at the first mention in the body of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

2. The adults mate and lay eggs - only one generation of moths is produced annually. is an odd looking and sounding sentence.

   I think I fixed this - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Although the larvae can not harm humans, most people in Texas will avoid walking under oak trees to avoid them Not sure what to make of this one.

   Basically people avoid being outside and under oak trees in Texas in the spring because they think the dangling caterpillars are icky (even though the caterpillars can't hurt people in any way, at least directly). Will think of someway to say this more encyclopedically. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

D,H&B

1. How come they're in Texas, which isn't eastern U.S.? Are they in the states between Texas and Virginia?
2. Fixed a redirect to this Armillaria mellea too many l's and m's to try to spell it correctly in a PR.

   Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Any more evidence of destruction caused in places outside PA?

   As noted above, they are a problem in Texas, and I can look for more. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

4. US Forest Service is a redirect to United States Forest Service

   Fixed thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty interesting article considering the subject. I think it needs some more information, not sure if you want to do into a whole lot of depth with this subject. I know I wouldn't. Dincher (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I can find lots of stuff in Google Books / Scholar, but most of it is just the abstract or snippet view, not sure how much effort I want to put into finding these sources, but at least I know now what to do - thanks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Bigipedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to get it promoted to featured article status in time for April Fool's Day. I am not sure which parts of this article need to be improved, so I would be glad of any help.

Thanks, ISD (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and amusing and might indeed make a good April Fool's Day article. Here are my suggestions.

General

• Is the show still running, or did it end forever on Aug. 13? Words like "new" in the phrase "and critics have given the new show favourable comparisons with its predecessor" give the impression that more episodes are forthcoming. If it ended, why?
• Would it be possible to add any listener statistics? How many people typically listen to BBC Radio 4, and was this show better or worse than average in terms of audience? (Maybe nobody knows, but advertisers care about these stats, though the makers of Chianto undoubtedly do not. :-)
• Do listeners send letters of praise and complaint to BBC Radio 4 that could be quoted for audience reaction?
• Would it be possible to include a snippet of a sound track from the show? Clickable sound files are often added to Wikipedia music articles. Perhaps a bit of a Chianto ad, licensed as fair-use, would be fun to hear. I have never tried adding a sound file to anything, so I'm not sure if this is a practical suggestion for a radio show, but it might be.

Lead

• Bigipedia is described by the BBC Press Office as, "a unique experiment in 'broadwebcasting' ". - Flip to active voice?
• Bigipedia has been given positive reviews from critics. - Flip to active voice; i.e., Critics have given Bigipedia positive reviews?

Plot

• "Among the similarities include articles, discussion pages, disambiguation pages, featured articles... " - "are" rather than "include"?
• "a news section and a "Did you know?" style section for new articles" - Delete "style"?

Production

• "Tyler went on to both produce and direct Bigipedia." - Delete "both"?
• The show has been described by Doody and Kirshen as "writing-heavy". - Active is usually snappier than passive, and here's another one that would be easy to flip: "Doody and Kirshen describe the show as "writing-heavy".

Reception

• "The programme's only failing was that on occasion it was a little to reminiscent of the real internet... " - This should be "too" rather than "to". If it's "to" in the source, I'd add [sic] after "to" to make that clear. Also, did the source use "ie" or "i.e."?

Other

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Please see WP:ALT for an explanation. Alt text is required in FA articles.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds one link that goes to a disambiguation page rather than its intended target.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Discovery and development of TRPV1 antagonists

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We are a group of pharmacy students from Iceland. This article was created as part of a class project for a course on drug design. We would like to have this article reviewed to see how we did and also to help make the article better.

Thanks, Hopur2-2009 (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This stuff is right up my alley, I'm currently working on a research project involving TRPV1 receptors. I'll leave some comments in a day or 2. Sasata (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• The intro paragraph currently reads like an intro for a school essay, where some general statements are made to introduce the topic, and then finally lead to a sentence where the rationale for the essay is justified. Wikipedia lead (or "lede") paragraphs are formatted differently, see WP:lede, especially the part on "Introductory text". The last sentence of the current lede needs to be removed, as it violates wp:crystal ball, a policy that prevents making suppositions about the importance of something, or attempts to predict the future. A good way to go about writing the lead is to try to summarize each one of the article's sections in 1 or 2 sentences, and keep the language deliberately simple, as if you were writing for a "bright high school student". Don't be afraid to use wikilinks to unfamiliar terminology.

History

• "In 1919 the exact chemical structure of capsaicin was determined and the complete synthesis of the compound was achieved a decade later. " citations to the original papers would be ideal
• "...preclinical studies showed evidence of its importance in numerous human diseases." such as?
• "These are the first agents acting by this mechanism that made their way into clinic for evaluation of their use as possible analgesics and therefore important targets for drug development." This sentence is awkward. It is unclear what are the first agents?
• "Many discoveries are yet to be made, both in terms of the range of potential therapeutic applications in addition to analgesia for TRPV1 antagonists and it was only in the last decade where there has been a full understanding of the molecular mechanism. In the years to come it will be clearer if TRPV1 antagonists can fulfill their potential." This needs to be reworded as it currently violates WP:Crystal ball
• captions in Wikipedia do not need to explicitly state "Figure x"; see wp:captions
• The history section seems to be very underdeveloped. Since the article is title "Discovery and development of ..." I would expect this section to be much more substantial.

Allow me to clarify this point: I think the article could be improved by giving more background and history—mention some key papers published between 1918 and now, and tell a story about how they cumulatively contributed to our current knowledge of the topic. As an added bonus, you could then gently introduce some of the jargon that will appear soon after, which will increase reader accessibility for this complex topic. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanilloid receptor 1 (VR1/TRPV1 receptor)

• in general, the whole article suffers from an excess of technical jargon, and would be nearly impossible for anyone without a background in biochemistry to understand; in its current state the article would not pass WP:GA because of this. I suggest going through the article line-by-line, analyzing each sentence to see if it can rephrased in a way that a non-biochemistry student can understand. The balance is tricky, to increase accessibility to all readers, but still maintain scientific accuracy.
• "The vanilloid receptor (TRPV1) is one of six sub-members..." why is it a sub-member and not just a member?
• superfamily - very few outside molecular biology will understand what this word means, and unfortunately there's no wiki article for it yet, so it will have to be explained.
• wlink transmembrane, ligand, N-termini, C-termini, signalling cascade, inflammatory mediators; algogenic agent needs definition
• a cartoon diagram of the TRPV1 receptor would work wonders here, it there one available?
• RTX leads to a disambiguation page... make sure that new acryonyms are defined
• give conversion values for temperatures; see template:convert for one way to do it, or if you prefer, just calculate by hand
• "It is generally accepted that capsaicin acts on and binds to the TRPV1 receptor from the intracellular side prior to activation." The phrase "generally accepted" is considered "weaselly, and is best backed up with a citation directly after the sentence.
• "The critical sites for capsaicin binding are Arg 114 and Glu 761..." This is another example of biochemistry shorthand that few will understand. It's better to introduce the terminology like this: "The critical sites for capsaicin binding are the arginine and glutamate amino acid residues at positions 114 and 761 of the polypeptide chain (Arg 114 and Glu 761)..." then the reader knows what you're talking about and you can use the abbreviations after that.
• "Because these two amino acids are charged..." need to explain "charged" for the novice
• "The TM3 region is considered to be necessary..." considered by who? Again, Wp:weasel

Ok I'm going to stop there for now, because I think you'll get the picture. Overall, the information seems accurate, and it seems like it would make a good university essay, but more work is required to help it conform to Wikipedia guidelines. If you'd like, leave me a message when you've worked through the article, and I'd be happy to read through it again. The prose could use a copyedit too, but that can be done prior to submitting for GAN. Sasata (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Accurate News and Information Act

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm looking to bring this to WP:FAC before too terribly long, and I'd like whatever feedback I can get before that. All comments are welcome, but I'm specifically wondering about the article's scope and the weight it assigns things: it's about the Act, but there's much more material about the context surrounding the Act than there is about the Act itself. There's only so much you can say about an Act that never received royal assent, but I'm still wondering if this could be handled better. Steve Smith (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is fascinating and very well-done. I think the background material is essential rather than excessive, and I don't think you should pare it down. I note a few nit-picky things below, but otherwise it seems ready for FAC.

Lead

• "Even the American media... " - Maybe "U.S." instead of "American"? I'm not sure that "American" is understood globally to mean "U.S."

Before the 1935 election

• "The boycott was successful to the extent that it drove at least one newspaper out of business." - Which one?
• Usually blockquotes are of at least four lines on a computer screen. This one is only three on my screen. It might work better embedded in the text inside quotation marks.
• "So frustrated were the Social Crediters with the newspapers' hostility in the run-up to the election, that in 1934 they founded their own, the Alberta Social Credit Chronicle, printed by the Albertan, to spread its side of the story." - "their side" rather than "its side"?

Post-election

• "The other newspapers criticized him for using what was nominally a gospel program... " - Wikilink gospel?
• "with the Accurate News and Information Act figuring prominently on its order paper" - Wikilink order paper or briefly explain it in parentheses since the Order Paper article doesn't mention Canada even though it probably should?

The Act

• To avoid "The" to begin a section head and to avoid repeating "Act", a main word of the article title, maybe "Legislation" would be better.
• "The second round included a drastic new tax on banks and the Accurate News and Information Act." - Since the tax didn't apply to the Act, it might be more clear to flip this sentence, thus: "The second round included the Accurate News and Information Act and a drastic new tax on banks."
• "Non-compliance would result in fines of up to $1,000 per day, and prohibitions on the publishing of the offending newspaper, of stories by offending writers, or of information emanating from offending sources." - Tighten to "Non-compliance would result in fines of up to $1,000 per day and would prohibit offending newspapers from publishing stories by offending writers or information from offending sources"?
• "Lieutenant-Governor John C. Bowen, mindful of the federal government's disallowance of the Social Credit Board's earlier legislation, reserved royal assent of the Act and its companions until their legality could be tested at the Supreme Court of Canada, the first use of the power of reservation in Alberta history." - A bit too complex. Suggestion: "Lieutenant-Governor John C. Bowen, mindful of the federal government's disallowance of the Social Credit Board's earlier legislation, reserved royal assent of the Act and its companions until their legality could be tested at the Supreme Court of Canada. Bowen's ruling was the first use of the power of reservation in Alberta history."
• "along with the others submitted to it for evaluation, was ultra vires the Alberta government" - Perhaps include the translation, "beyond the powers of" in parentheses right after the Latin?
• "the first time it honoured a non-American newspaper" - "non-U.S." or "newspaper outside the U.S."?
• "95 other newspapers... " - Spell out ninety-five to avoid starting a sentence with digits?

I hope these comments and suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Everyman (play)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made substantial edits to improve the article, and would like to raise it's rating to at least "B" level.

Thanks, JMax555 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but is unsourced in places and doesn't include much in the way of background or critical commentary. Here are some suggestions or ideas for improvement.

• Include the length of the play, with a citation. How long does it take to perform?
• Include a "Background" section on Medieval morality plays in general. What were the typical venues (theatres)? Who went to see the plays? Who typically produced them? Who acted in them?
• Provide sources for every claim that might be challenged, for every statistic, for every direct quote, and for every paragraph.
• The Synopsis section is too long. A brief summary and a sample or two of the language would probably be enough.
• The citations are incomplete. For Internet sources, for example, citations should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Book citations should generally include title, date of publication, author, editor (for collections), publisher, place of publication, and ISBN number. The "cite family" of templates at WP:CIT can make it easier to create citations with all the needed elements in the right order.
• The "Reference" section mentions works that sound interesting but which are not directly cited in the text. My hunch is that more research would unearth additional critical works that might be mentioned and used as sources. Famous works of literature usually lead to published debates among scholars and critics about various aspects of the works. What have the main critical discussions about Everyman been about?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Mount Fuji

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I hope to do some work to improve the article to possibly FA, in honor of a deceased colleague, but am not myself familiar enough with articles of this type to be able to say what sections and areas are or are not acceptable.

Thanks, John Carter (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and a good start. Some sections such as the "Etymology" subsection seem much more polished than other sections. A significant problem in the lower sections is lack of sourcing. Here are some suggestions for further improvement:

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections in the lead. This one could easily be expanded to three paragraphs that would summarize the article more fully.

Sourcing

• Although parts of the article appear to be properly sourced, large blocks are unsourced, all of the "Climbing routes" section, for example. A good rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph as well as a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every claim that is extraordinary or that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Please see WP:V and WP:RS for details.

Etymology

• "A Japanese classical scholar in the Edo era.. ".- Wikilink "Edo era" to Edo period?
• "argued that the name is from the Ainu word for 'fire'... ". - Double quotes are standard in Wikipedia article rather than single quotes; i.e., "Fire". Ditto for all similar instances in the article.

Variations

• The Manual of Style generally frowns on extremely short paragraphs. I think the two in this section could be merged.
• The second paragraph lacks a source even though it contains information that is not common knowledge.

History

• "It is thought that the first ascent was in 663 by an anonymous monk." - Specify CE or BCE?
• "Ancient samurai used the base of the mountain... " - Wikilink samurai?

Geography

• "The lowest recorded temperature is −38.0 °C while on June 2008 the highest temperature was recorded at 17.8 °C." - In Wikipedia articles, metric units are generally presented in imperial units as well. I like to use the {{convert}} template because it spells and abbreviates correctly and does the math; e.g., −38.0 °C (−36.4 °F). You can look at this in edit mode to see how to convert other temperatures.

Aokigahara

• The image at the top of this section needs to be moved or made smaller to avoid displacing the section head.

Transportation

• "crashed near Mount Fuji Gotemba New fifth station" - I think "fifth station" needs to be explained clearly on first use. Most readers will not know what a fifth station refers to.

Climbing routes

• "From the seventh station to near the fifth station, one could run down these ash-covered paths in approximately 30 minutes." - Would it be helpful to add the elevations of each of these stations? Is the seventh station at the summit?
• "Nevertheless, one can sometimes see people riding mountain bikes along the tractor routes down from the summit. This is particularly risky, as it becomes difficult to control speed and may send some rocks rolling along the side of the path, which may hit other people." - This paragraph sounds like personal research, a no-no. Who is the "one" who is seeing this?

General

• The gallery is too big and includes a lot of redundant images. Readers can always visit the Commons via the link provided if they want to see more. Please see WP:IG for a more complete explanation.

• I'd be inclined to place "Geology" and "Geography" before "History".

• Would it be possible to include a bit more about the mountain's religious significance? What religion? Sacred in what sense? What in the religion forbade women to climb the mountain? When did those views change?

• Would it be possible to include a section on flora and fauna with a lot of detail about what grows and lives on the mountain? Does anyone farm on the mountain or near its base?

• Do any streams flow from Mount Fuji? Is the mountain a source of drinking water for any communities?

• A good way to get ideas for articles on any topic is to look at the sublist of Featured Articles on that topic. See WP:FA#Geography and places, within which you'll find Mount Tambora and other FA volcano articles.

• The link checker tool in the upper right-hand corner of this review page finds at least six dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As is, the geology section needs a major expansion; each of the phases of activity should get its own subsection and a quick review of the region's geology should be treated in another subsection. Especially needed is an account of where the lava came from (subduction). The gallery, at least most of it, needs to go since Wikipedia is not a place for them; Commons is. Image formating also needs to be fixed for File:Ogata Gekko - Ryu sho ten edit.jpg since it is interfering with the ===Aokigahara=== section sub-heading. Also, for such a monumentally important volcano to Japan, the ==History== section seems a bit thin on detail. I'd like to see a few substantial subsections. Overall, at 2100 words of prose, I don't think this article is comprehensive enough to pass FAC. I suggest putting this through WP:GAN after addressing the points raised in this PR. If it fails GAN, come back here. If it passes, also come back here before submitting to FAC. This article is so important that any FAC for it will get extra scrutiny. Compare with the less important, but FA, Mount St. Helens (4500 words). --mav (Please help review Mono-Inyo Craters) 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Redcliffe Padres

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to get this up to good article status over the holidays and just would like a general guideline of content to be added and edited.

Thanks, JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• The lead should be longer (about 2-3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD).
• Dates should be unlinked.
• From the perspective of an American who is very familiar with baseball in the U.S., the article is often confusing. What is PCYC? Major grades? Minor grads? This information needs some explaining.
• Baseball terms (run batted in, home run, etc.) need to be linked at first occurrence.
• The history section needs to be expanded. There is a lot of info about the 2008-09 season, just a little about seasons before that, and really nothing prior to 2001.
• En dashes need to be used for date ranges (ex 2008–09). Sometimes the article uses dashes or a solidus (that's a "slash" to you and me).
• Consider hard coding the roster, so you can symbols/terms that apply to Australian baseball (if different) and so there isn't a link to other MLB team rosters.
• Watch the use of "currently". Use "as of [date]" instead.
• More references are needed, especially for the "notable players" section.
• There needs to be some inclusion criteria for "notable players". Why are they notable?
• See also sections are unnecessary when the terms are already linked in the article.
• A good copyedit for grammar, punctuation, and style is in order.
• External links generally come after the reference section.
• The references need to be formatted using the same style and include all possible information (author, title, source, publication date, access date, etc.)
• Is it possible to find a better logo in .png or .svg format? The present image is a stretched and distorted .jpg.

This may be more than you are looking for, but I feel compelled to list everything that stuck out to me. Let me know if you need more information or need something clarified; I'll be happy to help. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Somewhere Along the Highway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to see this eventually achieve GA. There aren't many sources available, so I'm kinda making do with what's on offer. However, it could conceivably meet the criteria, possibly with a little help.

Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• This article is very well-written. As you alluded to above, the concerns are more to do with sourcing, although WP:WIAGA notes that the "broad" standard is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles.
• Lead - This is one aspect of the article which I believe must be expanded. Skimming through the current GA album articles, very few of them have a lead consisting of two short paragraphs, let alone one paragraph (and these were promoted more than two years ago, when standards were less strict). I suggest summarizing more information from the "Recording and release" section, since it contains the bulk of the article's content.
• Recording and release - Citation 6 takes me to an Earache (home?)page that has no info on the band or this album. Citation 8 appears to link to an error page. Also, I see mention of a European tour. Is there enough information available to support a separate "Touring" section, a la Arise (Sepultura album) or Hell Awaits?
• Theme - In the quote, who is "[he]"? If Olofsson, it should read "[I]". If not, I suggest adding the person's name to avoid confusion. If possible, I would suggest expanding this section with one or two examples of specific songs and/or lyrics on the album that relate to the "male loneliness" theme.
• Reception - Citations 9,10,12,13 are dead links. Also, I suggest changing "2006-05-04" to "4 May 2006".
• Again, the article is very well-written and has no major WP:MOS issues. In my view, it should not take too much to bring the article to GA standards. The main areas to be addressed are expanding the lead, and fixing the dead links. Nice work!  Gongshow ^Talk 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I'll get on these recommendations and see if anything further crops up. Sourcing is a pain, though. I just don't know how to find some of those deadlinks. Seegoon (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Broadway Video

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past two weeks or so I've worked hard taking the article from stub class to hopefully something a bit more worthwhile. Any factual inclusions in the article I've done my best to back up with verifiable references, and have tried hard to not get too verbose in my writing style. That said, there are likely parts that could do with tightening up. I would have included some brief synopsis at the beginning of the "Divisions" section, but I feel like I would have just been repeating what has been already said in the article. I've been unable to find a verifiable location for Broadway Video in LA, so that's out, as well as anything regarding the name of the company (obviously it's called Broadway Video because of its location on Broadway, but without an article stating that was the reason for the name, I hesitate to even mention it in the main article).

Thanks, Mainly.generic (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: THis is interesting and has a lot of material in it, but it really doesn't follow the model of the best business articles in terms of organization, and could be improved with regard to the WP:MOS too. With a possible GAn or eventually FAC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The first sentence doesn't really meet the criteria for WP:LEAD where it 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 lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nNothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but the fact that it was founded bu Lorne Michaels in 1979 iso nly in the lead.
• The lead also seems to be incomplete - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way but the audio productions are not even mentioned
• Spell out abbreviations on first use, so "United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)" - this is also only in the lead and should be in the article body
• Avoid time terms like recently as they are vague and can become outdated quickly. It is better to ise thinks like "As of 2009..." or "Since 1998..."
• The article has a lot of very short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections. Most of these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article
• Ok, all of these issues were just in the lead (though there are short paragraphs / sections throughout). My biggest problem with the article is that it is porrly organized and as a result does not clearly tell the story of the business. It is often useful to have a model article or two to use for ideas and examples. Wikipedia's finest work is supposed to be its Featured Articles (FA) and I looked at every FA on a business I could find: BAE Systems, Elderly Instruments, Icos, Idlewild and Soak Zone, Madman Muntz, Oliver Typewriter Company, Slate industry in Wales. Every single one of these has a History section (or sections) as the very first section(s) after the lead (usually called "History"). This goes immediately into a detailed listing of business divisions. Now my guess is that a lot of the history is there (as there are a fair number of dates and names already in the article), but it helps very much to explain how the business was founded, how it grew, where it expanded and where it failed. Without a History section I do not see any chance of this making GA let alone FA.
• A few other points to mention - the tables shopuld be organized conistently - the Selected Productions Audio is chronological, from newest to oldest. The other two tables seem to be alphabetic. I prefer chronological, but just be consistent.
• There are some apparent errors and contradictions in the article - for example the lead says the company was founded in 1979, but in films there are two things prior to 1979 (1973 and 1978) while the TV shows also have two that are older that 1979 (1969 and 1978). I also note that the Rutles All You Need Is Cash was a television movie (but is listed under films) while there is a Coneheads TV show listed for 1993, which is almost certainly meant to be Coneheads (film) 1993 (a movie).
• I also do not understand why it is "Selected productions". What are the selection criteria?
• Filling in the Notes in the tables would also be useful - for example Toonces was a half hour special.
• Release date for television is also just odd - I would think it would be better to have air dates - this would also help show something that was a success (multiple years) versus a one shot or flop.
• There seem to be a lot of people listed as staff that probably do not meet WP:NN for inclusion in an article.
• 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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Guitar Hero: Van Halen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Looking to get a peer review, as this is a strange release: the commercial product is not available until Dec but promotional copies with GH5 were sent out already, so there's some reception, but not a complete one.

Thanks, MASEM (t) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs more work to make it accessible to readers who know nothing of these games. Here are a few suggestions.

• The image needs alt text. WP:ALT has details.

Lead

• The current lead says nothing about critical reception. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.
• "The game content was developed by Underground Development, with the primary engine code developed by Neversoft and Budcat Creations. The game is published by Activision Blizzard." - Active voice is usually more crisp than passive. These two sentences would be easy to flip to active, thus: "Underground Development produced the game content, while Neversoft and Budcat Creations developed the primary engine code. Activision Blizzard published the game."

Gameplay

• I think more background information that explained the nature of the game, how it is played, and its relationship to the songs would be helpful. How does someone win? Can one person play the game, or is it a multiple-player game? What are the songs for besides listening?
• "The game does not feature the additions that are present in Guitar Hero 5, such as drop-in/drop-out play" - Should "drop-in/drop-out" be explained or linked?
• "are playable avatars in the game for the Van Halen songs" - Wikilink avatar?
• "The band is represented by their current looks... " - "The band members are represented by their current looks... " to avoid "band ... their"?
• "these outfits are also included for Wolfgang Van Halen" - Maybe "an older outfit"? His age wouldn't affect his current outfit.
• The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.
• "notes that the lack of such material was not due to any demands or requests made by David Lee Roth... " - Just plain "Roth" will do since his full name appears just before this sentence.

Reception

• "Early reviews of the promotional version of the game received as part of the Guitar Hero 5 before its retail launch were negative of the game." - Tighten by deleting "of the game"?
• "IGN's Eric Brudvig rated the game a 4.9/10, citing problems with the lack of relevance of Van Halen relative to the culture of the 2000s, including having their avatars based on their older appearance rather than of that during the 80s, the lack of songs from Sammy Hagar's period in the band, and the lack of features since introduced with Guitar Hero 5, and ultimately saying those that got the game free through the promotion "got what they paid for". - Too complex. Split into two complete sentences.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Byzantine Greeks

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen some work lately and could benefit from a critical eye. Looking forward to hearing opinions on how to improve it. Hopefully this will set it on its way to GA status soon enough. I am looking for general hints and tips, as well as people spotting major flaws that are not apparent to me.

Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review by Monsieurdl

• The first thing that I noticed is the superlative use of referencing through inline citations, as well as a varied amount of sources. That to me shows a lot of care and pride in getting it right. My only criticism in the area of references is that there are too many in certain paragraphs that reference the same page, such as in the Women section. If you can, use the reference for a couple of sentences, and not every single sentence if the page is the same.

• Your reference number 57 in the Greco-Roman heritage section is extremely clunky. The inline citation tags really aren't meant for lists, so I would suggest splitting up your two best references and retaining them under a [57] and a [58] after the sentence.

• The lead is well written and concise, but the information presented doesn't appear in the article at all, and it is unreferenced. If you are going to make statements in the lead, them must either be referenced or the information must appear in the article and referenced there. I have no idea where I could find that historiography defines the meaning of Byzantine/Byzantine Greek, or that Sir George Finlay introduced the terms to the world.

• The Clergy section needs more information- it seems sparse as compared to the other sections.

• The descriptions of almost all of the images are stilted and don't flow right- I would improve upon them, and make them one sentence if possible. Image size may also be an issue as some are a bit small. Also, placing a couple on the left would help the look of it (just my opinion there).

• Overall, your article is outstanding! With a few minor tweaks, it could very well be a highly-rated article. I was very impressed- great work! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 19:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and make recommendations for improvement. It is much appreciated. I will begin implementing your suggestions immediately. Once again thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

List of civil parishes in Somerset

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope it is nearly ready for nomination as a Featured List. There are a few entries without images as I can't find any appropriately licenced ones. It is also very long and I would appreciate guidance about whether either of these would be likely to fail FL? Any other comments are also welcome. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 16:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

{{doing}} Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - if you run checklinks you will currently find lots of 403 Forbidden see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Somerset#Links_to_Somerset_County_Council_web_pages for details.— Rod ^talk 08:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked the Internet Archive? Or WebCite? Assuming the information is printed as well as online, a cite to the print version would also be OK (and I assume this would also be available in local libraries or perhaps government offices). Review to follow shortly... Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Webcite seems to have done the trick.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is generally well done, though there is a lot of detail work that needs to be done before this would pass WP:FLC, mostly realtively easy to fix WP:MOS issues. With FLC in mind, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• To address the three points raised above, I do not think that a few missing images would be any reason for this to not pass at FLC. I am not as sure about its length, but if that does become an issue, I think that it would be fairly easy to split the article into several shorter articles, probably based on geography in some way.

Thanks

• The references are a bit more worrisome, but as I mentioned above, it may be that they are archived on the web somewhere (in which case you can just link to the archived version). Actually I just checked one link and it is on the Internet Archive here
• Assuming they were printed as well as published online (and I assume in 1991 that they were), a cite to the print version would suffice. So bottom line is, I think this problem can be fixed. On to the rest of the article.

Internet archive gave me all sorts of grief but webcite has found the population data.

• There are a lot of phrases and links in italics - I doubt that they all meet WP:ITALIC and even if they do, there are inconsistencies - for example in the lead Local Government Act 1894" is not italicized but "Local Government Act 1972" is italicized. They should either be both italicized, or neither should be.

Done

• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase, so fix things like The South Somerset district is the largest and covers and area of 370 square miles (958 km2)[5] ranging from the borders with Devon and Dorset to the edge of the Somerset Levels.

Done your example but some of the others have 2 sets of population figures in a sentance & therefore I have left the ref with each number.

• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs in the History and Current position sections - to improve the article's flow, these should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.

Done

• Where one reference is used for every entry in a table, I would try to use it just once. This could be in the header for that column of the table, or perhaps as a ref for an introductory sentence. See ref [2] in the Bath and North East Somerset section, for example - since this is used for population, it could be added as a ref for the header on population.

Done

• Looking at the this ref, it does not have enough information - Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Done

• Many such tables will have a comments section - I looked at one or two parish links like Ashwick and the article mentioned that more than one village was in the parish - could information like this be included here?

I've not done this as the list is of civil parishes rather than villages (see List of places in Somerset for these)

• I would have someone copyedit this - the prose is OK, but the commas especially seemed to need some work.

I will ask an expert to look at my abuse of commas

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 _><>°^° 02:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments, when I have some time I will also try to contribute something to Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I also noticed that the order of units is inconistent in the lead - sometimes it is English units first (sq miles), other times it is metric first (sq km). Since the UK uses metric as the official units, it should probably be metric first every time. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks done— Rod ^talk 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take this list to FLC in the near future. I would particularly like to know what further information other editors feel should be included in the lead to make the introduction of the subject complete. Other comments on general FLC-type issues would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As the original author of the article I welcome someone trying to get it up to FLC. I had to work pretty hard to get it to B, (adding in the London Gazette citations took quite while to locate and then link) so I got tired and moved on. Anyway, one suggestion I have is that perhaps an image of the recipients could be added to the table. I've seen this done before with some of the Medal of Honor and Knights/Iron Cross lists. Many of the Gurkha recipient articles have images already, and others could be sourced from the IWM, I think. Just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion I have is to try to get rid of those red links, as they cut down on visual appeal of the article. I don't know whether its a requirement or not, but if you could create some stubs or find appropriate pipes that made them blue it wouldn't draw the eye off the content so much. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment on the Military history project talk page, directing any interested parties to the peer review, so hopefully some more comments will come soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I didn't realize you were still interested in the article (I checked the history and there hadn't been any edits for quite a while), so I would love any help you are willing to give on this - I'm not trying to steal your thunder or anything :) The photos sound like a good idea, I'll work on adding those, and fixing the red links is also something that needs to be done, although there are only a few of them and they probably won't take away from the FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken another look at these two issues, and upon further review I've changed my answers a bit. On the images, none of the other VC featured lists have images, and I think it would be a good idea to keep them consistent. I've tried to find information to create some of the red links, but I honestly haven't been able to find even enough to create stubs. These same red links are present in other FLs, so I don't think they would be a big deal on this nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I would recommend that you have a good look at the other Victoria Cross related lists that User:Woody has raised to FL level, and see if you can extract some ideas from them. Also, it might be a good idea to contact Woody and see if he would comment on the article as he is a great source for knowledge and experience on lists in general, but especially on those pertaining to the Victoria Cross. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've taken a look at some of the VC FLs that Woody has written, and can't seen anything major that this article leaves out, although I'm wondering if it might not be best to combined the lead and the first section. I've dropped a note to Woody, though, asking him to comment here on the issues raised (photos, completeness, article naming), so hopefully he'll stop by! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to name this article "List of Brigade of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross", given that several of the recipients are not actually Gurkhas but served with the regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I see your point. Possibly, but I'd like to see what others have to say on the subject, especially AustralianRupert. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure about this myself. I can see where you're coming from as the terminology here is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that even then the term would be correct, as I don't believe that the Brigade of Gurkhas existed until after the Second World War (I might be wrong, not sure on this point). If I'm correct, however, then it would really only be a list of one, as there has been only one post Second World War Gurkha VC. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair point, although the lede section might need to clarify that in this list then, as it currently implies the Brigade of Gurkas has been around since 1815. I do really think the name needs to be better worded though. The link to Gurka tells the reader that a Gurka is someone of Nepalese or Northern Indian descent, and that apparently comes from the International Journal of Human Genetics. A fair portion of the men in this list aren't, and while they have every right to be there, I'd have thought calling the list "Gurka recipients" would be pretty misleading. to about List of Gurkha Regiment recipients of the Victoria Cross? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Or List of Gurka regiments recipients of the Victoria Cross to avoid suggesting a particular regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent) Hmm, I appear to have walked into a minefield in naming this article in the first instance. As a combat engineer, I'm frankly quite embarrased! ;-) Anyway, I will have to do an IMAP on this one and get back to you. (Only sort of joking, as I will have to have a think about this). I do agree with your point about the name as it is confusing, but I'm just not sure of the correct solution just yet. Two up, one back is the template solution, of course, but I'm not sure it applies here...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Why not just take out all the non Gurkhas, all the others are included in the other lists and the Gurkhas are also included in the Indian Army list. I would also then suggest the list is moved to the nationality area in the template. Also the entrys for Allmand and Pun needs to be changed to 6th Gurkha Rifles they were not names Queen Elizabeths at the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that Gurkha is actually a nationality is it? Also, to my mind, duplicating recipients in two different nationality lists seems a bigger problem (see this chat). I prefer the armed force categories personally, and I think serving with a Gurkha regiment would make one eligible to be in this list, but the title should reflect the contents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, the minefield had more depth than I realised...I'm with Ranger Steve on this one, but of course if concensus is against it I'll go with that. Any list I've seen of "Gurkha" VC recipients has included the British/Indian Army Officers attached to the various Gurkha regiments. I compiled this list based on those in Parker and on the British Army website that listed Gurkha VCs. In this case the term Gurkha is being used not as a nationality but as a branch of service descriptor. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh I don't know about a minefield as such, I prefer to think of us as sweeping for leftover mines! Anyway, I guess what concerns me about the title is that it currently uses a racial distinguisher (Gurkha) to describe a 'military unit' defined list. The situation would probably be worse if we used a racial factor to define a nationality defined list! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Title: I agree with the majority above, this list should go down the "unit" route so List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients would probably be best. Perhaps a RM should be opened and we can get more opinions?

List: In terms of the actual list, I think it looks very good.

• To keep it consistent with the others, you don't really need the "Eligibility" header, it can just merge into the lead and then align the Gurkhas image to the left.
• The image should be probably be changed to the one without the medal bar. No Gurkha has been awarded the VC and bar. (We only recently amended the image so we probably need to do it across a number of articles.  Done
• I fixed the sorting for you.
• Other than that, as I said above, it all looks very good and once the title is sorted I would take it to FLC. Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments (and thanks to everyone else too!). I would also support a change to "List of Brigade of Gurkhas...", as this seems like the best descriptor for the contents of the list. I will work on the formatting and image changes that have been listed above my multiple editors soon, probably starting tonight. Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Brigade of Gurkhas would be my first choice, if it is accurate for the length of time. On that note, this external link from the Brigade of Gurkhas page does make it seem ok, but I bow to anyone with more expert knowledge! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Although not married to the idea as per my above comment, I could live with it being moved to List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients. I've made a couple of tweaks as per the above comments (i.e. designation of the 6th Gurkhas and the image). — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Off the topic of the title, in the prose perhaps just a line separating the first award to a native from the first award to a non native? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Title - It seems that a consensus is developing above to move the list to List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross". I'm going to wait 24 hours or so to see if any major dissenters pop up, and then move the article. Please let me know if this is something I shouldn't do! Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objections to this move. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Move complete. Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other comments that need to be resolved before the article goes to FLC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be any further comments, I am going to close this peer review, read through the list one more time, and then nominate for FLC. Thanks everyone for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Hypertrichosis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I, along with other editors, have been improving this article over the past weeks. We would like to have an opinion on which parts of this article seem to be lacking in quality and are needing further improvement.

Thanks, Vancemiller (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Could use some expansion is scope. For example needs sections on:

• epidemiology ( how common is it, how is it distributed globally ) Done
• the economic impact and cultural aspects ( women shave there legs in some part of the world but not in others ) Not done
• do not see anything about laser treatments Done
• needs some work on caps. Done

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, here are some suggestions for improvement assuming that you want to improve it to WP:GA or perhaps even WP:FA eventually.

• I would try to make it clearer in the lead that people who have this are not all like Lionel the Lion Faced Man (pictured in the lead), i.e. it can be quite localized. Done
• There are two images that have no captions - please provide them to give more context to the reader - it would be espeically helpful to identify which of the tpes of Hypertrichosis are pictured in each. Done
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - just in the lead image caption there are two links to the same article - Lionel the Lion-Faced Man is a redirect to Stephan Bibrowski, don't need two links to the same article. Done
• Similarly the See also section is usually for links that are of interest but do not already appear in the article. Done
• Watch redirects too - acquired generalized hypertrichosis is just a link back to this article and so adds no value (if the reader clicks on the link, they do not go anywhere new) Done
• Since the condition involves hair, it might be useful to include a brief discussion of lanugo, vellus and terminal hair at the beginning. Not done
• lanuginosa is spelled at least two different ways in the article - please check and correct Done
• The use of bold and italic in the article does not really follow WP:ITALIC Done
• The article is fairly disjoint - there are lots of little sections that do not connect well or flow together well.  Done
• History section would help - who first described the condition? Are there notable people with the condition in the more distant past? Not done
• Refs need to give full information - journal name, date, volume, etc. Use of cite templates like {{cite journal}} might help.  Done
• I also would check to make sure that all of these refs cited meet WP:RS - what makes this a reliable source? Also the ABC News ref should go to the ABC News site, not "wolfsongalaska" Done

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Rambles in Germany and Italy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm planning on nominating this article for FAC, so please evaluate accordingly. Also, please weigh in on Auntieruth55's suggestions regarding the "Risorgimento" section here. I would like several opinions on this matter. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Frill-necked Lizard

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… -I would like to know what else should be included -I am in need of asistance on syntax

Thanks, Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Some quick thoughts: Sasata (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• haven't mentioned distribution in the lead
• there's no need to cite a fact in the lead if it's non-controversial, and it should be cited in the article text anyway
• currently, the lead reads like a "Description" section, which would normally follow the lead, I suggest taking this info out and putting it into a new section. See WP:Lead for more details on how to create a good lead.
• Who named the species? What year? What publication?
• Suggest changing "Habitat" section to "Distribution and habitat", and going into more detail about where the species is found. Eg., the article says that it's "... found mainly in the northern regions of Australia and southern New Guinea.", but as a reader I'd want to know if it's been found anywhere else as well.
• "One of the most intriguing facts noted by scientists..." Leave out the fact that it's intriguing, unless you can source it to someone else who's actually said that. For an encyclopedia, the facts just need to be presented plainly without interjecting your personal opinions.
• more wikilinks are needed. For the Habitat section, I'd wlink: savannah, arboreal; in the Diet section, link insectivorous, cicadas, beetles, ants, termites, agamids, alates, etc. Anything that's not too obvious, but may help the reader understand the contents of this article better.
• last half of Habitat section needs a ref
• use an endash for number ranges (degrees Celsius, clutch size, page numbers, etc.); see dash
• References should be consolidated so as not to repeat the same reference over and over
• Decide whether to put refs before or after punctuation (I prefer refs after punctuation, but doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent throughout the article).
• Only the first word of section heading should be capitalized (unless there's a proper name in there)... see "Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism"
• "Reproduction and Sexual Dimorphism" section needs refs for last half
• The four tacked-on sources in the References should be cited, not just listed. If they weren't used, then don't list them. But they look very relevant, so they should be consulted and used.
• The "In culture" section needs a lot more refs as well.

I should also add that these types of sections are generally frowned upon in good and featured articles... to make it work it would have to be really well-written and sourced, and exceptionally relevant... otherwise it's probably a better idea to think of ditching it.

• what's the lifespan of these creatures?
• No mention of people using these animals as pets
• The article seems weak on the research side of things, as there's a number of interesting studies about the species that haven't been mentioned here.
• A copyedit is required; here's a sampling of errors:

"has lead some scientist to hypothesise more then one species"

"Within aforementioned regions..."

"may be a product of the lizards diet"

"...differ phenotipically."

"In the case of the this lizard..."

---

Watford F.C. season 2009–10

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is the first time I've requested a peer review, but basically I'm looking for general advice on where I can take this article.

Content wise I'd be grateful for any of the following: grammatical feedback, comments on whether the prose is of appropriate length and correctly weighted, whether I am missing any sections, and whether there are any areas where I have possibly gone over the top.

I very warmly invite any feedback, regardless of your knowledge of the sport. What a football (or baseball, basketball, tennis) fan thinks is essential might appear to be useless minute detail to a casual reader, so in that respect I would very strongly welcome even brief opinions from people who have little interest in football/soccer.

I'm also quite new to wikipedia, so I'm curious as to whether it would be worth nominating this as a good article in the near future, or if because of its nature I'd have to wait until May or June. My personal opinion is that the article is stable, as the only major additions are updates of statistics, or changes made in direct response to consensus at WT:FOOTY or the season article task force.

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This makes sense to an outsider (me), seems broad in coverage, neutral, illustrated, verifiable, and not filled with unnecessary detail. Since I'm an outsider, I can spot jargon that other outsiders might not understand. (As I review more and more football articles, I am learning the jargon, so I'm not quite the utter newbie I was a couple of years ago.) Most of my comments have to do with jargon and how to make the material a bit more accessible to readers unfamiliar with the sport, and I have a few thoughts related to the Manual of Style guidelines. My impression is that this will likely be ready for a run at GAN in May or June but probably not before because the ongoing story will certainly change and could even change greatly by then.

Lead

• The lead should be a summary of the entire article such that a reader who could read only the lead would understand the essence of the topic. It's going to be hard to complete the lead until the end of the season, because the stats are going to change, and other more dramatic things (injuries, awards, championships) may happen. Perhaps you could add a kind of interim third paragraph that summarizes the statistics to date and then update that paragraph perhaps once a month through the end of the season. Just a thought.

• I agree that this should be done. I think that "As of 20 November 2009" would be too arbitrary, and I don't think backdating to October would be particularly useful, so I'll work on this at the end of the month.

• "There were many changes at the club from the previous season, with Malky Mackay becoming the new manager, and several first team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin leaving the club." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Slightly better might be: "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club."

• Wikilink or explain striker for readers unfamiliar with the sport?

Background

• "Watford finished the 2008–09 season in 13th place in the table." - Would it be helpful to add when exactly the season began and ended? Should "table" be wikilinked or explained?

• "Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club "by mutual consent" in November 2008... " - It's hard to tell scare quotes from direct quotations. If "by mutual consent" is a direct quote from a source, it needs a citation to the source. On the other hand, scare quotes express doubt. Is there some reason to doubt that Boothroyd agreed to leave?

• It seems that part of the terms of his settlement are that he can't answer that question directly, but when interviewed in August 2009 he was quoted as saying "If I had stayed we would have done an awful lot better than finishing 13th." 1 Not sure if that could be considered a reliable source though. As good a fansite as it is, it's still a fansite, so I'd need to make a compelling argument to use it. Hopefully the source I've added will justify keeping the scare quotes in. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• "lifting Watford away from the relegation zone in the closing weeks of the season" - Wikilink or briefly explain relegation zone?

• "He subsequently joined Reading in June, with Watford receiving an initial £500,000 in compensation." - Another "with" as a conjunction. Suggestion: "When he subsequently joined Reading in June, Watford received... ".

Pre-season

• "The first team began with matches at local sides... ". - Should "sides" be linked to teams?
• "The club's final pre-season fixture... " - Perhaps write "fixture (scheduled match)" to make the jargon clear to wide audience?
• "and club record signing Nathan Ellington" - Not sure what this means. How could a player sign a club record?

August transfer window

• "handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back" - Wikilink right back or add "defender" in parentheses after "right back"?

September to December

• "Leicester equalised late in the game, with the match ending 3–3." - Suggestion: "Leicester equalised late in the game, and the match ended 3–3."

"3,389 Watford fans travelled to Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers" - Write out the number in words or re-cast the sentence to avoid starting it with digits, per the Manual of Style.

• "despite a red card for Ellington" - Explain or wikilink red card?

• "Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, with Cleverley joining Graham as the club's joint highest scorer of the season." - Another "with" conjunction. Perhaps: "When Watford responded with a 2-0 home win over Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season."

Friendlies

• Add a footnote explaining "friendlies"?

• This is a very good point, but didn't see how this could be done in practise. There is no logical place to insert a link to the note, and full-sized text would be inappropriate in my opinion. Instead, I've inserted "friendly match" into the prose, allowing me to wikilink it.

Management and coaching staff

• The external link to Watford F.C. should be converted to an inline citation.

• Removed altogether, it was redundant.

Out

• "£2m" - Spell out "million"?

Notes

• Wikilink yellow card in note 4?
• Wikilink pitch in note 5?
• "million" in note 10?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it was fantastic and exactly what I was hoping for. I've made all of the changes in the way you have suggested, except for where I have left notes. WFCforLife (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More commentsThis is coming along nicely. Most of my suggestions are breaking up long sentences. This is based on my personal preference and I can't say that that is the best.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• Lead

It looks like this was touched on up above. It will need to be broken into paragraphs as the article grows.

• "The club changed in many ways from the previous season; Malky Mackay became the manager, and several first-team players including Player of the Season Tommy Smith and Hungary international striker Tamás Priskin left the club"

Maybe break this up into a couple of sentences since it could use more commas and that might make it unwieldy.

• New arrivals at Vicarage Road included striker Danny Graham and former Scotland international Scott Severin, along with loan players Heiðar Helguson, Tom Cleverley, Craig Cathcart and Henri Lansbury.

Same as above

• Previous manager Aidy Boothroyd left the club by "mutual consent" in November 2008 and was replaced by former Reading and Chelsea academy boss Brendan Rodgers.

Two sentences "...in November 2008. He was replaced by..."

• The first team began with friendly matches at local sides Boreham Wood, Hampton & Richmond and Wealdstone, before a pre-season tour to Spain where they faced CF Balaguer and UE Lleida.

Same as above. Start a new sentence for the games in Spain.

• Watford sold striker Tamás Priskin to Ipswich days before the start of the season,[7] and started the Championship campaign with the future of several players unresolved, including those of top scorer and player of the season Tommy Smith, highest earner Jobi McAnuff,[8] and the club's most expensive ever player Nathan Ellington.[9]

Same as above. "[They/The team] started the Championship..."

• Section headings

• Most GA season articles break the season down by month. I like that you broke it down into larger sections and how you used it as a vehicle to segment the season. However, the focus is not necessarily transfers which the reader might incorrectly assume. Keep it in mind. Here are some GAs I saw at the footy project: Bradford City A.F.C. season 2007–08, Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007–08, York City F.C. season 2008–09.

• It's a difficult balance. As you say, this is a sensible alternative to a month-by-month. I agree with your point and have removed "transfer window", but those unfamiliar with the English football season will find my choice of headers somewhat odd without the phrase.

• Since this is live in the mainspace, consider removing the January- and February- section headings.

• Hidden.

• After the match Doncaster

Add a comma: "After the match, Doncaster"

Done.

• After the match Doncaster manager Sean O'Driscoll believed that a Dean Shiels shot had crossed the Watford goal line, and that a goal should have been given.

Should "believed" be changed to "said" or "said that he believed"?

Done

• Mackay handed a first competitive start to 17-year-old academy right back Lee Hodson, and a first game of the season to goalkeeper Richard Lee.

This comes across a little informal with "handed".

To an extent that was the intention, but maybe it is too informal. Do you have an alternative suggestion?

• Barnet restricted Watford to a 0–0 scoreline after 90 minutes, before Severin and Mike Williamson scored in extra time for a 2–0 win

Both teams restricted each other. Maybe "The scoreline was..."

Changed to "The match was goalless..."

• The match finished 4–2 to Watford, with loan player Tom Cleverley scoring in his first game for Watford.

Consider not using the second "Watford" (ease of reading)

Changed to "the club". I was wary of overusing "debut".

• victory for the League One leaders

"For Leeds, who were the League One leaders at the time/would go on to finish..."

..." You would have to break up the previous line if you did this, though.

I've left it for now, because they were League One leaders at the time and have been at every stage since. Longer term I will certainly edit along these lines.

• In Smith's final game for the club,

Since it isn't established in the article yet, "In what would be Smith's..."

• Days before the end of the transfer window, Portsmouth submitted transfer bids for Smith and Williamson, while Reading were in negotiations with Watford for Smith,[16] and had submitted a bid for McAnuff.

Consider breaking this into two sentences.

Done

• Graham's goal put Watford ahead against Swansea, but Alan Tate scored a late equaliser for a 1–1 draw.[21]

Focus was shifted abruptly. Ease into it more with "In the next match against Swansea..." or something like that.

Reworded, and done my best to mention Swansea as possible while still ensuring the paragraph makes sense.

• "...including Dale Bennett, who was making his first two league appearances."

Should the tens be "..who MADE..."

Done

• The style changed from "A game against so-and-so" to "THE match..." a couple of times in the Sept-Dec section.

• "A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended AN away match against Reading"
• "Preparation for AN UPCOMMING game against Coventry City..."

If I reference the result before the team, I've generally gone with "a X – X win/defeat/draw" (or variants of these). Where I've given a game more than a cursory reference and have started talking about the team (for instance Reading), I've used "the match" or similar. For other games I start by talking about circumstances leading up to the match, and they flow naturally (Leicester and Coventry). I don't really see this as a problem, provided I don't start saying "a game" or "the win".

• A total of 3,389 Watford fans attended the away match against Reading, managed by ex-Watford manager Brendan Rodgers.

"...who were managed by.."?

Done.

• Preparation for Watford's game against Coventry City was affected by a virus affecting six first-team players

Maybe use "hindered" or something similar instead of "affected"

Not done. In the source Mackay has gone out of his way to say that the virus was not an excuse for the two defeats (despite the fact that several players were dropped as a direct result). I think "hindered" would imply that Watford lost partly because of the virus, but it is true to say that Watford were "affected" (otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned at all).

• footnote 1" ^ Matches are normally played on Saturdays, but Watford's game against Sheffield Wednesday was moved to Friday for live television coverage."

Is this important enough to be a footnote? If so, is it important enough to be included in the section? Further expansion is possible from the other footnotes so keep it in mind.

Removed altogether, as it will soon be redundant. A direct reference to TV will come in the prose in a week or so. We're playing the team furthest away from us on the Saturday, followed by the team nearest to us (and our second biggest rivals) on the Monday. Meanwhile, the team nearest to us gets to play a home game while we're tired from all the travelling. Longer term I am considering creating an ownership/commercial/finance sort of section, which would allow me to cover this side of it properly without talking about things which have no direct relation to what happens on the pitch.

• Preston in their next match, Cleverley joined Graham as the club's joint highest-scorer of the season.

Consider adding the total.

Attempted, it looks a bit clumsy though.

• I was under the impression that using images directly below level three headers was something to avoid. I'm not sure if this is still the case. The benefits of the image might also outweigh whatever the drawback is.
  • Using them on the left directly below a header is generally a bad thing (but I don't want all of the images to be on the right). Hopefully the section will be long enough that I can move it down a paragraph at the end of 2009.
• The second Don Cowie in the International appearances table (14 November 2009) was a disambiguation. Also, consider removing the multiple wikilinks for him in the main body.
  • Removed extra wikilink.
• Liberty Stadium, Swansea was a disambiguation
• "United States national soccer team" was a disambiguation.

Thanks for your comments, they were pretty helpful. I haven't dealt with the lead yet, I plan on a major re-write soon but I've said I'll do many things over the next few days. Thanks for your on the article and help with the redirects btw. WFCforLife (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have based this list on the current Featured Lists: List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons, List of Maryland Terrapins football seasons, List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons and List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons with the hope of having this list achieve similar status. I have compiled the list in the last few weeks from scratch and would like any advice on what needs to be done to improve it. I have done as much as possible to make sure everything is sourced.

Thanks, NThomas (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The table generally looks good to me, but I see quite a few minor glitches related to prose and style. I fixed a couple of small things, and I list quite a few more below.

Lead

• There has been a trend away from starting each list with the boilerplate "This is a list". Two of the three other featured articles (Crimson Tide and Terrapins) you mention using as models start in a different way. You might consider recasting to make this one start in a fresh way.
  • To me, it just doesn't seem right to not have a bold title in the first line. Unless it comes up in the FL comments, I'll keep it the way it it.
• "since the team's inception in 1925". I would suggest unlinking any dates in the article that don't relate to the article's content in a fairly specific way. This one, for example, links merely to the year in question, whereas the next one, 1932, links to a football season. You should probably review each date link and decide whether it is helpful or not.
  •  Done I changed the years to college football seasons.
• "and 1960–present" - Rather than "present", which is inherently ambiguous since it means something different from moment to moment and year to year, it would be better to fill in the missing number.
  • If I read in a person's biography that was still alive and saw the current year, I'd assume they had died that year. I'm going to keep it as "present" because the team is still a member of the conference.
• "The Texas Tech Red Raiders football team compete... " - "Team" is singular, but "compete" is plural. "Competes"?
  •  Done
• "The team was known as the "Matadors" from 1925–1936," - "from 1925 to 1936"? The hyphen doesn't scan well as a word in a construction like this.
  •  Done
• "to reflect the influence of the campus' Spanish Renaissance architecture." - Slightly better might be "to reflect the influence of the Spanish Renaissance architecture." This and the phrase with "to" instead of a hyphen are easier to read out loud, which is what I mean by "scan".
  •  Done
• "and resulted in a 6–7 loss to the... " - Shouldn't the winning score come first; i.e., 7–6?
  •  Done
• "In 1932, the Texas Tech joined... " - Delete "the"?
  •  Done
• "the nickname they have today" - Perhaps "the nickname the team has today"? This would avoid the slight singular-plural problem.
  •  Done
• "The team remained in the SWC until the conference ceased operations 1996." - "operations in 1996"?
  •  Done
• "The Red Raiders have the distinction of being the only one in the Big 12 to have a winning season each year since the conference was created in 1996." - Tighten to "Texas Tech is the only team in the Big 12 with a winning record each year since 1996, when the conference began."?
  •  Done
• "Described as a program on the rise," - Since this is a judgment, it might be challenged and should probably have an inline citation to a source supporting this specific claim.
  •  Done

Seasons

• Some of the scores in the table need en dashes instead of hyphens.
  •  Done

Notes

• Note 3 needs some attention. For example "three way tie" should be "three-way tie", and the second instance of "head to head games" should be "head-to-head games". The long sentence beginning with "Because the first four tie-breakers did not dictate a winner... " is too complex and needs to be recast as two or three separate sentences. November 30 should not be linked.
  •  Done I did the best I could while keeping the same information in the footnote and fixed the Nov. 30 link.

References

• The last three citations are incomplete.
  •  Done Removed a dead link left other two citations that still provide same information.
• What makes fansonly.com a reliable source?
  •  Done It isn't, that's for the catch. I found the information it was based off of from the Big 12 Conference website and changed the citation with the reliable host.

General

• The image needs alt text, which is meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
  •  Done
• The dabchecker tool finds one link "Tangerine Bowl" that goes to a disambiguation page rather than the intended target.
  •  Done
• The link checker finds one dead url in the citations.
  •  Done Removed the dead citation

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for all the tips. I'll be sure to finish the rest of them soon! NThomas (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    

---

Apolo Anton Ohno

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've worked this page to a GA and now looking for possible improvements in hopes of getting the article to FA. The biggest concern, something brought up during the GA nom, is the referencing of the table of scores in the Dancing with the Stars section. I have tried to find references for each score, but have been unsuccessful in that. I'm not sure what to do with that table! Anyway... any feedback or comments are appreciated. Thanks, oncamera^(t) 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. The problems I noticed have to do with prose and style issues. Sorry, I can't help with the refs for the table, but the claims do not seem especially controversial (though the information isn't common knowledge and must have come from somewhere). Here are a few suggestions.

Heads and subheads

• To avoid repetition, something like "Beginnings" would make a better subhead under the head, "Career" than "Early career". Under "2002 Winter Olympics", deleting "Olympic" from "Olympic qualification race controversy" would avoid repeating "Olympic". The next subhead in that section could be shortened to "Games". The subhead for section 2.6.1 could be shortened to "Trials".

Lead

• "competitor and a five-time medalist (2 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze)... " - Numbers from one to nine are generally written as words, and bigger numbers are written as digits except at the beginning of a sentence. In this sentence, you use "five" but also 2, 1, and 2. Better would be "competitor and a five-time medalist (two gold, one silver, two bronze). Ditto for other instances in the article.

Early life

• "Ohno's parents divorced when he was an infant, so he was raised by his father." - "And" would be a better choice since "so" suggests that being raised by his father was the inevitable result of a divorce.
• "Ohno has stated by the time he turned 13 years old, he would attend parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends". - Insert "that"? Change to straight past tense? Suggestion: "Ohno has stated that by the time he turned 13 years old, he attended parties with older teenagers if he did not have competitions on the weekends".

Early career

• "When he was 14 years old, Ohno became interested in short-track... " - Wikilink short track?
• "His father wanted to encourage Ohno's developing skills... " - Perhaps "His father wanted to encourage Ohno to develop his skills... "?
• "...so he successfully advocated for Ohno's acceptance into the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track, despite being underage." - Since Ohno's father wasn't underage, perhaps this would be better: "and, although Ohno was underage, he got him admitted to the Placid Olympic Training Center in 1996 to train full-time for short track."
• "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?
• " He participated in no training from April to August 1997... " - Tighten to "He did not train from April to August 1997... "?

Olympic qualification race controversy

• "By removing Biondo from the competition, Smith finished in second place and allowed Davis to win." - Since Smith didn't remove Biondo, this sentence should be re-cast.
• "The final verdict was that O'Hare's claims went unproven in the arbitration case, all three were absolved of guilt, and the claim was dismissed." - Tighten by deleting "in the arbitration case"?

The Games

• "Ohno was in second place with three laps remaining, and on his third attempt to pass on the final lap, Kim drifted slightly to the inside where Ohno raised his arms to signal he was blocked." - Since Kim wasn't making an attempt to pass, this sentence should be re-cast.
• "thousands of accusatory letters, many of which were death threats" - "contained death threats" rather than "were death threats"?

After Salt Lake

• The Manual of Style advises against sandwiching text between two images on opposite sides of the page. In addition, the Olympic skates photo overlaps two sections. An easy fix for both problems would be to move the skate image up into "The Games" section.
• "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno stemming from fears of a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy." - Since Ohno didn't stem from fears, perhaps re-cast as two sentences, thus: "At the second event in South Korea, an estimated 100 riot police stood guard at Incheon International Airport to prevent harm from happening to Ohno. Their concern stemmed from a lingering negative reaction from the 2002 Olympic Games disqualification controversy."
• "Ohno was unable to defend his World Cup title reign from the previous three seasons" - Delete "reign"? Or change to "Ohno was unable to extend his World Cup title reign to a fourth season"?
• "winning the 1000 m and 3000 m races." - When the race names are used as adjectives, they should be hyphenated; i.e. "winning the 1000-m and 3000-m races."

Post-Olympic hiatus and return

• I'd recommend combining the two first paragraphs because they are so short.
• "In 2009, Ohno won his 10th national title,[4] and qualified for the world team; however, unable to defend his championship, Ohno finished fifth in the overall rankings at the 2009 World Championships in Vienna, Austria: he placed second at the 1000 m, and won gold with the 5000 m relay team." - Too many things tacked together. Two sentences would be better.

Olympic trials

• "were the one through top five finishers at the trial" - Tighten by deleting "one through"?

Performance

• In the table, what does "Safe" mean in the Results column? Should this be explained in a footnote?

General

• The images will need alt text, meant to explain the image content to readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
• The link checker finds six dead urls in the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Thank you for the thorough review of this article. I went through and made changes to the article per all of your suggestions. However, as for this one:

• "he won a gold medal in the 1500 m, a silver in the 300 m, and came in fourth in the 500 m." - Should "meter" be spelled out in the main text? How do other speed-racing articles handle this?

There are hardly any well-written speed-racing articles, so after reading WP:STYLE Unit Names and Symbols to use m instead of meter as along as I included the nonbreak in it i.e. 100 m. Since there are multiple uses of meter throughout the article, I didn't know if it would be redundant/distracting to the reader to constantly see the word. I think it makes sense to write meter out as m instead. Also, in response adding alt to the images, I wasn't sure how to add it to the image in the infobox template, so I might have to ask someone if they know how to add it to the template itself or something. oncamera^(t) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation about "m" vs. "meter" makes sense in the context of this article. I added a |image_alt = parameter to the article's infobox just now so that you'll be able to add the alt text. You are right in thinking this is a bit tricky; the parameters in the infobox differ from the parameter for most of the other images. If you ever have to do alt text for a map in the infobox, it's |map_alt = . Best of luck with the FA pursuit. Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thought. Do you want to add the "persondata" info to the bottom of the article? WP:Persondata has an explanation. I have a script that can do most of the work (not much, really) automatically by cloning data from the infobox. Just let me know if you'd like me to run it on this article. Finetooth (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the alt_image to the infobox, but I don't see the alt text when I turn the images off. Do you have to make the change to the Template:Infobox Speed Skater itself? I don't know how to edit that! If you would like to run your bot for the Persondata, that would be helpful. oncamera^(t) 16:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Puzzling. I'm not seeing why the alt text doesn't show up. I'll keep thinking about this and perhaps ask for help. I added the persondata by copy-paste of the template from WP:Persondata. (For some reason, the script did not work.) You can see the persondata in edit mode. Only four bits of data were relevant. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, flummoxed. I don't see how to fix the alt text. Finetooth (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the Persondata template. I will look for other help with the alt tag in the infobox! Thanks for trying, oncamera^(t) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone has fixed it and that the solution is a variant that I didn't try. :-) Glad you found help. Now that the technical problem is fixed, I have another observation. The alt text is not the same as the caption; if you can imagine a blind person listening to the alt text being read out loud by a machine, you will have a good idea of what the alt text should say. For example, "The skates Ohno wore at the 2002 Olympics" won't be of much help to a blind reader. Something like "A pair of silver skates with gold-colored blades are mounted in a display case" would be better. You can improve on the other two alt texts as well. Finetooth (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I went and edited the alt texts again according to that logic; it's better now. Thanks for the advice, oncamera^(t) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

John Beilein

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is detailed enough to be a WP:FA. I would like to get more feedback.

Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

N.B. In some of my editorial efforts, I have been noted for being excessive in use of citations. In this article, at times in Beilein's career where he was in a two newspaper town, I often included both citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Tony, I haven't peer-reviewed one of your articles recently, so I'll try this one. Will report soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I'm not sure how helpful this review is going to be, but I'm doing my best. Basketball isn't my field of expertise, but here goes.

• Lead
  • "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third year at Michigan..." A season cannot be a year. Suggest: "The 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball season is his third at Michigan..."
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the "Division 1 level"?
    • Is the link good enough?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Since "Coach of the Year" seems to be an accepted award, it should be capitalised (as here)
    • I have linked Coach of the Year.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • He's won this "numerous" times - but you only give three instances. If these are examples from a bigger number you should say so. Otherwise, say he's won it three times.
    • I count four times, but they are different types of Coach of the Year recognitions at different levels of play. I will change numerous to four though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the NCAA Tournament? (yes, I know, ignorant Brits, but there's quite a few of us)
    • Linked.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Early college coaching career
  • This sentence is somewhat intrusive, placed where it is: "Beilein first applied to coach Division I basketball at Canisius in 1987."[9] The information should be placed at the end of the section, as part of the lead-in to the next phase of his career.
    • I have clarified that he was not hired the first time he applied. The sentence is in the correct chronological place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I would expect the section to end with information about his second, and evidently successful, application to coach at Canisius, rather than the somewhat flat statement about him unsuccessfully seeking other jobs.
    • I don't know how much you want to see, but I added a bit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Canisius
  • What is the first sentence about? How is Beilien compiling a record for the 1991-92 season when he doesn't join te college until 1992?
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Dodgy grammar: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College, which was also the first position at which he hired assistant coaches." Needs to be something like: "In 1992, Beilein arrived at Canisius College as head coach, and was able for the first time to hire assistant coaches."
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No spaces around mdashes (I fixed this in the lead, not elsewhere)
    • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "team into a team" is repetitive. Use a word like "outfit", "line-up", "squad" etc, for the second mention of team.
    • Changed the first one instead.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph: after the words "Coach of the Year" the text becomes very confusing. Who were "the number one seeded team", and what is the relevance of this sentence to Beilien? What does "The conference earned three NIT invitations" mean? I am equally lost with the rest of the paragraph. No doubt it all makes good sense to followers of American basketball, but it needs to be understood by the rest of us.
    • How is it now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Who are the "Golden Griffins" - is this a nickname for Canisius?
    • I have added a sentence to the LEAD that includes all the Division I school nicknames.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "...and it continued to have never won the conference tournament." Very awkward phrasing. Perhaps "and it continued its record of never having won the conference tournament.
    • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm having great difficulty trying to follow a tournament structure that I don't understand. As I've said, it's probably clear to those that know these things. However, one thing that bothers me is that Beilien, the subject of the article, is pretty well invisible in this section, which is basically a record of his team's results and little more. Perhaps we could do with fewer results and more about Beilien's coaching methods, and why he was successful.
    • I have detailed what I can about his style. I will probably await sports discussant at FAC in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Richmond, West Virginia and Michigan sections
  • I don't see much purpose in my commenting on these sections, which mirror the Canisius material in largely presenting team performances under Beilien, with little about the man himself.
    • See current FA Steve Bruce. His managerial career section does not talk about him much as a person. Coaches are written about in depth personally unless they have extraordinary accomplishments. I think this is sufficiently broad for FA consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Coaching style: disappointingly brief. I would have expected something about the influences on Beilien which helped him develop his particular coaching style, also indications of how the style has changed and developed over his fairly lengthy coaching career. Also, please note that "notoriety" implies fame for the wrong reasons; Al Capone was "notorious". In this case it might be better to say that Beilien has gained "recognition" rather than notoriety.
• Personal life: I'm unhappy about this section. I think there are WP:BLPNAME issues, and also issues about the relevance/trivia of some of the information. Most of the final paragraph adds little of value to the article.
  • Could you just consider the issues above and strike as is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tony, if I haven't been able to provide much help. I've done my best, but it really isn't my area. I hope that you can pick up something from the review, however, and I wish the article success. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your perspective and attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've struck the issues which are clearly resolved. As to the others, my lack of familiarity with the sport makes it difficult for me to comment constructively, so I'll leave these to be resolved by more knowlegeable reviewers. I hope I've been of some help. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    

---

Pudú

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi! I've listed this article for peer review because I, along with two others, am contributing to it as part of our AP Biology 2009 WikiProject. This is our first article, and any suggestions/criticism from more experienced wikipedians would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, SixStringz (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)SixStringz

Couple things: I would take the diet section out of the "behavior" heading and put the reproduction section at the end (which is often done with animal articles). In the habitat section, you mention the amount of rainfall typically expected in the areas where they are found, if the pudu relies on this much rain specifically than I would leave it in, but if it doesn't really depend on a specific amount than I wouldn't. If it turns out that it does than you may want to say that (in parenthesis). Other than that I would just add to the sections you have already created and you should be okay.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on an article about an interesting creature. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

Heads and subheads

• Generally the heads and subheads in Wikipedia articles take a capital letter for the beginning of the first word only unless a formal name (proper noun) is part of the head. Thus "Physical Appearance" should be "Physical appearance". Ditto for the other heads and subheads.

Lead

• "Pudús (which translates to mapuche or the people of southern Chile)... ". - I'm not sure what this means. "Mapuche" needs to be explained. Linking to mapuche might help, but the sentence would still not be clear. What is being translated to what? That is, does "Pudú" mean "deer" in one language but "mapuche" in another?

• "Pudús average in size from 36 to 38 centimeters tall and 71 to 84 centimeters long." - Generally Wikipedia articles express measurements in both metric and imperial units. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions because it not only does the math, it spells and abbreviates correctly, thus: 36 to 38 centimetres (14 to 15 in) and 71 to 84 centimetres (28 to 33 in) long". I see that you've converted others lower down in the article. (The template uses "centimetres", but "centimeters" is OK too).

Social

• "Uncommonly spotted in its natural habitat, the pudú is a solitary animal... " - "Seen" rather than "spotted" since the latter might be mistaken to mean "covered with spots"?
• "Pudús are nocturnal and diurnal... " - Wikilink diurnal?

Reproduction

• "Newborns weigh 900 g (31.68 oz) on average." - Round to three significant figures, 31.7 oz?

Habitat

• "and can also be found in lower altitudes" - "At lower elevations"? I believe "altitude" generally refers to places not attached to the ground.
• "Annual precipitation in these areas of Argentina and Chile ranges from 74 to 150 in (approximately 2 to 4 m)." - Rainfall is usually expressed in millimeters rather than meters. Snowfall is usually given in centimeters. I'm not sure about a mixture of the two, but centimeters is probably acceptable. Also, if you use metric as the primary system in one place in the article, you should use it throughout as the primary. Since this article is South-America-centric, metric makes sense as the primary. Thus, the conversion would be 74 to 150 inches (190 to 380 cm) flipped to 190 to 380 centimetres (75 to 150 in). You probably have to say "about" in front of this since "74 to 150 in" may be the exact numbers your source supports.

Subspecies

• This needs to have content beneath it, or it needs to be deleted.

Status and recognition

• Ditto for this empty subsection.

Causes of endangerment

• "Many types of parasites can be spread, with the most common being bladder worms, lung worms, and roundworms." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "Many types of parasites affect the pudús; the most common are bladder worms, lung worms, and roundworms."

References

• Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. I see that you've used the cite web template for citation 2. If you simply imitate the pattern you see there, you'll be able to fix the other web citations. In edit mode, you can copy the citation 2 ref tags and the template sandwiched between the tags to your computer's short-term memory and then paste the whole business into the main text where you want the next citation. Fill in the correct information for that citation (rather than the citation 2 information), and save. Alternatively, you can copy and paste a blank template from WP:CIT. If you do this, don't mix the "citation" family of templates with the "cite" family. Stick with "cite" throughout.

General

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this page finds nine wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Religion

This peer review discussion has been closed.
STOP! Don't read this article!

Before you look at the dismal shape this article is in, I want you to imagine for me what questions you might have about the idea "religion", and what you would expect to see in an article about "religion". Reading this article will only confuse you. I have looked at it many times and it always confuses me. It is the center stage of a wonderful mixture of esoteric POV pushers, including individuals who have told me on the talk page that scholarly discussions of current issues in religious studies are far less important for the sake of a good "religion" article than promoting their personal POV battle. So, don't even look at it-- imagine it, as it exists in Platonic form, the Featured Article in your head. ANYONE reading this paragraph is welcome to add their comments here even if they don't want to do a full peer review. I am open to rewriting this from scratch.

Even after you look at it, please suggest radical revision. For example, who determined that a section called "religion and superstition" should be prominent in the article, instead of placed under "Related forms of thought"? Why is there no section named "religion and society", or "religion and politics"? I'm asking these questions myself, as a past contributor, because I'm only one voice and I want your input.

Alright, go ahead Shii (tock) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Taking you at your word and commenting without looking at the article, I'd expect it to address the basic "who, what, where, when" questions. The "what" would involve an extended definition of the word, "religion". Since the definition must come from reliable sources, it might actually turn out to be "definitions", and it might be necessary to report on major controversies involving the definitions. The "who" would involve naming and very briefly describing the most notable individuals and groups involved in religion(s). (This might be done as a table). The "where" would involve the geography of religion(s), possibly illustrated by a map. The "when" would involve the history of religions, perhaps reduced to a timeline. The topic is so enormous that I'd never attempt it myself. I don't see how it could be done except as a bare-bones summary of the who-what-where-when type, presented in a clinical way, without bias. Finetooth (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I think the point of the topic being enormous is quite important. I just realized that writing paragraph-long summaries of subjects like "religion and superstition", "religion and society", or "religion and politics" is an immense task that this article should not even try to cover. I'll have to bring that up on the talk page. Shii (tock) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: You are most welcome. I waited two days and then read the article, and I have just a few other thoughts, mostly about form but one about content.

Biased content

• "The word "religion" as it is used today does not have an obvious pre-colonial translation into non-European languages. The history of other cultures' interaction with the religious category is therefore their interaction with an idea that first developed in Europe under the influence of Christianity." - On the face of it, this is an extraordinary claim sourced to a single author. It would be easy to object to this claim on grounds that it seems to suggest that before colonization by Western nations, other nations and cultures had no religion. Other writers might well disagree, and, if they do, they should be represented here too. This claim might be interpreted in some other way, but it segues into a discussion of the meaning of Christianity, and a reader might wonder why an article on religion in general has so quickly become a discussion of one particular Western religion. In the first paragraph of the discussion of Christianity, a sentence says, "What we would call religion today, they would only call "law". Big oops! Who is "we", and who is "they"? Whatever else the article might be, it isn't neutral if it divides the world into "we" and "they". I think the working definition at the beginning of the article needs to be broad enough to encompass all religions in all times and places. I don't think you can start with the Romans or simply the etymology of the English word, "religion" without introducing a Western bias from the start.

Form

• The lead should be a succinct summary of the whole article. If you imagine a reader who can read nothing but the lead, you can envision what the lead needs to be. A good rule of thumb is to at least mention each of the main text sections. This lead isn't a summary at all but rather an extended definition. I'd suggest moving the definition into the first main text section. Then the lead could be wholly re-written as a summary or abstract.
• Large chunks of the article are unsourced. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every set of statistics, every direct quotation, every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged, and every paragraph.
• Bolding is used sparingly in Wikipedia articles. Most of the extra bolding in "Specific religious movements" should be removed. Please see WP:MOSBOLD for details.
• The editing tags that challenge certain sections or statements need to be addressed.
• Images should be placed so that they do not displace section heads or overlap sections.
• Lists such as the one in "Myths" should be rendered as straight prose.

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Ruthie Henshall

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually take this article to GA status, and am interested in receiving feedback on what this article needs to bring it up to the GA level. I appreciate any and all constructive comments and suggestions.

Thanks, @Kate (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Oncamera

These are just my thoughts. I have no idea about the person the article is about, so maybe as a "new reader" I can provide a different view.

You will probably want to find the exact pages to wikilink to:

• Annie
• Bernadette
• Marguerite
• The Woman in White

Overall the {{cite}} tags should come after the punctuation marks in a sentences; change reference 3 for example! Check the other references for the same edit. Also, find references for the Citation needed tag.

Biography I would suggest removing the header Biography and replacing it with Career instead. This article is already a biography and that seems redundant.

Career 1980s

• Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey[1] before making her stage debut, at the age of 19, in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea. This sentence structure doesn't seem to flow. Perhaps breaking it up? "Prior to making her stage debut at the age of 19, Ruthie Henshall trained at Laine Theatre Arts in Epsom, Surrey. Her debut performance was in the Cascade Review at the West Cliff Theatre in Clacton-on-Sea."
• Her West End Theatre debut came shortly thereafter when she was cast in Cats, making appearances as Jemima, Demeter, Griddlebone and Grizabella.[2] Shortly thereafter means? Being more specific when this happens helps the reader chronologically read the article.

1990s

• In 1992, at the age of 25, she was cast as Fantine in Les Misérables, though her first starring role wouldn't come until the 1993 trans-Atlantic transfer of the Broadway smash Crazy for You, with a score by George Gershwin and Ira Gershwin, opening at the Prince Edward Theatre. Change the word wouldn't to would not. Also, I think it would read better as two sentences.

2000 to the Present Change the header to 2000-present?

• Henshall was cast in the title role of the stage musical adaptation of the Francis Ford Coppola film Peggy Sue Got Married,[4] which opened in London in August 2001 to mixed reviews. Perhaps you can expand what sorts of review were given that made the musical close after two months. Seems like something that might interest the reader to read critical reviews of her performances.
• After Susan Boyle's appearance on Britain's Got Talent in 2009, Ruthie Henshall's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" from Les Misérables has become a YouTube hit with more than four million viewings.[11] This seems like trivia and probably doesn't need to be included.

Personal life You will probably want to make this a section that isn't a subsection of Career. It maybe better to have it go before her Career section so a new reader of this performer can read about her background before reading about her career.

Theatre Credits/Discography These sections will need more references.

Anyway, these are my suggestions for this article! oncamera^(t) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! I'll implement your suggestions asap. :) @Kate (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it's almost ready if not 100% ready for Featured Article Status, I have found that Peer Review helps prep for that process and I may be too close to the subject to know what may be lacking in the article to a typical reader. Thanks, Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Current ref 1 needs a last access date.
  • Is current ref 10 (Frantom, Todd, 2005. Cuban Sanctuary. All Hands, June 2005) a book or a magazine article? I can't tell because nothing is italicized like the rest of the references. If it's a book/magazine it needs page numbers.
  • Same problem with current ref 22 (Christian, K. A. 1986. Aspects of the life history of Cuban Iguanas on Isla Magueyes, Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, 22, 159–164)
  • Current ref 14 .. the isbn is invalid. It is this book, correct?
  • Current ref 18 lacks a publisher. Also the page here is blank. Has the page moved?
  • Publisher on current ref 17 isn't "Iguana Specialist Group" but the ICN page
  • Is current ref 24 a book? Animal Behavior is a journal, isn't it?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-done. It needs further work to prepare for FAC, but the job shouldn't be overwhelming. Here are my suggestions.

• The images need alt text. You can check these via the alt-text viewer at the top of this review page. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it differs from captions meant for sighted readers. Alt text is now a requirement at FAC. WP:ALT has details.
• The link in citation 19 is dead. You might be able to recover it via the Wayback Machine.

Fixed

• It's generally better to have directional images facing into the page rather than out. You can't do anything about the direction of the lead image, but the other two (Prague Zoo and Labem Zoo) could be moved to make the lizards face into the page.

At one time I did that with all my articles, but some other reviewer told me that it was distracting and all should be aligned to one side. I like your advice better, we'll see how it goes at FAC

Some editors prefer to put all their images on the right, but nothing requires it. I don't think anyone at FAC will make the left-right business an issue, but WP:MOS#Images could be cited in support of left-right variety: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left... ". Lots of FA articles use varied left-right arrangements. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "It makes its home within or in close proximity to prickly-pear cacti." - "They make their home..." since the pronoun seems to refer to "females" in the preceding sentence?

I rephrased that a bit as it read back confusing...both sexes do this...rock iguanas and ctenosaurs dig "burrows" to hide in at night time, Cyclura nubila tends to dig theirs close to cacti or even within the cactus itself. Nest sites are different as they are dug in the sand close to crocodile nests.

• "recovery is ongoing by means of in-situ and ex-situ captive-breeding and headstarting conservation programs." - What is the meaning of "headstarting"? Would it be better to delete "headstarting" here or maybe to explain it here rather than in a lower section?

Done

Taxonomy

• The formal name of the Grand Cayman Blue Iguana is given as Cyclura lewisi the first time and as Cyclura nubila lewisi the second time. Should nubila be added to the first instance?

No, C.n.lewisi is the older outdated taxon for the Blue Iguana when it was considered a subspecies, C. lewisi is the newest giving it full species status.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• "After years of research comparing scale counts on the heads of Caribbean iguanas, including those found on Little Cayman, Cayman Brac, Grand Cayman, Cuba, and the Bahamas, as well as mitochondrial DNA analysis performed by Dr. Catherine Malone of Texas A&M University to re-examine the phylogeography of the different species revealed this original classification to be inaccurate and currently only one subspecies is recognized: the Lesser Caymans iguana (Cyclura nubila caymeanensis)." - Too complex. You might want to re-cast this as two sentences.
• Wikipedia doesn't use the title "Dr." in situations like this but recommends adding a more specific trailing qualifier; e.g., Catherine Malone, a biologist from... or whatever description is most appropriate. WP:CREDENTIAL has an explanation.

Fixed

Anatomy and morphology

• "These lizards compensate for this... " - Perhaps "poor low-light vision" instead of "this"?

Fixed

• "This ability is highly useful when basking so the animal can ensure that it absorbs enough sunlight in the forms of UVA and UVB to produce vitamin D." - "Ability" seems to refer to "sharp color vision". I think the intent is to say that the double cones absorb UVA and UVB. Perhaps the sentence should be recast along these lines: "The double cones are highly useful when the animal basks, because they absorb enough sunlight in the forms of UVA and UVB to produce vitamin D."

Fixed

Distribution

• "information about the number of distinct subpopulations of Cuban iguanas is unable to be determined" - Tighten by changing "is unable to be" to "cannot be"?

fixed

Recovery efforts

• "The program proved successful with the iguanas reacting to predators, foraging for food, and behaving like their wild-born counterparts." - "With" doesn't make a very good conjunction. Suggestion: "The program proved successful when the iguanas reacted to predators, foraged for food, and behaved like their wild-born counterparts."

fixed

References

• Dates in the citations should all be formatted in the same way, either m-d-y or d-m-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not a mixture. I see all three variations in the existing citations.
• "Alberts, A. & Perera, A." - Generally, Wikipedia uses "and" rather than the ampersand.
• "Schwartz, A. and Carey, M. (1977). Systematics and evolution in the West Indian iguanid genus Cyclura. Study of Fauna from Curaçao and Caribbean Islands. 53(173):15-97." - Page ranges and date ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will work on it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Andrew Sledd

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I'm part of the Wikiproject University of Florida, and I've been tasked with rewriting the biographies of the university's presidents, and then to apply that collected knowledge to the expansion and rewriting of the article covering the history of the university. I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially expanded it beyond the original stub article, and I would like to understand the category "A" article and feature article requirements better as I continue to rewrite, expand and properly source the other dozen or so articles for which I am responsible.

Thank you for your assistance, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is broad in coverage, generally well-written, stable and neutral, and has two nice illustrations. I have a fair number of suggestions related to style guidelines and some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The existing lead is an introductory paragraph rather than a summary. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections.

 DoneIntroductory section has been expanded to include a longer summary of Sledd's career highlights. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor, Emory College and the "Sledd Affair

• "Although Sledd's essay supported the continuation of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, a public firestorm ensued in Georgia, stoked by the vitriolic letters and editorial attacks of agrarian populist Rebecca Felton published in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper." - Although most U.S. readers would guess from reading this subsection that Rebecca Felton and others denounced Sledd because they favored lynching (if they actually said this) as a means of suppressing African-Americans, foreigners might think they denounced him because he supported racial segregation. It might be helpful to amend this section slightly with a non-U.S. audience in mind and to make the essence of the controversy unmistakable. (It becomes more clear later in the article, but I think it should be made clear from the outset.) Direct quotations might be one way to do this if you can find representative examples, perhaps from Sledd and Felton. The quote in citation 8 might do for Sledd, or perhaps something longer would be better. Anything of four lines or more can be set off in blockquotes. See WP:MOSQUOTE for details.

General

• The article includes quite a lot of overlinking of the sort described by WP:OVERLINK. For example, the first two links in the lead both go to University of Florida, and the second two go to History of the University of Florida. Readers will assume that the links are meaningful but will discover that the second of each pair is not meaningful. To enhance the value of the wikilinks, redundancies should be avoided. I'd be inclined to link University of Florida only once in the entire article. Ditto for Methodist, Emory University, Board of Control, and many others. In addition, I don't think you need to add the linked places like Emory to the "See also" list.

 Done"Over-linking" has been purged throughout, per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Date ranges and page ranges anywhere in the article, including the citations, take en dashes rather than hyphens.

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's possible to over-reference. It's not necessary to provide a source for every sentence, especially if the sentence in question contains nothing controversial, no statistics, and no direct quotations. For example, the second paragraph of the "First President, University of the State of Florida" section consists of five sentences, all sourced to the same document. One at the very end of the paragraph would be sufficient to cover the whole paragraph. I'd suggest culling refs that aren't truly necessary. (I realize that deciding which are needed and which are not can be subjective and tricky).

 DoneI do bring a lawyer's bias for footnoting, and philosophically, I feel better about footnoting every statement of fact, especially when the wiki cross-reference footnote citations are so readily available. It makes sourcing the article that much easier for serious readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's a good idea to use short, snappy heads and subheads and not to repeat the same words multiple times in the heads. Thus, perhaps "Scholar and teacher" would be a slightly better head for section 2, and the subheads could be shortened to "Emory College and the Sledd Affair", "University of Florida at Lake City", etc.

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia normally doesn't use "Dr." as a title. (See WP:CREDENTIALS). Thus, the Dr. in the infobox should be deleted, and constructions such as "the son of a Methodist Episcopal minister, Dr. Robert Newton Sledd" should also drop the "Dr."

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Images

• The Sledd Hall image should be re-sized downward. It's too big and on my computer screen overlaps two sections. I'd suggest tinkering with the size until the image fits within a single section and looks good.

 Done Reduced to a single section. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Featured articles must have alt text as well as captions. Alt text describes image content to readers who can't see the images. Although you might not have to have alt text for GA, it's a good idea to add it as a service to this group of readers. WP:ALT has details, and you can always visit WP:FAC to see how other editors are handling alt text questions.

 DoneAlt text added to photo. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

• If available, book data should include ISBNs. The older books won't have any, but something like Dictionary of Georgia Biography most likely will.

 Done All available ISBNs have been included. Older references predate ISBN use. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

References

• I noticed something odd in this sequence of sentences in the University of the State of Florida section: "Sledd's role was instrumental in the formation and ultimate success of the new university, but his tenure as its president was a relatively short four years.[22] His political support came to an end with the retirement of Governor Broward, and the inauguration of the new governor, Albert Gilchrist, in January of 1909.[22] The Florida Board of Education, which oversaw the Board of Control, made no secret of its desire to replace Sledd,[22]" Although these are sourced to an article about Buckman Hall, the article does not seem to mention Sledd's tenure, Governor Broward, and so on. It would be good to check the citations to make sure that they directly support the claims they are attached to.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Finetooth. I am just running out the door to my day job, but I will begin to respond to your comments and make suggested changes this weekend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Family Guy

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…I think it has FA potencial

Thanks, Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks a lot better since the last peer review. I think the language could still be improved and will try and point out as many examples as I can of rough spots. There are some other mostly nit-picky suggestions for improvement beyond language too.

• LEAD - I think I would put some indication of time in the first paragraph - began airing in 1999, currently in its eighth season, something like that. The first paragraph is a bit short anyway. The set in a fictional version of Rhode Island sentence could probably be added here too.
• LEAD - awkward sentence - MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and renamed him Peter, also redesigning Larry's dog Steve, who developed into Brian. Should use parallel construction (so "also redesigning Larry's dog Steve" doesn't match - should be redesigned. The sentence could also be tighter, perhaps something like MacFarlane redesigned Larry, the films' protagonist, and his dog Steve, and renamed them Peter and Brian.

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• LEAD - "ratings on" doesn't sound right in However, favorable DVD sales and high ratings on syndicated reruns convinced the network to renew the show in 2004. how about "ratings for"?

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• LEAD - this could be tightened too: Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards, of which it won three. The show has also been nominated for eleven Annie Awards, winning three times into something like Family Guy has been nominated for eleven Primetime Emmy Awards and eleven Annie Awards, and has won three of each.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• LEAD - I am nopt really sure what a "low review" is. Family Guy has also received negative criticism, including three lawsuits, and low reviews for its similarities to the animated series The Simpsons. Perhaps replace "low reviews for its similarities" with "unfavorable comparisons for its similarities"?

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• LEAD - there is very little about the show itself in the lead - it seems to me that someone who had not seen it would know more about tie-ins, awards, and criticism, than what to expect watching a typical episode.
• History section has this sentence The network also began production of a film based on the series.[12] with a ref from 2004, then nothing more on a film until the film section, where this is not mentioned at all. I think I would either remove this (a 5 year old reference to a film in planning which has never materialized) or perhaps it owuld be better to move it to the film section and change it to something like When the series was renewed in 2004, the network announced its intention to begin production of a film version.[12] Although this has not yet materialized...

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the material seems a poor fit in the section - it might need to be moved elsewhere or the section title might need to be revised. For example, what does the nice little story about early episode naming conventions really have to do with "Staff" (the section it is in)?
• There are a fair number of places that could provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR For example could the years the people were on staff be added to the Staff section's a list of various types of producers? For another example, why not add the year (2004) to Since the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, the writers have been required to tone down the show's crude humor for television broadcasts.[20] Also not really sure what this has to do with the Staff section, though it does mention the writers.
• Also per WP:PCR or WP:IN-U, I owuld describe who Peter, Stewie and Brian are at the beginning of voice cast, so Seth MacFarlane voices three of the show's main characters: [father] Peter Griffin, [Peter's dog] Brian Griffin, and [Peter's infant son] Stewie Griffin.[25]
• There is a one sentence paragraph on MacFarlane's other voice roles that should be merged with the preceding one on his main voice roles to improve flow.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Needs a ref Other recurring cast members include: Patrick Warburton as Joe Swanson; Adam West playing himself as mayor Adam West; Jennifer Tilly as Bonnie Swanson; John G. Brennan as Mort Goldman; Carlos Alazraqui as Jonathan Weed; Adam Carolla and Norm Macdonald as Death; Lori Alan as Diane Simmons; and Tara Strong as many additional voices, most notably Meg's singing voice. as does most of the last paragraph of Characters

Done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would say eponymous in Adam West playing himself as [the eponymous] mayor Adam West - he is not really playing himself (is the real Adam West a mayor?)

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Explain that 31 Spooner Street is the fictional address of the Griffins in This is supported by the fact that the real-world "31 Spooner Street" is located in Providence, immediately west of Roger Williams Park.[43]

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wyach needless repetition - the Adam West the actor voices the character Adam West the mayor bit is in twice and is not important enough to be in the article twice.

done--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I watch this show occasionally - the whole talking dog that everyone can understand and talking baby that most people cannot understand aspects are not really explained well.
• OK, this is enough - I think it is a lot better, but it still needs some work before I think it could pass an 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 _><>°^° 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Harvest (Numb3rs)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just want to see if any improvements can be made to the article. Thanks, SciGal (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend expanding the lead. Probably two paragraphs long. If any of the secondary sources describe any visual elements of the episode, it would be nice to illustrate that with an image (which has a good fair use rational, see WP:NFCC). "Origin of the Episode" should probably be "Production", and if you leave it, "Episode" should not be capitalized. The rule is that we only capitalize the first word of section headers, unless they contain a proper noun or similar. It would also be nice if there a bit more about the production. If the DVD contains commentary on the episode, that is a good place to find production details. The little reference numbers should go after punctuation, not before. It looks like it hasn't "won or has been nominated for several awards." but won one, and been nominated for one. It's good to be specific. Nice article overall. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

From Liquidluck (talk):

• I agree with Peregrine Fisher above; follow what he or she said.
• Delink the airdate in the lead per MOS for dates.
• Delete the "(a fictitious mathematics prize)"; Since it is a plot summary of a work of fiction, it can be assumed it is fictional. You may want to change the "Milton Prize" to "a prestigious mathematics award", though.
• "determine the time of death as earlier in the day." The time of death of who? Currently, the plot makes it sound as though it was Santi. Please clarify.
• "the team learn that Santi and Prita's other friend had died" Is this the same friend Santi identified earlier?
• Add the airdate to the reception section.
• 13.22 million it what country? Also, please add that they saw it live.
• There aren't any actual television critic opinions here. I would split this section up; first viewership, then responses from critics (you might find these in episode recaps by reliable sites), and finally responses from experts.
• This isn't a rule, but references generally go on the outside of punctuation. It isn't required, however, so do as you please.
• Overall, Wikilink way more. Algorithm, organ donation, I'd even say black market.

Nice, neat plot summary, and I think Peregrine Fisher hit on everything else. If you have questions, please post on my talk page. Good luck! Liquidluck (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I am making corrections to the article, although I still have more to go.SciGal (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

I don't think this is far from GA. I think possible expansion could be done on production; if the season has come out on DVD and you have, watch the directors commentary. I'm just going to give some comments on how to massage the prose (although this isn't needed for GA).

General

• HLA is a disambiguation link
• The date uses inconsistent date formats. References use date then month, but the body of the article uses month day. I would prefer month day because this is an American topic.

Lead

• I think the lead needs to be expanded, but I'm not sure with what.
• "Inspired on a Christian Science Monitor" what do you mean "on"?
• What is an "organ tourist"? The article never defines the term
• link algorithm in the lead
• Add "After airing on January 27, 2009" before "the episode received a mixed reaction". The date aired is needed to give an overview of the article, which the lead is supposed to be
• The last sentence of the lead is awkward: "however" seems to be indicating something negative, but the awards are positive. Also, per WP:AVOID, "however should be avoided. I suggest: "It has inspired academic case studies and received two awards." or something similar.

Plot Summary

• "Summary" in the header should be lowercased per MoS:HEAD
• "call to a hotel and find" I don't like "to a" here; I would replace it with "from a"
• "blood-stained hotel basement" you repeat "hotel" twice; it's redundant here
• "goes to the hospital to see if Santi's sister is at the hospital and finds" repeats "the hospital" twice
• "them that it was a friend of theirs" replace "it" with "she"
• "that there was a friend who is also missing" can be reworded as "that there was another missing friend"
• "team learn that" should have "learns"
• In the last paragraph, the average reader doesn't know what "HLA" is. Spell it out in full
• "team rescue Prita" should have "rescues"
• "use her money from her prize" would sound better if the first "her" was changed to "the"
• "case has caused her to learn" I think "inspired" would be better than "caused"
• "Alan" is not talked about in the article, so is unfamiliar to most readers
• The last sentence is unclear: Don learned Alan needed an organ transplant so only Charlie became a donor? Or did both become donors?

Origin of the episode

• The section title should be Origin or Background
• Is Hardin's last name spelled incorrectly in the first sentence?

Reception

• The first two sentences can be combined
• Reference 5 (CBS) can use {{cite press release}}.
• "The first case study was a" you can remove "case study" because it's clear form the previous sentence what you're talking about
• Link George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services
• I think "consultation" should be replaced with "consulting"
• Link University of Southern California and Purdue University
• per MOS:QUOTE, change the curly quotes and the curly apostrophe after Vickers in the last paragraph to normal
• The second "has" and "award" in the first sentence of the last paragraph are both redundant
• Link Norman Lear Center
• Link either Creative Arts Emmy or Primetime Emmy Awards

References, External links, other

• Spell out "WJZ" in reference 4; most readers don't know what it is
• Really getting picky, but per MoS:TM, remove the copyright symbol from reference 8
• Add Category:2007 television episodes
• If a link to the article that inspired the episode is available, I would add it under External links

Don't be discouraged by the amount of issues here, I was extremely picky. Anyway, it makes life easier at GAN. If you have any question, put them here (I'll check back eventually) or my talk page. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I made the changes that you suggested to the best of my ability. This episode, unlike several like I had done so far, does not have a commentary on the DVDs, although I wish the episode did. Therefore, I cannot include as many production details as I can. Also, WJZ is a television station in Baltimore; that is why I can't spell it out. I did expand the lead some; what do you think of the expansion?

Other than that, I have been able to make the rest of the changes, and I am trying to find more critics' comments about the episode.

I hope that this helps you. Again, thanks for the suggestions. SciGal (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I found additional information about Segev and Gentry's algorithm, and I have included it in the "Origin" sectionSciGal (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Hartford Dark Blues all-time roster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would would like to take this to the FL level, so any help with grammar and prose would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since I just peer reviewed Providence Grays all-time roster a few hours ago, I thought that I would look at this too. I imagine some of my comments will be similar, but I was a bit surprised that the two articles had some differences where I thought they would be more similar. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I also did a minor copyedit of the lead but not of the table text. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors.
• Not sure what this is supposed to mean - missing word? With a stable hitting [something?], behind veterans Tom Carey, Tom York, Dick Higham, and Jack Burdock, the franchise enjoyed two second place finishes in 1875 and 1876.[1][10][11] or just omit the first "a"? With stable hitting, behind veterans... The "two" is not needed in any case.
• First off, while I realize the teams had very different histories, I think the basics of their articles should be as close to similar as possible. I noticed that the colors for the key are different here - I would make them consistent.
• I also think that if the Grays has a History section, this should too (although the lead here is shorter and meets the four paragraphs maximum of WP:LEAD
• I think the fact that they played one year of only four they existed should be in the first sentence, and some indication of the time period should be in there as well. Perhaps something like The Hartford Dark Blues was a short-lived Major League Baseball franchise in the 1870s, which was based for three years in Hartford, Connecticut and one in Brooklyn, New York.
• Number consistency in the list descriptions is also an issue here - there are places where small numbers are spelled out (played one game) and others where the digits are used. Do whatever is required by FLC / Baseball WikiProject, but be consistent
• As in the other article, the Alt text tool shows no alt text - this will be needed per WP:ALT
• I did not copyedit the list descriptions. They read a little better than the Grays did, but here are a few things to watch for (in addition to overuse of and).
  • Some places it is not clear if a statistic applies to one season or to the player's whole career Barnie's first was also the only season he played more than 19 games, and had a .138 batting average. This is also a bit awkward and could perhaps be something like Barnie had a .138 batting average in 1874, his first season and the only one in which he played more than 19 games. (I know I said not to repeat the year before, but I think this makes it clearer)
  • I am not sure what this means Larkin pitched one season with the Dark Blues, and had a win–loss record of 29-25 in center field during his only game for the 1875 Hartford team. I think maybe this was two sentences that got combined by accident (period after win-loss record, then missing something?)

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 _><>°^° 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, great suggestions. After the Grays' review, I suspected that this one would produce very similar results.Neonblak ^talk - 22:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Turner Catledge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as my first fully written article, I'd like to know how I did. Don't hesitate to provide constructive criticism!

Thanks, [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

First off, good work for your first article. I think what needs to be done now is find more reliable sources with information on Catledge and expand the article using that. I'll give you some tips on where to find sources.

• On an unrelated note, please add ALT text to the one image. Pretend you're describing the image to someone over the phone.
• Answers.com isn't a reliable source because anybody can add content. Instead of citing answers.com, you should cite the Columbia Encyclopedia directly.
• A simple Google (or whatever search engine) search may come up with good info. Remember to always check for reliability, though. I found this great source, and you'll probably come up with something if you dig through the articles listed here. I have access to nearly all old NYT articles, so leave me a message if you need them e-mailed. Another great find is this Time article. This should be enough for now, but after you've exhausted these sources, you can always go to the next pages on the Google search.
• Always next for me is Google Books. See the results of the search here. If you can't see the needed text, go to a local library and inquire about those books.
• Google News may often turns up results, so I suggest trying. This time, it turned up lots of good stuff.
• Now that you have the sources, you need to incorporate their info into the article. Read through all the sources one-by-one, adding useful information you come across.

I'm surprised that nobody had bothered to improve this article before you, with all that information available. Good luck, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Eshmun Temple

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i watched it grow from a mere stub and am very proud it got to GA status, i think it can go further than GA, i need your suggestions on how i may ameliorate the article.

Thanks, Eli+ 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Great!, my request is invisible Eli+ 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how the list can be improved. I hope that eventually this list will reach Featured status. The list does have quite a bit of prose, but I think this is necessary given the complicated history and relationship between cannabis and the United States.

I used Eric Schlosser's Reefer Madness for most of the historical information, with additional sources to back up information as needed. I am wondering if more sources need to be added for additional confirmation (though I am pretty sure the information is accurate). Also, I realize it can be hard to keep information neutral, especially with controversial topics such as drug policy, but I hope that information is presented in a non-biased fashion.

I am hoping spelling, grammar and punctuation are up to par, all images should have alt text, and all sources should be formatted properly at this point. Is the lead suitable? Should a lead image be added? Any feedback would be much appreciated regarding these questions and any other concerns. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• I am somewhat confused about the focus of this article/list. Its title is clear, yet in fact it is two things: the expected list of US politicians, and associated information practically forming a distinct article, about the nature of cannabis and the history of its use in the United States.

Initially, this list focused solely on modern politicians admitting to recreational marijuana use. However, I noticed that most sources during the research process included information about the historical use of hemp for industrial purposes, so I thought it would be appropriate to include this as well. The relationship between cannabis and the United States is very complicated, so I thought it was important to provide appropriate historical context. I used List of recessions in the United States, a featured list which also contains multiple lists as well as a fair amount of prose, as a general example. I thought the pre- and post-prohibition sections made the article much more interesting, rather than simply a list of politicians that smoked recreationally or experimented once or twice in their youth. I realize it is a lot of prose for a list, but I think it provides a general history of cannabis in the country so that readers understand why it is significant that politicians are admitting to cannabis use. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• In particular, given the title, the lead section needs to be rewritten in a form which complies with WP:LEAD, i.e. provides a summary of the content, in this case a summary of the content of the main lists which follow. A short "Historical context" section could follow the lead, to include some of the historical information, but the main focus of the article ought to be the lists.

Hmm, I am sorry to hear the lead is not satisfactory, only because I thought it did summarize the article. The article contains information about the multiple uses of cannabis, the history of cannabis use throughout the nation's history, and laws pertaining to the drug--I tried to make the lead reflect all of this. I also thought it would be appropriate to start off by explaining what cannabis is exactly, especially since many Americans use the term "marijuana" as opposed to "cannabis". Since the lead does not satisfy you (which I have no problem with, by the way), do you have any specific recommendations for improvement? --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can see very little wrong with the prose, and the technical issues - referencing, date formats etc, seem OK. The only thing I could find to comment on is that your alt text descriptions only refer to colour/race in the case of Obama ("A black man").

Thank you. I enjoy making these lists, and have several featured lists under my belt, so I am fairly aware of some of the common issues that should be addressed. Regarding the alt text: to be honest, I am uncomfortable referring to someone as "black" without making racial references to others, but a reviewer included that once for another list I was working on and I just copied that action here. I removed "black". --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• The lists are immaculately drawn and well-referenced. The only small point I can raise is to query the form "Senator of ..." I have always understood that the correct form was "Senator from ...". Am I right?

How funny that I did not know this. I consider myself a bit of a news/political junkie, but I wasn't familiar with this preferred term. Sure enough, all of the Senator articles use "from". Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I do think that the article would benefit from a lead image, perhaps that of Washington, with an appropriate caption to explain why he is there.

Noted. Perhaps I will move the image of Washing to the top and find one of another Founding Father for the pre-prohibition section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That is all I can find. Hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and suggestions. A few questions, if you don't mind.

1. Should the article read as "List of United States politicians who admit to cannabis use", given that the list is included in Category:Lists of United States politicians?

Update: Title updated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Does the multiple uses of "Member of the United States House of Representatives" bother you, or should they be changed to reflect the state or district they represent(ed)? For instance, should Jim Moran's highest position be "Member of the United States House of Representatives" or "Representative from Virginia", or something else with more specificity?

3. How much more work does this list need before I try for featured status? I could not quite tell from your first two bullets whether minor edits or major overhauls were required.

Thanks again for your assistance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Cannabis is a genus of flowering plants with species that have long..." - is... have - seems to go from singular to plural..

It does. Cannabis is a singular genus which contains multiple species of plants, all of which have... Right? --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• No need to italicise Cannabis the second time round really.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• "known to grow hemp for industrial" - perhaps "known to have grown hemp..."?

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure you really need to link import.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• "when imports from Russia replaced the plant." what do you mean? This says that production carried on until the imports "replaced the plant" - do you mean that the Russian imports meant that home-grown stopped?

Correct. Hopefully "... when Russia began importing hemp products" sounds better. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Prior to this wave of prohibition, American politicians known to use cannabis for industrial or recreational purposes include several Founding Fathers and former Presidents." single-sentence para followed by a table. A little odd...

Should it be combined with the previous paragraph? My intent was to separate background information from the table description. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• No need to continually relink to the President of the US page.

Which instances should be removed? The link is used once in the lead, once in the article, and within tables and captions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Emperor of China Shennong in the 28th century BC.[1] In the United States, cannabis was initially grown for industrial reasons, though recreational use spread quickly during the 20th century." - big, BIG jump. Anything notable here in the intervening 4800 years?

I will do some additional research. I felt the background information was extensive as it is, but I can add another sentence or two about additional recreational use throughout history. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's not clear that the big table is, in fact, your list of US politicians who admit to cannabis use. Re-reading, I'm not sure it's useful to split the pre- and post-prohibition either. You could include these facts in notes...
• Kyle E. McSlarrow has no "lifetime" details. If not known then state it.

Still trying to track down this information... --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Same for Donohue.

Still trying to track down this information... --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 10 has a hyphen and an odd date format.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Much appreciated. I can think of a few ways to improve the article, but I am still having a very difficult time gauging whether this list is FL-appropriate or not. I am getting positive feedback about the list, but there still seems to be a bit of confusion about the pre- and post-prohibition tables. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amazing Grace

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Gracious. The most popular and well-known composition in the English-speaking world. I have no business writing about something that means so much to so many people. But here it is in Wikipedia. I think it thoroughly deserves an FA. I would appreciate any assistance getting it there. Thanks, Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

List of College of William & Mary alumni

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think there has been a significant improvement to the article since it was rejected for FL status. I started working on this article earlier this month and have made some pretty good changes, I think.

First, I have removed some things that were flatly incorrect. For example, this article used to say that there were sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence from the College; there were four. It used to say that George Washington was an alum; he only received a surveyors license from the College in its administrative capacity, but he never took courses at the College. Things like that.

Second, I have worked to make the list comprehensive within the existing categories. For example, when it was last submitted for FL status, it left off one of the College's four Supreme Court justices! I have also doubled the list of ambassadors, increased the number of U.S. Congressmen from 8 to 96, doubled the number of U.S. senators, increased the number of Speakers of the House, doubled the number of Major League baseball players, etc.

Third, the list had some real organization problems. Members of the list were included the wrong sections (U.S. Congressmen were listed in the section for state representatives) and U.S. senators were inserted in "Other" sub-lists with no mention of their real notability.

Fourth, I have tried to improve the cites used. The previous list appears to have been pretty much block and copied from the College's own alumni organization page. As a result, the majority of cites were back to that one page. I tried to improve cites, for example, by tying into the U.S. Congressional biographies. Doing so not only documents the W&M connection, but it also documents the entrant's notability.

Fifth, I reorganized the sub-lists and added, adding some categories and merging others. The overall structure of the list is much better now.

Sixth, I have tried to standardize all of the many entries. For example, I have edited the whole list to make notes about spans of years consistent as well as capitalization and ordering of details on entrants.

Now, with that long wind-up in place, here is my pitch. I'd appreciate any sort of feedback on anything. This is my first request for peer review on an article, so any feedback would be great. I envision making some changes based on that feedback and then submitting it once again for a better peer review before submitting it for Featured List status.

So, with that, I'll toughen up my skin and await the feedback!

Thanks, ProfReader (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A most impressive list, clearly the product of a huge amount of diligent research. I feel awkward criticizing such a terrific effort, but if we can improve it even further, then we should try. I am not in a position to check over any of the details given for the various entries; my comments are general to the list as a whole.

• General points
  • A large number of dismbiguation links need fixing. Use the box on the top right corner of this page to click on to the list.
  • External links refs 151 and 191 are dead. For some reason, a large number of other links, between refs 309 and 342 are showing dead, but they work OK for me
  • All images currently lack alt text.
• Title: The title "List of College of William & Mary alumni" suggests that all alumni, tens of thousands of them, are going to be listed. This list is a selection, so the title needs to be qualified in some way, e.g. "List of notable College of William & Mary alumni" (see "Criteria", below).
• Criteria: There needs to be a clear statement with the list of the criteria that have been applied in each category to establish notability. There is no problem with the earlier catgories, but in some of the later ones I was a bit uncertain about the "notability" of some of the entries. Some of the names, e.g. "Tara Guelig", seem to be very tenuously notable. There seems an awful lot of footballers (many redlinked), compared with persons from other walks of life. I appreciate that you consider this an "open" list to which names can continue to be added, but these additions need to be within some well-understood, and consistently applied, criteria.
• Minor points
  • The notes which currently form part of the lead would be better as a separate "guidance" section, and the lead itself could be expanded. At present it gives the impression that the college's noted alumni all belong to the earliest years of the United States, and doesn't at all indicate the range of activities over which alumni have operated.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that members of the US House of Representatives, since their constituencies are not statewide, were not described thus: "U.S. representative for Tennessee", but rather as from their state.

I may add more comments if I have time to revisit over the next few days. In the meantime, I hope these comments are helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact my talkpage for further discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Added: I am not sure that having a "fictional" category is a good idea. It somewhat detracts from the list's status. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it ready for FAC. I don't think it should be hard to review because it's already been vetted closely by User:Dincher and has been worked over several times over the past two years by me, mostly, with lots of help in the way of photography and a map by User:Ruhrfisch, who also supplied helpful information and advice. Nevertheless, it will be my first FA try with a city article on which I've done most of the research and writing. I'd like to catch any remaining problems before FAC.

Thanks, Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

1999 Atlantic hurricane season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to get this to GA Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Finetooth comments: Even though I have a lot of suggestions, I think this is not far from being a suitable candidate for GAN. Most of my suggestions have to do with prose and style issues that you can correct without great difficulty. The article is broad in coverage, reasonably well-written, nicely illustrated, stable, neutral, and mostly verifiable. I think if you clean up the errors, add the missing conversions, improve on the overlinking and underlinking, fix the incomplete citations, and a few other things, you'll be fine with this.

• You may not need them for GAN, but if you plan to take this to FAC in the future, you'll need alt text for the images. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it necessarily differs from the captions. WP:ALT has details, and you can look in on FAC discussions to see recent examples of alt text.

Tropical Storm Arlene

• You might think about linking technical terms like front and convection on first use for readers who may not know much about hurricanes or meteorology. If a special term doesn't have anything useful to link to, you might add a brief explanation. For example "shear" might be more clear if written the first time as "wind shear". Ditto for special terms like tropical wave in the lower sections. You need to link or explain these once but only once to make the article accessible to the largest number of readers.

Tropical Depression Two

• "Tracking generally toward the west, the wave tracked through the Atlantic and into the Caribbean Sea." - Recast to avoid repetition of "track".
• Wikilink Bay of Campeche here instead of on second reference.
• "the NHC stopped monitoring the system" - Spell out and link National Hurricane Center (NHC) on first use. After that the abbreviation by itself is OK.
• "The system dropped heavy rain to the area amounting to a maximum of 20.37 in (517 mm) at Tanzabaca, Mexico." - "on the area" rather than "to the area"? Also, it's customary in Wikipedia articles to spell out the primary units, as you have done with "miles". So, this should be 20.37 inches (517 mm). Ditto for other instances later in the article.

Hurricane Bret

• "(1999 USD; $19.7 million 2009 USD) in damages" - The conversions might be challenged; they probably need a source.
• "Bret moved north, and strengthened into a 145 mph (233 km/h) Category 4 hurricane on August 22." - I'd suggest mentioning and linking the Saffir-Simpson Scale here rather than waiting until Lenny to introduce it.

Hurricane Dennis

• "The wave continued west-northwestward until it gained tropical depression status on August 23 and then a tropical storm on the same day." - Add "became" between "then" and "a"?
• "After passing through the Bahamas, the shear decreased, and Dennis was able to reach Category 2 strength on the 28th." - Dangling modifier. The shear didn't pass through the Bahamas. Please re-cast.
• "The eyewall was around 35 miles wide at its height." - Needs a metric conversion.
• There's no need to link things like North Carolina or Bahamas more than once.

Tropical Storm Emily

• "and there is no damage reported in association with it" - Tighten to "and it caused no reported damage"?

Tropical Depression Seven

• "In Texas, its remnants produced light rainfall, peaking at 3.35 inches in Harlingen, Texas." - Metric conversion needed.

Hurricane Floyd

• "Hurricane Floyd was a large and powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that was first named on September 8 while about 750 n mi east of the Leeward Islands." - Spell out and link nautical mile and provide conversions.
• "It returned to the ocean near Norfolk, Virginia" - I added commas to all constructions such as this one up to this point in the article. You need a trailing comma after the state in city–state combinations here and elsewhere below this.
• "Floyd caused record rainfall across the east coast, with Wilmington, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania setting 24-hour rainfall records of 15.06 in. and 6.63 in. respectively. Portions of New England had rainfall totals nearing 11 in. Floyd generated 9-10 foot storm surges across North Carolina. There are 57 deaths directly blamed on Floyd, 56 in the United States and one on Grand Bahama." - Metric conversions needed. I'll stop pointing these out in the lower sections; you should double-check for more. The {{convert}} template makes these easy once you practice with it a bit. It spells, abbreviates, and calculates correctly if you enter the data correctly.

Tropical Storm Harvey

• "Harvey was responsible for no deaths. Molasses Reef, FL had a peak... " - Spell out "Florida" rather than using the postal service abbreviation.

Tropical Depression Twelve

• "It moved erratically the west-northwest without developing." - Missing word?
• "While this was going on, the low-level circulation was mostly of the west side of the convection... " - Missing word?

Hurricane Irene

• "Total damage in Florida is around $900 million (2005 USD)." - "was" rather than "is"?

Hurricane Lenny

• No need to link "waves" or "United States" or "Saffir-Simpson" twice or "Atlantic basin".

Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) ranking

• "a measure of the power of the hurricane multiplied by the length of time it existed for" - Delete "for"?

References

• Some of the citations are incomplete. References to web sources, for example, should include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of these can be found. Citation 1 has three elements (one of which, the title, is incorrect) but should include the publisher (Cuban Meteorological Society), the correct title (Cyclone Season of 1999 on the the North Atlantic Ocean), the date of publication (March 10, 2000), and the author ( Alejandro Bezanilla). I found the missing elements by visiting the cited web page. You should check the others to make sure they are complete.
• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent. You can use either m-d-y or yyyy-mm-dd but not both.
• The authors' names should be listed last name first. In citation 11, for example, the order should be Lawrence, Miles B.
• Ref tags should be placed snug against the end punctuation rather than having an extra space as in "The hurricane dissipated quickly after its last advisory for the city of Laredo, Texas. [5]"

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ip Man (film)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to solicit feedback about the article and how it meets featured article criteria.

Thanks, FrankRizzo2006 (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written in places, less so in others. Its most glaring problems lie with the sourcing, and these would prevent it from succeeding at GAN, let alone FAC. It has potential, though, and the work you've put into it clearly shows. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• Reference numbers should be snug against the end punctuation rather than one space over as in citation 1 in the lead.
• Many of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to web-based sources need the author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate, if all of those can be found. A handy way to do citations is to use the "cite" family of templates found at WP:CIT. If you use these, don't mix them with other families of citation templates such as the "citation" family found also at WP:CIT. You also can look at other film articles, especially FA articles, in edit mode to see how other editors have handled citations.
• At least some of your sources are probably not reliable as defined by WP:RS. Blogs, for example, are not reliable sources, and dot-coms are often questionable.

Plot

• "Ip accepts work as a coolie at a coal mine." - Wikilink coolie?

Pre-production

• "Producer Raymond Wong stated that the film would take on a similar look and feel to SPL." - Is SPL a film title? If so, this might be a little more clear as "the film SPL ". Oh, I see further down that it's SPL: Sha Po Lang. It should be spelled out and linked on this first instance rather than later.

• Generally, it's best to avoid extremely short paragraphs and sections. The two most common solutions are to expand or merge. The last paragraph in this section is quite short; the Music section is extremely short.

Filming

• "since Foshan, in early republican years" - You might add a bit more here to include outsiders in the meaning of "early republican years".
• "unique place where Chinese and Western cultures would converge" - "Converged" rather than "would converge"?

Stunts and choreography

• "Yen also had a masseur on set... " Wikilink masseur?
• "after receiving four blows continuously" - Perhaps "after receiving four consecutive blows"?

Film title controversy

• "Ip Man gained controversy over its original film title, which was disputed by film director Wong Kar-wai... " - I'm not sure "gain" is the right verb. Perhaps "Ip Man's original title was controversial. It was disputed... ".
• "To settle the dispute, Raymond Wong publicly expressed the film title... " - "Changed" or "retracted" rather than "expressed"?
• The Manual of Style deprecates fancy quotes. Blockquotes are customary for quotations of four lines or more. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Release

• "Ip Man was first released in China on the week of 8 December to 14 December." - Should this include the year as well?
• "The film was also released in New Zealand, and was the first country to release the Cantonese version due to time zone differences." - Ambiguous. What do time zones have to do with it? Needs clarification.

Reception

• "Prior to its theatrical release in China, Ip Man held a test screening in Beijing on 4 December 2008." - The film didn't hold a screening for itself. Who did?
• "As a traditional martial arts film, Ip Man's fight scenes were awarded... " - Dangling modifier. The fight scenes can't be equated with the film.
• "Kevin Ma of Love HK Film.com gave the film a mixed review... " - The embedded external link should be turned into an inline citation.

Home video releases

• Wikiliink trailer?

Sequels

• Ip Man 2 sees Donnie Yen reprising the lead role... " - Since films can't see, perhaps "Donnie Yen reprises his lead role in Ip Man 2, the second featured film based on the life of Ip Man"?
• "The film will focus on Ip's migration in Hong Kong... " - "migration to Hong Kong" or "movements in Hong Kong"?
• "A screenplay for a future third installment is currently being written." - I'd suggest merging this short paragraph with the one above it.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Personal relationships of Michael Jackson

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential to become a GA and, if I dare risk sending such a controversial subject to FAC, an FA. A peer review is definitely needed first, however, to iron out any problems this article may have. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this is probably pretty close to GA, but would have some issues before it could pass FAC (contoversy aside). I also have some general questions on the name of the article, and the rules for inclusion. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I am not sure about the title. There are only two other articles with personal relationships in the title that I could find: Personal relationships of James I of England and Alexander the Great's personal relationships. While these are both about sexual relations, my problem with the title is the use of the phrase "personal relationships". It seems to me to be a broader term than just dating / sexual relations. I looked on Wikipedia and Personal relationship is a redirect to Interpersonal relationship, which is broader in scope than this. With this title, why aren't there sections on his reations with his family members or with Macaulay Culkin or Emmanuel Lewis?

• I see where you are coming from. A possible alternative title could be Michael Jackson's relationships and marriages, which is inline with Paul McCartney's relationships and marriages. However the "relationships" part of the title can include many things as well. Hmm, I'll ask around on this.

• The other concern I have is that there seems to be less material in the article on the whole sharing his bed with kids (especially boys) issue. If there is a large section on women with whom he had no or next to no physical contact with (Brooke Shields and Tatum ONeal), I can see someone arguing that there should be more on the children with whom he himself said he slept.

• I've added a bit about him sharing his bed into the allegations section.

• I also wonder about not including the allegations that Jackson was not the biological father of some or all or his children.

• Added into the Debbie Rowe aftermath section.

• No dabs or dead links, very nice alt text. I wonder if contactmusic.com is a WP:RS? Or NME?

• Will look into/replace.

• The ISBN here is wrong (copied from the previous book in the article): Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2004). The Magic and the Madness. Headline. ISBN 097497790X.

• Fixed.

• In the Diane Sawyer interview, didn't Lisa Marie explicitly say they had sex? Shouldn't that be in the article?

• Added.

• I thought it was pretty well done otherwise, but noticed a number of slightly awkward places that would benefit from a copyedit. A few examples follow:
  • Once Presley had left the building, she returned to Los Angeles, from where she had come.
  • "The female"??? in The female then proceeded to unbutton her blouse, ...
  • To the father's disapproval and concern, the musician and the boy had become friends in May 1992.
  • Mother Katherine was a devout Jehovah's Witness and conveyed her thoughts clear[ly]; lust in thought or deed was sinful and physical intimacy should be saved for marriage.

• Altered these.

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 _><>°^° 05:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. :) Pyrrhus16 16:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.contactmusic.com/
    • http://www.rte.ie/arts//2003/0213/jacksonm.html

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed those links. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Bog turtle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… me along with a group of students have put some work into this article in the hopes to bring it up to either GA or FA status by January 10th.

Thanks, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Smallbones (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is a high school project, high schoolers are a lot more studious than they used to be. GA or FA by Jan. 10 will be challenging, however, if only because of the time reviewers take. Some quick comments. You're all over the place on capitalization. It should be "bog turtle," not "Bog turtle" or "Bog Turtle." And do correct "Bug turtle." Details matter. I'm wondering if you should continue to call them "bogs" as sometimes I think you are writing about actual bogs or swamps. I'd pick a related GA or FA article to compare it to and check capitalization, format, etc. to that model.

The section on Facts Specific to Different States seems to be a miscellaneous grab bag, e.g. "A piece of legislation unique to Connecticut that concerns the bog is the Connecticut General Statutes, Sec. 26-311 and the Connecticut Regulation 26-66-14a." What does the law say? Why is it important? Perhaps this section should be combined with the "Populations" section below it. More after the weekend.

Okay, I believe I caught all the capatilization errors in the article (althought I couldn't find a "bug" turtle), changed all references to them to exclusively "bog turtle," and deleted the irrelevent sections about the different states. We appreciate your feedback and hope we have addressed all your concerns.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I found and corrected a Bog and a bug (in the captions). I'm not sure that I would have thrown away all that info in the "Different States" section - only throw some out and figure out better place for putting the rest (i.e. a better organization). OK, now to get really picky, here are some sentences that strike me as confusing or have the wrong word choice. The bolded words are what really throw me. It can be hard to say exactly what is wrong, since I don't know exactly what you wanted to say, but if I'm confused, others might be as well.

• It is the only turtle protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act because it is considered threatened at the federal level and endangered in some states.
• It is illegal to keep a bog turtle or its eggs for any length of time. ("keeping" implies some time minimal period)
• Due largely to its small size and unique characteristics, it is hugely desired in the black market pet trade. ("Because of," and maybe "in demand")
• Basic appearance of wetland that can sustain bog turtles (taken in Pennsylvania). (Do you really mean to say that this is what the habitat looks like, or do you mean to say that this is the habitat of the bog turtle?)
• Deep, muddy soil provides bog turtles with a way to avoid the dangers of extreme changes in weather and a way to evade predators. - (Maybe: Deep, muddy soil allows bog turtles to avoid the dangers of extreme weather and to evade predators.) Though I see "allow" is in the next sentence, which btw confuses me "Spring seeps and groundwater springs" - it takes me awhile to figure out whether they are nouns or verbs, or both.
• The southern population of bog turtles is much smaller and exists in states such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee. (better yet, just restate)
• just removed a "basic," which is, basically, an overused word.
• However, the reason becoming increasingly more common is the fourth, protection, underwhich falls the movement from one habitat to another to find more suitable living conditions. This is called an extrapopulation movement and for bog turtles the distance it must travel for its journey to be classified as such is about a third of a mile (half a kilometer). (this just needs to be sorted out and taken one step at a time)

Well, I said I was being picky, and I left a few for other editors, but if this is the worst you are doing ok.

Comments by Innotata (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work here! This article is fairly well written, and I (very unusually) can find no real flaws in one section–description–though this does not mean it can not still be improved. I think that the text of this article could be extended, and that some matters are entirely excluded: the relations and evolution of the species, for instance. There are a large number of minutiae I could point out, and much of the text needs mild clarification. I do not understand what units the populations section refers to. Subspecies? "Population", in biology, normally refers to about the smallest diagnosable group: the population of a pond, for instance. I would remove the statement on "the practice of giving an organism's common name after people" becoming less common. A local newspaper is not the best of sources on the matter, and to the best of my knowledge this is not true. How do bog turtles "congregate in colonies"? A colony of turtles is a rather unfamiliar sight to me. I suspect that an important source for the unclear statements is the use of unoriginal phrasing, as at hibernation, where the article refers to "support structures". Finally, I personally don't believe an animal article deserves featured article status if it does not include citations to important scholarly works (as at Tree Sparrow), though I can understand the difficulty for the primary contributors here. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

A few notes by bibliomaniac15 06:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that "population" is not a particularly collegiate term. I would use "range instead. Also, I would merge the two subsections about the Northern and Southern populations into a single paragraph, because neither of them are particularly substantial enough to stand alone. In fact, population is much better off as a subsection itself of "Distribution and habitat."
• What type of manmade threats or invasive plant species pose a threat? You have a picture of a purple loosestrife, but if it's relevant to the bog turtle it should most definitely be cited.
• "Will eat from already dead animals." Do you mean that they eat carrion, or that they'll eat food from dead animals? Bad wording.
• Development could be expanded, and the short, choppy paragraphs in the end of the reproduction section should be merged into another paragraph. Suggestion for that: Merge in the short longevity section into that paragraph.
• As a form of standardization, please use {{Convert}} for all your temperatures.
• I believe there is more that needs to be cleaned up before it can reach GA status. I encourage you to consult the sample articles WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles offers for ideas on how to better organize the article.

First of all, thanks everybody for your concern. I believe I caught most of it.

Some things I didn't do or am not sure on:

1. I am unsure of how to cite a pucture.
2. I didn't know what I should have used in place of "populations" so I just went with it.
3. Didn't I cover what man made threats and plant species threaten bog turtles?
4. The picture of the wetland is their just to show readers what their habitats look like, but if you feel like it is completely irrelevent and should not be in the article than I can take it out.
5. The "facts specific to different states" was removed because I knew it was unnecessary as soon as I put it in.
6. I know I need more relevant pictures but I am having a hard time with wikicommons.

Basically (used sarcastically here), I appreciate the help and would like your feedback on the minor changes. Also I coold use som help withh sp3l1ing in tha ar1icl3.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Two notes: does "population" mean subspecies, and does living in "colonies" mean spotty distribution? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Population does not mean subspecies, the bog turtle is the same turtle with the same characteristics no matter where it is found. Colony simply means that there are seperate dwellings for different numbers of bog turtles. For instance, 100 bog turtles may live in a certain marsh and 20 miles away another 30 bog turtles may live in another marsh, both of those would be colonies of bog turtles (am I using the word "colony" wrong in the article or something?). Thanks for the feedback!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're using "colony" and "population" incorrectly. A colony may be thought to mean something like a hyrax colony. Do you know what a subspecies is? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Colony is a group of organisms of the same kind living or growing in close association". This meaning can be used here however it is not an ideal discription. ZooPro 23:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Just about every place I go to says northern and southern "populations" though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Kaldari (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. Just a couple things, really.

1. You don't need such extensive sourcing in the lead. The lead should ideally have little to no citations, as it is a summary of information that should be cited in the body of the article. Exceptions are usually made for surprising or controversial statements made in the lead.
2. "Bog turtles congregate in colonies in southwestern Vermont, northern New York, northeastern Ohio, and south to the Appalachian Mountains in Georgia and South Carolina." I'm confused. Is their range restricted to these specific locations or are these just the extreme ends of their range? Perhaps the wording could be cleared up some. Also, you may want to consider creating a distribution map.

OK, I was having the whole lead/citation/referencing discussion towards the bottom of this page (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:JimmyButler), perhaps it belongs here (I apolagize for that). So I guess I need to take the references out of the lead and put the information in the article a second time in the main body (that time with the references). As for the first sentence of the Distribution and Habitat section I will look back through the references and make that clearer. Also, I went to the map making page and found out that you need photoshop (which I don't have) to make one. I think we can make a map a little bit later on (if we decide to go all out in hopes for FA nomination). Thank you so much. By the way, where do you stand on the whole "population," "colony," and "range," issue (debated a little bit above this)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Cathedral of Toledo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a translated version of the Featured Article in the Spanish article. It is very detailled (about 90 kBytes big). I need critical eyes before submitting for GA nomination.

Thanks, Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment You will need more inline citations in order to meet GA. You obviously have references in the reference section but do not cite page numbers etc. So that is one thing I can tell you right off the bat. This is obviously a labour of love so supplying the citations shouldn't be a problem and will strengthen the article immensely.Hope that helps.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice photos and agree that this is a labor of love. The thing is that each language's Wikipedia has different standards, here are some suggestions for improvement of the article to meet the standards here.

• Article needs more references, there are whole sections without any inline refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• 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 but the EUR 7 admission (as one example) is only in the lead.
• As a summary, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD The article may need fewer sections / headers too.
• The section headers do not meet WP:HEAD which says not to repeat all or pert of the article title if at all possible. So headers like "The Renaissance grillwork in the cathedral" could just be "Renaissance grillwork" (drop "The", already know that it is in the cathedral)
• Use of bold and italic and all capitals does not follow WP:ITALIC and the WP:MOS
• Article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that interfere with the flow of the prose - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded where possible.
• 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 long quote in Latin has to have a translation provided
• The text needs a copyedit to clean up many small problems - it reads like a translation that still needs some polish.
• Some of the language runs the risk of violating WP:NPOV - The magnificence of the cathedral of Toledo has always raised among the critics and historians of art great admirations and compliments. If this is a direct quote with a citation, it would be OK.
• The tools in the box at upper right finds one disambiguation wikilink, one dead external link, and no alt text (needed per WP:ALT).

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 _><>°^° 05:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pussycat Dolls discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i have been working on improving its quality, sourcing, formatting, prose etc and would like some ideas and opinions of how to improve the article further!

Thanks, :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Gongshow:

This is a very well-done discography, and there are no issues with dabs or dead links. I hope the following suggestions are helpful.

Lead:

• "a number of other appearances" --> I realize "other appearances" refers to a subsequent section heading, but in this sentence the wording seems just a little too vague for my liking. Perhaps consider changing to something like, "a number of collaborations with other artists" or "a number of guest appearances on other artists' songs"?
• There's an extra "." at the end of the first paragraph.
• "...United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, the song also peaked..." --> The comma after Canada must be changed. I'd go with a semi-colon there.
• ""Beep" a collaboration with will.i.am..." --> There should be a comma after "Beep".
• "has been certified platinum by ARIA and gold by the BPI.[4][1][2][8][7]" --> Instead of lumping all the citations at the end of the sentence, I would put a citation after each fact for clarity.
• At the end of the third paragraph, there should be a comma after "Bottle Pop" and after "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)".

Singles:

• Some of the citations don't match up. For example, in the Canada column, the citation does not provide Canadian peak chart positions for any PCD songs except "Hush Hush". In the US column, the citation does not show the US peak chart positions for "Jai Ho! (You Are My Destiny)" (looks like it's found here) or "Whatcha Think About That" (may also be found on a "Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles" chart at #8). Also, are there sources that show the group's German peak chart positions?

Other appearances:

• For "Bad Girl", since Confessions of a Shopaholic (film) has a soundtrack section, you might consider adding a wikilink for the album.

References

• Citation 3 needs a retrieval date.
• Citation 15 needs a publisher.

Again, these are mostly minor nitpicks. This is a nicely-written and well-referenced article overall. Kudos on the good work!  Gongshow ^Talk 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

heya, thank you so much for your review! :)

• have actioned your suggestions for the lead, makes much better sense now.
• have changed the candian singles ref to make it clearer and added the us jai ho one. also added the german, forgot about that. do u happen to know where the "bubbling under" chart is archived?
• added the wikilink
• the retrieved date and publisher were both there, just spelt wrong, so they didnt show up. fixed now!

Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome! As far as an online archive for the "Bubbling Under" chart, I don't have a direct link myself unfortunately, so here are some ideas. First, it's possible that the date for the #108 peak was 11 Oct 2008, as that corresponds to this link which shows the song at #70 on the Pop 100. Unfortunately, there is no "Bubbling Under" chart listed in this issue. Billboard.biz is a paysite, so I cannot confirm that the song will be found there, either. Another possibility is a recently released book, Top Pop Singles 1955-2008, which claims to have every "Bubbling Under" song ever, which would be a great resource for all those songs that peaked just outside the top 100 in the US. There's also a Record Charts Wikiproject which may be of more assistance. Good luck!  Gongshow ^Talk 00:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of a recommendation from JimmyBlackwing, the copyeditor of the article. So with some help with fellow editors, I could get Escape from Butcher Bay to FA status. Thanks, GamerPro64 (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• General
  • There are some dabs you need to address.

Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The alt text could use some work; there's spelling errors, issues with tone (contractions) and some very awkward wording (blood spatter over the hands doesn't translate to "blood spatter on walls", for instance.) File:CREBBRiddick.jpg is missing Alt text, however I'm going to suggest that it be removed for better compliance with WP:NFCC. If you're going to justify keeping it, it needs a much better FUR (and probably a better and larger image is necessary; you can barely see what's going on in the image, and you can push the size without going over .1 megapixels.)

  I need a second opnion on removing the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I say remove it. A free picture of Vin Diesel could easily be placed in Development; combined with the box shot, I'd say it's good enough to get Riddick's appearance across to readers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  O.K, I removed the picture. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

  I think I fixed tthe alt text in the pictures. Also, Jimmy, I tried getting a picture of Vin Diesel on the article but I have trouble with having alt text on it. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  If you show me which picture you're using (there's two in his article), I can help write the alt text. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the one that I like more on the article is File:VinDieselMarch09.jpg. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  I added the picture tot the article and added the ALT text Jimmy gave me. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Prose
  • "The designers of Escape from Butcher Bay sought to avoid making the game a "see-the-movie-play-the-movie" experience, in contrast to other film tie-in games." First off, quotes in the lead have to be sourced (WP:LEADCITE); secondly, this quote does jack for my understanding. "Play the movie?" I'm assuming it means it's not a fully interactive game experience, but it's better to explicitly state what they are talking about.
    • I reworded it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It's fine in the lead now but it's still a tad unclear in the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Now fixed, I think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I probably sound like a broken record in these video game peer reviews, but... accessibility, accessibility, accessibility! I think wiki-editors have been spoiled by internal linking, so that they don't explain terms in the text. If you don't give at least a one-bit description, readers have to click away from the article... and it's doubtful they may come back. "In Escape from Butcher Bay, the player takes the role of Richard B. Riddick and attempts to escape from a prison called Butcher Bay.[1] " Who is Riddick, besides the protagonist? "Unlike many first-person shooters, the game contains no heads-up display"... what's a heads-up display (especially considering it's really nothing more than a butchering of head-up display, people might be confused.)
  • There's a lot of weaselly, passive voice throughout the article, that leads to repetitious and uninteresting prose. "The player may interact with the prison's residents,[9] from whom quests may be received; the player earns information, tools and other rewards by completing quests.[10] Violent conflict often occurs between the player, inmates and prison guards.[1][9] The player may attack with Riddick's bare hands, or with improvised weapons such as shivs and clubs. Punches can be strung together to create combos."
    • Quests are only sometimes received from inmates. Most of the time, it's just idle talk. Also, talking to inmates is usually an option, not a requirement. Rewording it to active voice removes the intended meaning. I'll have to fix the other one; "the player attacks" should be fine. I don't see how any of it is "weaselly", though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
      • My concern is that the sentences are all structured the same and sound repetitive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I've been working on the prose for awhile, so I can't tell what you mean; I'm too close to the wording. Could you point out a few more specific examples? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I switched a few sentences, where appropriate, to active voice. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "With Johns' help, Riddick eludes the guards and tricks them into killing the warden. The two then steal a ship and escape the prison." Wait, what? Why would the bounty hunter help Riddick?
    • This is more of an issue with content than prose. As I remember it: throughout the game, Johns gets screwed over by the prison officials; he eventually gets fed up and helps Riddick escape. It doesn't make sense here because that subplot isn't mentioned. GamerPro: is it possible to add it in? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't have a reference, I, more or less, added the text to the sentence. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More comments when possible. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• • "tarbreeze intended the game to feature more role-playing elements, but they were removed due to feedback from Diesel and game testers. Starbreeze senior producer Peter Wanat referred to the game's role-playing elements as "RPG-lite", and said, "We tried to limit the number of really hard or really intricate RPG elements, and that was a choice because we wanted the game to be playable."" Lots of repetition of elements... maybe something like "components" or another synonym to mix it up?
    • I decided that the "RPG-lite" comment was covered by the full quote, so I axed it. And I changed the word's first appearance to "systems". The repetition should be gone, now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see that they produced a developer commentary for the directors cut of the game. Methinks that might add to the comprehensiveness of the development section, no?
  • Pet peeve for reception sections; it's generally best to list critics, not just publications, ex. "Douglass Perry of IGN" or similar. While they are representing their publication, it's still one critic's view (it also helps avoid confusion if you're reviewing different versions of the same title.) Speaking of which, are there a couple of reviews of the directors' edition that could be included?

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done with adding names of reviewers. I will now look for quotes from the director's edition. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• When I have time I'll check my LexisNexis/Proquest subscriptions to look for more critical commentary and coverage from print publications. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've grabbed a bunch of possible sources that could be used to bolster the reception, at the very least (there might be some other good info as well, I wasn't looking incredibly closely.) Send me an email and I'll reply with a PDF attachment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted CVG and PALGN but there may be others.
  • Newspapers and magazine titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.gamefaqs.com/
    • http://xbox.gamezone.com/
    • http://palgn.com.au/
    • http://www.firingsquad.com/
    • http://movies.about.com/od/awards/a/mtvmovie050505.htm
    • http://www.gamesradar.com/

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Central Morocco Tamazight

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has changed significantly since the last peer review, and I would like to know what else must be done to get it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Mo-Al (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I'm unable to say much about the content, but I may be able to help with suggestions about technical details. These should be dealt with before you approach GAN. You might not have to write alt text for GAN, but you will certainly need to fix the technical problems with citations, dead links, disambiguation links, captions, and punctuation.

General

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds five links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
  •  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Three of the images lack alt text, and the two that have alt text will be of little help to readers who can't see the images. If you imagine a reader who is listening to a machine reading the alt text, you will find the alt text easier to write. For example, "Major area of Central Morocco Tamazight-speakers (excluding Algeria and France)" won't help a blind reader. WP:ALT has a full explanation.
  •  Done In some cases I was unsure of what would be most appropriate, but I've tried to make the alt text more useful. Mo-Al (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• The map in the infobox lacks a caption or any identifying information. I'm not sure what parameter might fix the infobox. I'd suggest looking at parallel situations (other language infoboxes) for models and asking editors of those pages for help if the solution is not apparent.
  •  Done I've followed the model of the article French language and added a legend. Mo-Al (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think the Wiki Incubator would be better placed in the External links section than at the top of the page.
  •  Done Mo-Al (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds five dead urls in citations.
  •  Done I've added archived versions when possible. I'm not sure whether to delete the broken links or not. Mo-Al (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Date ranges, page ranges, and some other kinds of ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. MOS:ENDASH has details.
  •  Done This one was tough, so I can't promise that I caught everything. Mo-Al (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Many of the citations are incomplete. For example citation 61 includes only the title and url. It should also include the author (Driss Benmhend), the publisher (Wafin), and the accessdate (which could be today or the last time you checked the link to make sure it was working). When the date of publication is known, that should be included too. The various templates in the "cite" family can be helpful reminders of what information is needed and how it is to be arranged. See WP:CIT for details.
  •  Done I've made considerable progress on this one. I was unclear on some of the fine details, but I think that can be dealt with in GAR. Mo-Al (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the Wafin page reliable? Make sure that each of your sources is reliable as defined by WP:RS. Dot-coms may or may not be reliable.
  •  Doing... This is a tough one, since Berber issues attract a lot of controversy. I've made a few changes with this in mind, but finding more reliable sources to replace some of the ones currently in the article will take more work. Mo-Al (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes and References and Bibliography

• Some of the blue parts of the notes appear to be clickable but are not. For example, "Brenzinger (2007:124)' in note 1 looks clickable but is not, whereas "Souag (2004)" in note 2 looks clickable and is. "Abdel-Massih (1971b" in note 3 looks clickable but is not. These should be made to work in the same way, either all clickable or all not clickable.
  •  Done Fixed. It appears that Template:Harvcoltxt only works properly when referencing a citation which uses Template:citation, and not Template:cite book or Template:cite web. Mo-Al (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
• Notes or citations that have strings of all caps in them should be rendered in title case even if the source uses all caps. For example, note 13 has "THE SYNTAX OF THE CONJUNCT AND INDEPENDENT ORDERS IN WAMPANOAG" in it, and this should be changed to "The Syntax of the Conjunct and Independent Orders in Wampanoag". Citations 45, 46, 116, and 119 have other examples, and there may be others.
  •  Done Mo-Al (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
• Page ranges anywhere in the article take en dashes rather than hyphens. For example, citation 59 has a page range, 11-12, and it should look like this: 11–12.
  •  Done I think I got all of them. Mo-Al (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Is This It

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Don't really know why I wrote this. But, I was adding the accolades one day, and the next thing I know, I'd written it all. I'd appreciate a PR against the FA criteria, especially prose issues which are picked on in more detail from my experience. RB88 (T) 17:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is rather a hurried review due to limited time. Most of my comments are pretty small stuff; the article looks well-prepared and is very well-presented.

• Lead
  • "The chosen cover often courted controversy..." I suggest "often" isn't necessary
    • DONE
  • Link DVD (as you have with EP)
    • I often get told to unlink because it's very common. EP is more niche and old-school.
  • Suggestion: the last two sentences summarise why Is this it is especially notable. Should these statements be promoted to a reorganised first paragraph, in which the noteworthiness of the subject is normally made explicit?
    • Added a bit more to top paragraph.
• Origins
  • Moretti's quoted comment has two links in it. "Doors-y" should be supported by a parenthetical note, e.g. [referring to the rock band The Doors]. I'm not sure about linking "classical" - well enough understood, I would have thought, without the link.
    • DONE
  • "were working part-time" presumably refers to their non-musical activities. Clearer would be "had part-time jobs"
    • DONE
• Studio sessions
  • "Although a rapport developed between the two parties,..." It's not absolutely clear which two parties are meant here.
    • DONE
  • "Despite its poor infrastructure, it includes..." → "the studio includes..."
    • Studio is mentioned the sentence before. Don't want to repeat so sorted out the its instead.
  • "Averse to being credited as co-producers, the band usually only recorded songs once based on Casablancas's preference for "raw efficiency". Try as I may I can't work out what this means. "Usually only" is not easy on the ear. Is a comma missing after "once"? Even so the logic escapes me.
    • First part not that necessary. The rest was tweaked.
  • A real sea of blue: "Pro Co RAT distortion effects pedals, overdriving amplifiers or preamps, and reverse echo..." I'm not sure how or if this can be avoided, but quite honestly, if readers have to click on almost every word in a sentence to understand it, they're going to give up.
    • I agree and tried my best here. Split the sentence and condensed/explained a bit more.
  • "Casablancas persuaded the delegate by playing him some of the new material himself using a boom box." I think "himself" is redundant here.
    • DONE
• Promotion and release
  • "However, the drummer fell awkwardly following The Strokes' June 20 show in Glasgow and was consequently hospitalized with a broken hand." I would suggest repositioning and dropping the "however" connector, thus: "Following The Strokes' June 20 show in Glasgow, Moretti suffered an awkward fall and was hospitalized with a broken hand."
    • DONE
  • We seem to lose the story after Gentles's statement. Did the group fulfil their outstanding commitments with the substitute?
    • Added ref.
  • "The Strokes headlined the T in the Park festival in Scotland on July 7 after alternative rock group Weezer pulled out because of previous commitments and spent a large part of the month of July performing in cities in the West Coasts of America and Canada." Ambiguity in the final phrasing; need to clarify that it was The Strokes who "spent a large part of the month..." etc
    • DONE
• Packaging: Can you clarify exactly was the horrible "coincidence" that the band deeply regretted?
  • That's all he said I'm afraid.
• Lyrics: no issues
• Composition
  • suggest link Britpop in text as well as in soundfile
    • DONE
  • ""Alone, Together" is driven by a staccato rhythm and climaxes, first with a guitar solo, and then a repeat of the central guitar hook" Minor punctuation and grammar flaws; suggest ""Alone, Together" is driven by a staccato rhythm, and climaxes first with a guitar solo, then with a repeat of the central guitar hook."
    • DONE
• Commercial
  • Nitpick: "numbers [plural] two and three respectively"
    • DONE
  • "after charting consequently" Should this be "continuously"?
    • DONE
  • "a temporary spike" - slightly slangy; not all readers will know that "spike" means sharp increase. (The term is repeated later in the section)
    • DONE
• Critical
  • Tense disagreement: "...was extremely favorable; the aggregating website Metacritic reports..."
    • That's why I split it to begin with. I used to write reported but Metacritic tends to change ratings sometimes, so reports is more suitable because the website currently reports it.
  • "...The Strokes may or may not be completely calculated..." What does she mean by "calculated"? Should the word be in quotes to clarify that it's hers?
    • Removed when condensing section.
• Legacy: Punctuation nitpick: "the 2000s most influential guitar record" needs an apostophe thus: 2000s' (since we are talking about something which belogs to the decade)
  • • DONE
  • Accolades: No issues

I haven't checked out the tables but I'm sure they're OK. Hope these comments help. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. I'll get to these ASAP. Have a good Christmas. RB88 (T) 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ambulance

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it recently underwent a Good Article review, and having fixed all of those issues, I'm looking for a new challenge. I also feel that there's a good chance that it could meet the Featured Article Criteria with only a little bit more work!

Thanks, Frmatt (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a map looking at the number of ambulances per 100,000 people?

Good idea, I'll see if I can find some info with which to create that map.

What about the cost per km / trip by ambulance type in different areas of the world.

Good idea in principle, but the 4 km trip from my house to the hospital can cost anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars depending on the training of the personnel, number of personnel sent, as well as the drugs and other interventions used. Oh, and it will only cost me $45.00 (CAD) no matter what the actual cost is. I think this is too variable to make a really good point of comparison with.

They now have special ambulance units for obese people. Any images data on this?

Yup --------->thumb

See also section should be integrated into the text.

Can you explain a little bit more about how you see this happening?

The economics of ambulances need to be expanded.

Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean?

Lots of paper are avaliable [6]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are you suggesting we incorporate? I would agree that a section on actual cost (not just end-user cost) would be relevant, but are you looking for an in-depth analysis of the economics of an ambulance service? I'm not sure that is feasible, or within the parameters of wikipedia. Frmatt (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The global scope needs to be analyzed. Not everywhere has ambulances.

I'm not sure what you mean, there is a section on intermediate technologies which addresses ambulance service in areas without high levels of infrastructure. To my knowledge, every country in the world has some variation on an ambulance, is there something I'm missing?

How about this paper [7]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This then begs the question, if this article is about ambulances, why would we incorporate information about places that do not have the subject of the article? This would probably be better included in Emergency medical services. Frmatt (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Some areas of the world have physicians in car. Brasil often does for example ( worked in one ) as does France ( the Princes stay and play issue ). This controversy should be addressed under staffing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right that this section does seem a little Amero-Centric so lets try to clean that one up a bit! Thanks for the comments, feel free to drop by anytime...anyone else have comments to add? Frmatt (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Image placement and formatting needs so work. How about putting some in a gallery?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: This is an interesting and important article, and I am glad to see people work on the larger things of the world, not just the latest episode of their favorite television show ;)

• This is a broad article, and not everything possible can be said, so selectiveness is essential. The current total length is about right. I was sort of expecting more {{main}} use, such as related to military, crewing and equipment. Part of my concern is related to the very short section about history, which need to be expanded many-fold.
• There are a lot of bulleted lists, and even some numbered. The latter should only be used when numbering is essential, for instance when referring a sequence or importance. I would have liked to have seen the lists converted to prose, and the boldface replaced with links. Personally I would like to have seen a full paragraph on each subtype under "functional types", while under "vehicles" I would like to have seen them grouped into paragraphs discussing similar groups (such as flying, seaborn etc.)
• The article is lacking a lot of references. Every statement needs a reference, except where the lead repeats the body and non-controversial or repeating information in captions.
• The links in the see also section should be incorporated into the text. Instead of just linking at the bottom, find an appropriate place to write the link into the prose. For instance, "air ambulance" could be made part of the prose when writing about helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft.
• There are a lot of capitalization errors; remember that only proper nouns are to be capitalized. Term such as "all-terrain vehicle", "fire or police linked service" and "emergency care practitioner" should be lowercase. Job titles are never capitalized unless directly in front of the name and used as a title (Doctor James Smith) or the title is unique (the "Prime Minister of Canada" is capitalized, but "Smith was prime minister" is not, unless you say "Prime Minister Smith...".
• Stating that Israel uses battle tanks as ambulances is fine. But adding a sentence about the incident that motivated it, is a bit off-topic. The whole paragraph reads as POV to me, and unsourced statements that uncritically repeats subjective claims from one side in a highly controversial conflict is not appropriate. This is not so much what is correct and not, as attempting to remain very neutral in an article about an unrelated topic.
• The article mixes endashes and emdashes. There is at least one emdash in the military section.
• It should be United Kingdom, not Great Britain, unless for some particular reason excluding Northern Ireland (which is for instance done in relation to rail transport). Avoid linking to countries unless linking to the articles on the ambulance service in that country.
• It doesn't look very good when the sentence starts with a dash (to separate the key word and the description) and then a new pair of dashes is used later int he sentence.
• Never wikilink boldface.
• MEDEVAC should be "medical evacuation".
• You mention above that you have to pay a fee for using an ambulance in Canada. In Norway (and I believe most of Europe), such a fee would be totally unheard of. Perhaps mention something about user payments. This could for instance go under costs (which optionally could be renamed "financing", since it seems to be about who pays, not the cost structure).

Hope the feedback proves useful and good luck with the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Bionicle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to know of any flaws I may have missed and how close it is to meeting featured article criteria. Thanks, Twilight Helryx 13:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Explanation of name is clumsy and could be integrated more fluidly.
• Comparison to the Slizers/Throwbots and the Lego RoboRiders comes out of the blue - throwing disks? Huh?
• Is the logo really that important?
• What does it mean to write the story?
• "Mata Nui has since been revived, with unfortunate consequences beginning with Teridax succeeding in his Plan" makes no sense. If Mata Nui was the guardian of this universe and Teridax some sort of Satan figure, why would Mata Nui's revival would be bad? What is the Plan anyway?
• "Defeated, Makuta releases the ancient Bohrok, robotic drones who were designed to "cleanse" the island of Mata Nui (as it was "in the before-time") early for unknown purposes." Again, makes no sense. (In general, style is an issue; clauses are not split up & are run together in many places.)
• 2003 - The Bohrok-Kal and The Mask of Light - my eyes glazed over a quarter of the way through from all the names and events.
• 2010 is a mess.
• In general, it lacks context. Real world impact/reception is a sine qua non of FAs, and this doesn't even have inspirations or influences on Bionicle besides the obvious Maori linguistic borrowings.

Mm-hmm. Okay, I'll get to work on those issues. Thank you very much for your time and comments.--Twilight Helryx 03:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to turn your comments into a checklist so I can keep track more easily. Any additional comments are appreciated.

• Explanation of name is clumsy and could be integrated more fluidly.

 Not done: Working on way to do so.

 Done: moved it directly after sentence about the launch dates.

• Comparison to the Slizers/Throwbots and the Lego RoboRiders comes out of the blue - throwing disks? Huh?

 Question: Got rid of the part about "throwing disks" as there hasn't been any in Bionicle since 2002. As for the comparison: by that you mean it's too sudden, right? Should I find a way to smooth the transition or take it out entirely?

• Is the logo really that important?

Comment: It's not? Well, I guess it's going to have to stay there until I can get an image of the toys.

• What does it mean to write the story?

 Done: I think. I've made that part a little more specific by saying that it will be updated on a website.

• "Mata Nui has since been revived, with unfortunate consequences beginning with Teridax succeeding in his Plan" makes no sense. If Mata Nui was the guardian of this universe and Teridax some sort of Satan figure, why would Mata Nui's revival would be bad? What is the Plan anyway?

 Done: Explained.

• "Defeated, Makuta releases the ancient Bohrok, robotic drones who were designed to "cleanse" the island of Mata Nui (as it was "in the before-time") early for unknown purposes." Again, makes no sense. (In general, style is an issue; clauses are not split up & are run together in many places.)

 Done: Smoothed it out as requested.

• 2003 - The Bohrok-Kal and The Mask of Light - my eyes glazed over a quarter of the way through from all the names and events.

Y I think I've smoothed out the section, but as fan, I think I might be biased on this one.

• 2010 is a mess.

Comment: I know; it was added a little after I submitted this peer review and I didn't have the opportunity to smooth it out. Someone else has refined it today, but I'm going to have to go over it again to be sure.

 Done: Because the section appeared to be chock-full of original research and uncited/unconfirmed future info, I've removed that section. It will stay removed until we have confirmation from a reliable source.

• In general, it lacks context. Real world impact/reception is a sine qua non of FAs, and this doesn't even have inspirations or influences on Bionicle besides the obvious Maori linguistic borrowings.

Comment: In that case, I guess we better start doing some research. --Twilight Helryx 13:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Also, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references, as has been done in current refs 5, 11, and 12. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I think the website sources can be fixed fairly quickly, but the books would be a bit of a problem because I only own two of the 29 released. If anyone owns any of the books in the ref section, some help would be appreciated.--Twilight Helryx 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… previously been a WP:DYK and WP:GA, looking for input to improve it further in quality.

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It would be easier to say something definitive if I had actually read the book. As it is, I'd just like to express a bit of discomfort with the article. Being a behavioral neuroscientist myself, I don't feel that our current understanding of brain function sheds much light on how brainwashing would work or whether it is possible -- purely psychological experiments by people like Philip Zimbardo are more informative. The article conveys an impression that the book accomplishes more than it possibly could, in my opinion. I would like to see it be more restrained in its praise of the book. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

How so? Could you be more specific? Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Again it makes me nervous to comment without having read the book, but I have a sense that the criticisms in the Le Fanu review are probably accurate and could be explained at greater length and placed in a more prominent position. Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay will do, thank you. :) Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Better? Cirt (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Looie496 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cirt. I am not an expert on the subject matter and I haven't read the book but I will give my input. Can the below techniques be expanded upon? Perhaps giving some examples.

Taylor asserts that the techniques used by cults to influence others are similar to those used by other social groups, and compares similar totalitarian aspects of cults and communist societies.[9] These techniques include isolating the individual and controlling their access to information, challenging their belief structure and creating doubt, and repeating messages in a pressurized environment.[14]

Is this only in relation to cults and communism? Does she talk about other groups or even individuals (eg psychopaths in relationships) doing this? Does she talk about withholding key facts or truths, telling half truths to confuse or convince the victim(s) of falsehoods etc? I would like to read more about what she says about psychological tactics and effects used by people who brainwash. Perhaps she does not elaborate and focuses on neurology.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a great article, a very good read and a fascinating albeit disturbing subject that the book covers. Good job on your work to this article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind comments on the article. I'd have to say that for Contents, when possible, I like to rely on secondary sources to makeup that subsection, so as to avoid WP:OR. In articles where there may not be an availability of secondary sources that describe that info, for example if there are no secondary sources that go into detail summarizing the entire plot of a fictional book, I generally summarize it myself or work with multiple editors to do so. But in this case, fortunately there were enough secondary sources to use. :) Cirt (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes you can't just summarise from the book, for FA ugh. :( I am not used to editing articles on books. :) Not to worry, it was only a suggestion and I don't think that it will get in the way of this article reaching FA status.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will begin a lookthrough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

brings the point across - sound like she's already convinced the reader. I think "proposes" is a better verb here.

I am surprised there is no link somehow to Stockholm syndrome, either in the book or criticism.

In fact, it really needs some critique by a psychologist or psychiatrist in a peer-reviewed journal or other. The lay reviews are okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

Okay, I will strive to find more reviews of this nature. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Radon

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it seems it is ready to go for FAC. Any suggestions before I do that? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

At 8500 words, this article is a monster. Hydrogen, has a lot more that can be written about, is less than 5000 words (admittedly, that article needs a lot more prose). Another FA element that can have a lot written about it is uranium (6100 words). And oxygen, 6500 words. What makes radon so darn special that it needs so much prose? Much condensing and spin off of detail per WP:SS is needed before I'll support it at FAC. --mav (Please help review Mono-Inyo Craters) 02:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More than half the article is about the health effects. That could be readily spun off into an article such as "Health effects of radon", with the work summarized here in a single section.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: There is a lot of good information here, but it I do not think the article is ready for FAC yet. I agree with all of the points above and think that better organization and a good copyedit to tighten the prose and reduce needless repetition would also help to reduce the number of words. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Since the reviewers have suggested making daughter article(s), the lead will almost certainly need to change to properly summarize the final version of the article. I do note that here half-life is mentioned twice in the lead, but explained after the second mention - the explanation should follow the first mention.
• I like this in the lead, but it is not really explicitly repeated in the body of the article (and since the lead should be a summary of the article, the lead should not be the only place for anything to appear):

Radon is formed as part of the normal radioactive decay chain of uranium. Uranium has been around since the earth was formed and its most common isotope has a very long half-life (4.5 billion years), which is the amount of time required for one-half of uranium to break down. Uranium, radium, and thus radon, will continue to occur for millions of years at about the same concentrations as they do now.[1]

• Even though I like it, I would change this in a couple of ways (besides moving the half-life explanation earlier). First off, Uranium was around long before the earth was formed - this makes it sound as if the earth and uranium were created at the same time. Second, radium is not explicitly stated to also be a decay product of uranium. Third, and this is more of a WP:Weight issue, it seems odd to have a whole paragraph mostly on uranium in an article on radon. Assuming the half-life explanation is moved earlier in the lead, perhaps something like this would be more concise and focus more on radon (and more detail could be given somewhere in the article body):

Radon is formed from radium as part of the radioactive decay chain of uranium, the most common isotope of which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Thus radon, radium, and uranium will continue to occur for millions of years at about their current concentrations.[1]

• Given the fact that radon comes from the dacay chains of three different elements, I think I would somehow mention them here too. Or even just say "Most radon is formed from radium as part of the radioactive decay chain of uranium..."
• One of the things that has to be done for FAC is to make sure that every little detail is taken care of - I noticed that "half-life" is spelled "half life" (no hyphen) at least once.
• Speaking of consistency, I also noticed that the half-life of the longest lived isotope of radon is given as 3.8 days in the lead, 3.8235 days in the infobox, and 3.82, 3.823, 3.8235, 3.8, and "about 4 days" in the body of the article. I would pick one value in terms of sig figs and stick with it. I an fine with having the half-life in the lead and infobox, and can see having it twice in the article body, but five different values? I think this is a sign that the article needs to be carefully edited to reduce needless repetition.
• I mentioned this is my previous peer review, but the History and etymology section as currently written is needlessly confusing and does not really follow chronological order. It also does not do as good a job as it could at providing context for the reader. The first paragraph starts with 1900, then goes back to 1899. We are told that Rutherford credited the Curies with discovering Rn, but not why Dorn is credited as the discoverer officially. The second paragraph goes from 1904 to 1918 to 1919, then back to 1904. The third paragraph starts be giving the full name of Sir William Ramsay (he has already been named, so it should just be "Ramsay"). Then we get a quotation in French from an article by a Scot and an Englishman, followed by its translation into English. Why is the French needed in the English Wikipedia? If it is so important to include the French, then indicate why in the article (why not just give the English translation?) Then the name Niton is introduced, given what seems like official status, then never mentioned again. The article gets to 1962 here, so it seems odd that there is no history in the past 47 years. The fourth and last paragraph here is all health effects and is in chronological order, but makes no mention of recent health issues.
• If I were writing this, I think I would start with the sources of radon. The lead makes it seem like all Rn comes from U decay to Ra, so here it needs to be clear that there are multiple possible sources, so I would mention it can come from Th and Ac too. The statement about U and Rn being around on earth as long as it has existed could be here too. The health effects could be here too (or later, as desired). If health is here, I would preface the health effects with something like "Although radon was not discovered as an element until 1900, its healh effects have been known for centuries." Then the first three sentences of the fourth paragraph could be included (danger in mines, 1530 diseases, 1870s lung cancer). Next could come the 1899 observations of the Curies, Owen and Rutherford. I think I would at least mention the (three?) most stable isotopes here, making clear they were not understood as such initially. Not really sure if the health part needs to go here. If it does, the sources and health might be one paragraph, and the isotopes and 1899 observations could be the second paragraph. If health is not here, it could all be one paragraph, and it might not be too long to be one paragraph with health included anyway.
• The next (second or third) paragraph of the rewritten History and etymology section could start with Dorn's 1900 discovery, perhaps with a bit more detail (how did he do the esperiments? Why was he given credit as the discoverer?) Then I would havve Ryutherford's 1901 work and the 1903 Ac work, followed by Ramsay's 1904 suggestion that this might be a new radiocative noble gas. Might help to briefly mention a bit on noble gases too (like the current fifth radioactive element discovered phrase). I might put Ramsay's 1910 isoaltion here too.
• The next paragraph could focus mostly on etymology, with a bit more on Niton's disappearance. The paragraph after that could be on more recent developments, including the Cold War studies of health aspects (especially if the early health effects are in the first apragraph). This would be the place for radon fluoride (I would give the formula as it not intuitive - might also mention here that noble gases were expected not to react at all until the early 1960s). I would also mention the whole radon in houses is dangerous developments here.
• The material on isotopes, location of natural sources / springs seems to me to have lots of needless repetition with the same or very similar information given in several sections. Sometimes there is needless repetition even within one sentence: The towns of Boulder, Montana; Misasa; Bad Kreuznach, Germany; and the country of Japan have radium-rich springs which emit radon. Misasa is in Japan, so this oculd just be The towns of Boulder, Montana; Misasa, Japan; and Bad Kreuznach, Germany have radium-rich springs which emit radon. Since other places in the article mention such springs in the Czech Republic and Italy, they should also be mentioned here.
• Much of the rest of the article could be better organized, with redundancies reduced, but I do not have time to list all those.
• Per the MOS, units such as Bequerel should be spelled out on fist use.
• To get ready for FAC this also needs more references - many sentences and whole sections lack refs. For example, the Tracking of air masses, Power, and Concentration scale sections all lack refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Many of the refs do not have enough information currently. Ref 41 needs a publsher, ref 26 is malformed, and ref 47 is just a title and link. 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
• Some of the refs seem questionable as reliable sources - ref 23 is allmeasures.com (and is a dead link), ref 2 is Facts-about.org.uk - what makes these reliable? There are lots of good scientific sources that could be used here.
• The tools show that there are three dabs, at least three dead links and several other problem ELs, and no Alt text for most images (see WP:ALT. ALl need to be fixed before FAC
• The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded in most cases to improve flow.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.facts-about.org.uk/science-element-radon.htm
    • http://www.chemicalelements.com/show/dateofdiscovery.html
    • http://www.progenygrp.com/why_measure_rdps.htm
    • http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2143
    • http://www.petros.cz/spa/spa_ja.asp
    • http://www.radon.com/radon/radon_mitigation.html
  • http://www.allmeasures.com/Formulae/d1/d2/d3/Results2_2.asp?formula=2&material=Radon+%5BRn%5D gave me an error and would not load.
  • http://rn-radon.info/production.html deadlinked
  • http://net-science.irsn.fr/net-science/liblocal/docs/docs_DPHD/IRPA10-P2A-56.pdf deadlinked
  • Current ref 114 has a bare url in it.
  • Sources in languages other than English need to have that noted in the reference
  • Double check that all your web site references have publishers. I noted a number missing including current refs 41, 47, 46, etc. There may be others, don't take my list as exhaustive.
  • Double check that all your web site references have last access dates. I noted a number, including current ref 21, 22, 47, etc. there may be others, don't take my list as exhaustive.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review so I can prepare it for a featured list nomination. Since my English has been noted to be bad, I decided to get the peer review done before I finished the episode summaries. I have done up to 520. I'm pretty sure most of my problems are found in the summaries. Thanks, DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

After I'm done with the summaries, I'll be submitting it for FA list candidate. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• All pictures should have alternate text.
• Translate the episode titles and other non-English titles in the references using |trans_title=.
• Place the General reference onto the Original Airdate of the episode listing table.
• The "1 hr." next to some episode titles links back to the top of the article.
• Add animation director and screenwriter of each episode if possible.
• Add a DVD release table. See List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes for an example.
  • Done all those, I'll finish reffing the table when I can. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 01:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    

---

Nathan Horton

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this article up to featured article status. Thanks, Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Scotch bonnet (shell)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because we are trying to imporve the article with hopes of making it to a GA status. We would like helpful tips that could potentially develop the article further. We appreciate and will consider any advice that you can give. Thanks, Scotch Bonnet Team

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, and GA is a reasonable goal, but the article needs much more work to reach that level. I did a bit of proofreading as I went and added a couple of metric-imperial conversion templates by way of example. I explain below how the inline citations can be added, and I'd be happy to do one for you if you tell me where it should go. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Heads and subheads

• Heads and subheads in Wikipedia articles start with a capital letter on the first word, but subsequent words begin with a lowercase letter unless part of a formal name (proper noun). Thus "Origin of Name" should be changed to "Origin of name" and so on.

done

Lead

• "The family Cassidae contains medium to large size shells which occur in tropical and temperate seas." - Tighten by deleting "size"?

done

• "Of these species 22 species are commonly found in the Western and Eastern Atlantic. From which most occur from the intertidal down to about 100 meters in depth." - The second sentence is not a complete sentence, and I note other problems. Perhaps you could combine two sentences, thus: "Twenty-two of these species, most of which are commonly found in the Western and Eastern Atlantic, occur from the intertidal zone down to about 100 metres (330 ft)."

done

Please note my linking of "intertidal zone", which might be unfamiliar to many readers, and the conversion of metric units to imperial. I like to use the {{convert}} template for the conversions because it gets the spelling and abbreviations right as well as the math. done

Still need Wikilinks though!

Description

• "Once dissolved the shell gives off the glistening white appearance." - The shell isn't dissolved. Suggestion: "Once the oils are dissolved... "
• I added another conversion template (slightly more complicated than the example above), and you can mimic it for a conversion further down in this section. Also, you should decide whether imperial or metric is primary and then use it first in the conversions. You used meters (metric) in the lead section but inches (imperial) in this section as the primary; choose one or the other and stick with it throughout.

done

Snail's development

• Wikilink mantle?

Habitat

• "The typical habitat for these animals is tropical areas... " - "Habitat ... is" is singular, but "areas" is plural. Maybe "habitats ... are"?
• "By describing the sand as shelly, it describes a plethora of shell fragments, and this is typically found in area were ocean current is rough." - Awkward. Suggestion: "Shelly sand refers to a plethora of shell fragments embedded in sand, and it is typically found in areas where ocean currents are rough."
• "Divers and local fisherman frequently find the Scotch bonnets approximately 50 to 150 feet offshore." - Metric conversion needed. Ditto for others lower down in the article.
• "They are commonly associated with the offshore Atlantic Calico scallop beds." - Wikilink Atlantic calico scallop?
• "Ironically, the scotch bonnets thrive in shipwrecks." - Who says that is ironic? A source might say that, but Wikipedia editors can't add their own judgments (even if they are correct).

done

Behavior

• Wikilink veliger?
• "When the veligers matures it sinks to the ocean floor." - "Veligers" is plural, but "it sinks" is singular.
• "Scotch Bonnets are predators, creeping along the ocean floor on a bed of slime secreted from the glands on the bottom of its foot." - "Predators" is plural, but "its" is singular.
• "they feed on echinoderms" - Wikilink echinoderm? I'll stop listing these, but in general you should link or explain any terms that might be unfamiliar to many English-speakers. It's more likely that they would be puzzled by '"sand dollar" than they would by "Scotland". You have to use your best judgment about what to link.

done

References

• I see that you are already using the "cite family" of templates but haven't figured out how to embed them as in-line citations. Just add a pair of <ref> </ref> tags where you want the inline citation to go in the main text. Copy the entire template (which I see you've already filled in) to your computer's short-term memory and then paste the template between the pair of ref tags at the exact place you want the footnote number to appear. Save the page. Internal software will automatically transfer the information in the template to a properly arranged reference in the "Reference" section. If you tell me where in the text you would like the existing citation 1 (Friday, Sarah) to go, I'd be happy to do one of these in-line citations for you by way of example.

done

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you removed the "done" templates above and simply wrote done. The templates add to the load time and slow down the PR machinery. Finetooth (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Shale oil extraction

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because there is an intention to re-nominate it for FAC. Hopefully the peer review will give some fresh ideas what should be done before the re-nomination.

Thanks, Beagel (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.hubbertpeak.com/laherrere/OilShaleReview200509.pdf

  Although hubbertpeak.com website itself probably can't to be considered as reliable source, the author of this article, Jean Laherrère, is a reputable petrochemist and oil shale specialist. His works are cited in other reliable sources, e.g. report by the European Academies Science Advisory Council. His reliability could be verified by Google Scholar search. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/12494

  I had also myself some douts about this source. I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://books.google.com/books?id=luKukIWzRIgC&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=&f=false - Lulu is a vanity press, so what makes the author an expert under WP:SPS�?

  Well, although this book is also provided y Google Scholar, it seems that this is the only publication by this author. The information seems to be accurate, but to be safe, I will listed it at the WP:RS/N for more comments. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.shaleoilinfo.org/library/citizens/lukens2005Jul09.php

  I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • • http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcsupply/7critchar7.html

  I will remove it as this information is covered by other sources. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

  References are formatted per your advice. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes

  Could you please specify which abbreviation you exactly mean? Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is close to FA. It's seems comprehensive (to this general reader) and clear, stable, neutral, well-illustrated, and (with the exceptions noted by Ealdgyth above) well-sourced and verifiable. The images need alt text, and I have a few other suggestions, mainly related to minor prose issues and the Manual of Style.

• The images need alt text, one of the requirements for FA. Alt text is meant to describe the images for readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details.

I should probably elaborate by saying that the alt text is easier to write if you imagine a blind person hearing it read aloud by a machine. So saying something like "a schematic of ..." won't help the blind person. It's often the case that the alt text needs to be longer than the caption because the essential facts can be conveyed to a blind person only via words. Finetooth (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will work with it. Any assistance is welcome. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

History

• "A number of shale oil extraction technologies have been developed over a period of time and these are continously evolving." - More direct would be "Shale oil extraction technologies have been evolving since the 10th century."

• Will work with the wording. It was the first description of the process from the 10th century, but shale oil was used already earlier, and accordingly it was extracted before the 10th century. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Process principle

• "Shale oil extraction process decomposes oil shale and converts kerogen in oil shale into shale oil — a petroleum-like synthetic crude oil." - Em dashes are unspaced in Wikipedia articles. Thus this should be "... shale oil—a petroluem-like synthetic crude oil". Ditto for any other em dashes in the article.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Classifications

• WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests replacing lists with straight prose when feasible. I don't see any special reason for the bullets in this section. Also, WP:MOSBOLD suggests using bold very sparingly. Otherwise the effect is lost. Perhaps italics would be better for phrases like "By location" and "By heating method" since the table in this section has so much bolding.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Conduction through a wall

• "Conduction through a wall technologies generally use fine particles." - Hyphenate to avoid confusion, thus: "Conduction-through-a-wall technologies generally use fine particles"? Or re-cast as "Technologies based on conduction through a wall generally use fine particles... "?

• The second option is used. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reactive fluids

• "react with coke precursors (a chemical structure in the oil shale that is prone to form char during retorting but has not yet done so)." - Maybe "chemical structures" to match the plural "precursors"?

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

ExxonMobil Electrofrac

• "ExxonMobil's in situ technology uses electrical heating with elements of both–wall conduction and volumetric heating–methods." - Delete hyphens so that the sentence ends with " ...elements of both wall conduction and volumetric heating methods"?

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Environmental considerations

• "In some cases, oil shale mining requires the lowering of groundwater levels below the level... " - No need to link groundwater again here, but further down, you might link Bureau of Land Management.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "of waste water per tonne of processed oil shale" - Metric ton, I assume. You might want to convert this to imperial (the primary system in this article) as well.

• Done. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do in coming days. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comment: I think Ealdgyth is referring to abbreviations like "USAEE/IAEE" in citation 29. Really common things like PDF and ABC are OK as is, but the ones not really familiar to most readers should be spelled out. I don't think there are many. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

USAEE/IAEE is replaced with full names. Beagel (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Justus

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point and am looking for prose help, as well as help with finding any missing context that might be needed for a non-medievalist. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Colin's comments: I know very little English history so amply qualify as a non-medievalist. Here's some initial comments from the first two parts. More later if this is helpful.

• "was the fourth Archbishop of Canterbury, in England." The ", in England" jarrs. Is it necessary? We mention England a few words later, just in case anyone doesn't know where the Archbishop of Canterbury lives.

• Deleted the "in England" Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "sent to England". I'm now wondering "from where?"

• Clarified a bit .. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Gaul" may be worth wikilinking.

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "a native Italian". Do we need "native"? Do we know anything about where he was born or where he lived prior to coming to England?

• Removed the native bit, and no, we know nothing nothing nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "books brought to England by Mellitus". I don't know who Mellitus is. I see it is wikilinked later but I need it here. I see from his article that he was believed to have come on the 601 mission too, which explains why he is being mentioned in connection with the books Justus travelled with. Can we give some context here?

• Expanded a bit in the previous paragraph Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just noticed the article spells "traveled" with one "l". Is this written in US English? Just asking.

• It should be in Brit English, but I usually have Malleus check over these types of articles because I'm a yank, thus catching all my mistakes (I've finally gotten "favour" down..) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not really following the point about "but examination of...one possible survivor". Why the "but"?

• Clarified that a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Along with the letter to Augustine" why "the letter", not "a letter"?

• Should have been "a" oops. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "the returning missionaries" I'm confused about "returning". I thought they came to Britain, not returned to Britain?

• this paragraph came from another article (easier than retyping the whole big lot!) but a couple of typos obviously occurred. One of the 601 missionaries was actually returning (Laurence) but the others were new. Easier to just remove the "returning" from here, where it is unneccessary detail (the article it came from was Laurences, obviously). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "force the conversion of his followers" Is "followers" the right word? Doesn't a king have "subjects"?

• "Subjects" has a connotation that isn't quite correct in the early medieval period, especially here. The nobles, etc. were more "followers" than "subjects", as they could (and did) desert these kings (who were really not able to enforce their will on the peasants) so followers is a bit more correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Colin°^Talk 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) More:

• "The King was also urged to destroy all pagan shrines" I'm wondering why this is a separate sentence rather than just run on from the previous as "and destroy all pagan shrines". Did that urging come from someone else, or was that behaviour not "like the Roman Emperor Constantine I"?

• Nope, just a relic of how I put articles together, which is to throw up data in bits and pieces then rearrange as needed. Sometimes that means that sentences aren't always real long. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Did they succeed? Did the king convert his subjects and destroy the shrines?

• We don't really know if he destroyed them all, nor do we have a lot of evidence about how many were converted. On reflection, I've removed the sentence about hte letter, as it's really peripheral to Justus. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• "another of the missionaries who was Bishop of London" this reads like there were several missionaries who were "Bishop of London". Do you mean something like "who was another of the missionaries and who was Bishop of London"?

• This got fixed in a rewrite connected to comments above... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikilink "Frankish"?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He then consecrated Romanus as his successor" a little ambiguous if "he" is Justus or Boniface, particularly when Boniface's actions continue to be described in the following sentence with an "also" linking back.

• Clarified it as Justus.

• Do we know why he was regarded as a saint?

• No clue. No sign of miracles being attributed to him like Mellitus, nor any other idea. Pre-congregation saints are ... shadowy. I've added that he's pre-congregation to the infoboxEaldgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• How long is the poem about him? If short, could it be reproduced here or linked to?

• I have no idea. I have no idea if it's even been translated from Latin, honestly. If it has, it might still be copyrighted depending on the date of translation. For that matter, transcribing manuscripts may very well be copyrighted. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Can we wikilink "Reginald of Canterbury"

• I've redlinked him. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• What a shame we only know bits of his life and not even the year of his death.

• We know more about him than some other Archbishops of Canterbury... see Feologild. And the ABCs are much better off than some of the other early medieval English bishops... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Colin°^Talk 19:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Colin, I'll get started on these shortly. Hopefully tomorrow.. it's been a rotten couple of days here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Hemming's Cartulary

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAC at some point, and am wondering if (a) it's too complex for the lay reader who isn't a medievalist, i.e. does it lack context to make the average reader able to understand it and (b) is there anything that is still lacking as far as "expected" information?

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Deacon of Pndapetzim

• You might wanna give English translations for your Latin phrases (e.g. Liber Wigorniensis, Enucleatio libelli)

• Is Hemming's Cartulary a cartulary, or a manuscript too? I mean, I know it's both, but maybe it should be described as both in the opening line?

• Added in "manuscript" right in the beginning. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The first cartulary was composed at the end of the 10th or beginning of the 11th century. The second section was compiled by Hemming and was written around the end of the 11th and beginning of the 12th century. Traditionally the first section is titled the Liber Wigorniensis, and is mainly organized geographically. The second section, Hemming's Cartulary proper, combines land records with a narrative of the losses of property by the church of Worcester

• We're told that the first "section" is organized geographically, and then when we move to the second section we're told what it is composed of. This doesn't make any sense.

• I think I've expanded this enough for clarity now Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is, as is normal with leads, not so well written in general (e.g. and is mainly organized). I'm sure time and c/es will fix this.

• The second part is Hemming's work and takes up folios 119–142, 144–152 and 154–200.

• Out of curiosity, what is in folios 143 and 153?

• Here is where we get iffy. I mention what is on the inserted folios later in the Manuscript condition section... should we reorganize somewhat? This is where not having a critical edition of the work hurts, since we can't "borrow" the organization there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• MS Cotton Nero E i and British Library MS Add 46204 may also contain charters collected as part of Wulfstan's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Wulfstan's episcopate.

  Who's Wulfstan? He's not been introduced yet nor even linked yet. :)

• Give me simple Anglo-Normans anyday... changed it to "...as part of Hemming's work, as they have been identified by some scholars as produced during Hemming's lifetime." which keeps the whole Wulfstan commissioning the work to the section later where indeed, Wulfstan is introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, which helps to explain why and how the cartulary was created.

  I didn't get what was meant here.

• Does "The documents are connected with narrative, usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum, explaining why and how the cartulary was created." work better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You mean that the documents are connected with a/the narrative ... that the title explains why and how the cartularly was created? The narrative does? The documents are? Even then I still don't get what is meant. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's try "The documents are connected with a narrative explaining why and how the cartulary was created; the narrative is usually given the title of Codicellus possessionum." That better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, that is better. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Besides charters, it incorporates information from the Domesday survey's sworn testimony for the region

  Another sentence you might wanna rewrite for clarity (i.e. what is Domesday survey's sworn testimony?).

• "Besides charters, it incorporates information from the sworn testimony from the region used to create Domesday Book." that work better? (You mean not everyone knows that Domesday book was created by getting sworn testimony???)

• It also contains an accounting of amounts paid to King William in order to regain items the king had taken from the diocese.

  Another (an accounting of amounts).

• Changed to "...a listing of amounts..." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• it was produced to Wulfstan's successors:

• "produced for" Wulfstan's successors? "presented to"?

(fixed it Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC))

• You should, if you can, consult pp. 12–14 of Historia de Sancto Cuthberto (Anglo-Saxon Texts no. 2). As its editor South points out, the Historia is very similar in style and structure to fols. 119–34 of Hemming (the bit called Codicellus possessionum huius aecclesiae) and to the brief biography of Saint Wulfstan.

• Do not have access to that, so it appears. I've hunted through U of I's catalog to no avail. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got a copy of the edition/translation somewhere, but not of the introduction (apparently too humane to extract more pages from it under the pressure of the photocopier lid). Anyway, I'll track down the book sometime next week. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankee. Not sure why U of I doesn't have it... they are pretty good for stuff like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you can get it on google books I see [8]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not want to give me page 12, of course. This is why I despise Google Books previews... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see page 12 and can send you an image if you like. Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. This had better be worth the bother to everyone (laughs). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is a list of contents of the MS possible?

Ha, Ealdgyth kicked my ass for doing so : ) She was right, but perhaps a simplified version without an intimidating wealth of detail could help the reader visualise the structure of the MS in terms of contents. Cavila (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• We could always do a listing of the full folio by folio as a list and link to it in a "see also" or "main article" thing somewhere. It just overpowered the article here. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems encyclopedic to me that an article about a manuscript would have a list of contents if it was going to FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It does, just not a folio by folio listing, which was what was inserted before. I don't have a problem with a small listing overview, but I really think a folio by folio detailed listing is way too much detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thrown up a possible small table on the article talk page, if folks wanna address that there. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't need a list that big, but we need one bigger than that (perhaps in a side-box), to give the reader a good overview of what's where. Atm this table doesn't even say where the "Codicellus possessionum" is ... :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, between Cavila and I, we've expanded the table, and I got the stuff in from Historia, and I've placed the table in the article... I'm not wedded to where it's at right now, but it seemed the best fit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's me with my comments (for now at least). Good work btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Cavila

• There were some issues with the logical order in which the structure, contents, themes and purpose(s) of the work were described. Scholarly views on Hemming's codicellus as a commemmorative work should be treated together rather than separately, obviously. I went ahead and tried to re-organise a couple of things, but an extra pair of eyes might be welcome. Hope to be able to provide more feedback soon. Cavila (talk) 09:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• The rearrangement looked fine to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Supernatural (season 2)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I was told that the prose needs improving. I think that once the writing style has been improved, the article meets the standards for FA. Thus, I would like help in copy-editing the entire article.

Thanks, Ωphois 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Supernatural (season 2)/archive1.

---

Tchaikovsky and the Five

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is an article on a known and important but little-discussed (in the West) area of Russian classical music, one that helped shape Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and determine his course as a creative personality. Since the last peer review this article received, it has been improved considerably, thanks in no small part from the input received. However, it still needs work and input before it is ready to be submitted to FAC. Therefore, I am submitting this article for a second peer review in hope and expectation to make it FAC-ready in the near future and would greatly appreciate help from readers and commentators to reach this goal.

Thanks, Jonyungk (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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

---

McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because WP:CHIFTD is getting very close to having the bare minimum number of articles. If Jay Pritzker Pavilion does not pass WP:FAC, this one may. I thought I would get some feedback to clean it up. After getting most of the articles about features cleaned up, then we can go back and clean up the general Millennium Park article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. Since I have some experience with other articles in the Millennium Park series, some of these will be nade in comparison with those articles.

• Article needs a copyedit - for example in the lead there is Opening in 2001, it was the first attraction in Millennium Park to open.[2] which could be made tighter as something more like It was the first attraction in Millennium Park to open, in 2001.[2] Or in the second paragraph in the lead, these two sentneces could be combined For four months a year, it operates as McCormick Tribune Ice Rink, a free public outdoor ice skating rink. It is generally open for skating from mid-November until mid-March.
  • Specific issues fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Still needs a general copyedit Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Compared to other Millennium Park articles, there is very little on the design and construction of the feature. Who was the architect? Who were the contractors? I also note that there is one sentence that could be moved from Details to much earlier in the History Although the rink was budgeted for $5 million, it was constructed for only $3.2 million, making it one of the few Millennium Park attractions to cost less than was initially budgeted.[34]
• I was also surprised that there was no critical reception infromation / section as such. I guess the people watching could be a part of such a section. Perhaps the appearance in the Weatherman film could too?
• Have there been reviews of the Grill as a restaurant? Does the Grill serve food in the winter (is it then considered part of the indoor seating / dining area)? Could a bit more on the year-round restaurant be added?
  • Added review content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
• Also since the AT&T Plaza / Cloud Gate is elevated realtive to the rink, how do people get up there from the rink, or down to the rink from the Bean? I know the park has won accessibility awards, but can't see ramps in the images.
  • Maybe Torsodog (talk · contribs) could get us a good image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I like the images, but wonder if File:Millennium Park Ice Skating.jpg would be a better lead image, since it actually shows people skating (swap it and the current lead rink image, which also is very nice, but shows no humans / skaters)
  • Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Again, knowing some of the past issues with images of copyrighted art, I wonder about the four images where Cloud Gate is in the background. Not sure at what point it becomes a fair use image. My guess is that less is better.
  • I just removed two images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Most of the Details section seems to me like it could be in the Operations section - lobby, rental of skates, chiller system, Park Grill in off season. The dimensions of the rink could be added to history (if there is not much on construction, can at least start with the budget as noted before, then tell the reader how big it is).
• Operations says the rink is open from 10 AM to 10 PM, then Details seems to imply longer operating hours Alcohol is allowed in the McCormick Tribune Plaza when the park is open (6:00A.M. to 11:00P.M. daily)[32] This is one of several places where things are repeated in Details (another reason to merge it) - the bathrooms are also repeated here, and the seating is repeated too - just realized the seats on Park Grill are given as 150 and 300. Can't both be right.
  • Hours vary from year to year apparently and by day of the week according to this years schedule. Text has been modified accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Since it is fairly short, not much else to say. I can try and copyedit this too (and reorganize a bit if wanted) but obviously there is no rush (since Pritzker Pavilion is second in line for FAC and about ready and this would come after that)

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 _><>°^° 12:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Travel day today. Plane departs from O'Hare Airport in 3 hours. I am about to leave. I will look at these later, but surely not in the next few hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Travel safely and have a Happy Thanksgiving! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

O'Hare now gives 20 minutes of free wifi. Holla!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

• While this looks better, it still needs some copyediting work. As I said above, I can do that at some point. My problem is that it is less work for me to do the copyedit (which I have no time for now) than to point out lots of little things now.
  • Striking resolved issues would help, but if you would rather do a copyedit that is fine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• I fixed the images in the infobox as they were goofy on my monitor (text wraps between pictures)
  • I tweaked your tweak.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• WP:MOSIMAGE says not to sandwich text between images, but the Ice rink section is sandwiched on my monitor. Moving the Park Grill pic down would avoid this, and put it in the section on the grill.
  • I rearranged images.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would identify Rockefeller Center and its ice rink (wikilink at least) -see WP:PCR
• Details section could be merged with the ice rink and park grill sections above it - as it is we have ice rink, then grill then detail is more ice rink and more grill (somewhat repetitive).
• Still have two different seating numbers for the Park Grill (150 and 300)
  • Got this straight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, calling it a night. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I struck things that were clearly addressed. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper (current ref 10)
    • I missed one. I fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What makes http://boston.events.org/cpage.aspx?e=12858 a reliable source?
    • I have done some editing and I believe this link has been removed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Monarchy of Spain

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

My eyes have been on it too long and not enough views that have generated comments! lol. I have watched the page for a year looking to see if there were improvements, but none. So, this past summer I started editing the artical answering questions that I would have for the Spanish monarchy. There are other sections I wish to add, but before I go further I wished to get comments on what is present.

Thanks, ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Mono-Inyo Craters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I created this article six years ago and have recently massively expanded it with the intention of nominating at FAC soon. Seems to conform to other mountain-volcano-related FAs such as Mount St. Helens but I need somebody else to take a look to make sure I haven't missed anything (especially those technical MOS nitpicks that torpedo so many FACs early on). Thanks, mav (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite good, broad but perhaps not quite comprehensive, well-written, very nicely illustrated, stable, neutral, and verifiable. I have suggestions related to prose and Manual of Style issues, and a couple of suggestions for expansion.

• I'd suggest eliminating all of the bolding from the lead except the first three words, per MOS:BOLD. The other bolded phrases are not title synonyms.
• The lead image needs alt text. I see that you've done the others but that the geobox had no alt parameter yet. I added the one that I think will work, but it still needs the text.

Geobox

• Add county or counties in California?

Lead

• "Uplift of Paoha Island about 250 years ago is the most recent activity." - Add location of the island? It's in the main text, but I think it should be added here as well.
• Since the lead should be a summary of the whole article, you should probably add at least a mention of the "Activities" section.

Setting

• "Mono Craters is a 10.5-mile (16.9 km)-long chain... " - Delete "-long"? "Chain" suggests length.
• Add county or counties? Add distance from nearest city?
• "South of Inyo Craters proper are other features related to the dike system... " - Wikilink dike?
• "These fissures can not technically be called faults due to the fact that little or no vertical or horizontal movement... " - Replace "due to the fact that" with "because"?

Typical evolution

• "Devil's Punch Bowl. located south of the main dome complex, stopped forming at an earlier stage of development. It is a 1,200-foot (370 m)-wide and 140-foot (43 m)-deep explosion pit with a much smaller glass dome on its floor." - I don't believe you need that second hyphen. It's misplaced in any case, and I'd just erase it. Ditto for similar instances throughout.
• "and have talus piles along their base... " - Wikilink to scree or add (scree) in parentheses?
• "and has a volume of 0.1 cubic miles (0.42 km3)" - Round to 0.4?

Exploitation

• "Various gold rush-related boomtowns sprung up near and in Mono Basin... " - "Sprang" rather than "sprung". Also, tighten by deleting "various"?
• "Excavation of an 11.5-mile (18.5 km)-long tunnel under the... " - Delete "-long"? "Tunnel" already implies length.
• "The company markets the pumice in slabs for use in commercial scouring and in large irregular chucks sold as yard decoration." - Should that be "chunks" rather than "chucks"?
• "The wells did not show promising results, so the effort was abandoned until the 1980s." - This implies that efforts resumed in the 1980s. Did they? If so, what happened?

Protection and monitoring

• "Four magnitude 6 earthquakes struck the southern margin of Long Valley Caldera... " - You might add something about the Richter scale and wikilink it.
• "Persistent earthquake swarms in 1982 prompted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to issue a 'potential volcanic hazard' notice... " - Double quotes are preferred to single in simple (not nested) situations.
• "The hazard notice was lifted in 1984 with the conclusion that magma was injected into fissures below Mammoth Mountain but had congealed underground." - "had been injected"? Also, maybe "after experts concluded that" rather then "with the conclusion that"?
• "From 1990 to 1996, 150 acres (61 ha) of trees had been killed... - "were killed"?
• "Most notably, in 1994 the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power accepted a decision by the state government to cut back its water diversions from Mono Lake." - Has the lake level risen any since then? Has anyone projected how long it might take for the lake to reach its pre-tunnel level?

Mono Craters formed

• "A vertical sheet-like mass of magma called a dike caused groundwater to explosively flash to steam, creating a line of vents 4 miles (6.4 km) long.[41] A mix of ash and pulverized rock called tephra... " - Dike and tephra should be wikilinked on first use rather than here.

Activities

• "visitor information center in Lee Vining" - Wikilink Lee Vining?
• Any fishing in Mono Lake? If not, why not?

References

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent. I see a mixture of d-m-y and yyyy-mm-dd. You can use either in the reference section but not both.
• Citation 1 is remarkably like one I used to use until it did not get through FAC in that form. The fix is to list the United States Geological Survey as the author and TopoQuest as the publisher. I use the form you can see in citation 3 of Wilson River (Oregon). This makes clear that the source is reliable (RS). It helps to add the specific map quad as well.
• Linking things like Smithsonian Institution multiple times is a form of overlinking.
• Be careful that the sources support the specific claims. For example, it's doubtful that a link to Google maps is an RS for "Most notable among the access roads is Mammoth Scenic Loop (also called Dry Creek Road), which provides access to the Inyo craters and some of its domes." The "most notable" may be challenged. The statement "Access roads from these highways lead to most features described in this article" has a kind of circularity that can't be supported by an RS. It's the "in this article" phrase that is troublesome.

Possible expansion

• The thought of fish in Mono Lake reminded me that the article says nothing about flora or fauna. What lives here in the lake and in or around the other features? I see flora in some of the photos. Any protected species? Any unusual species?
• Would it be useful to add something about climate, especially rainfall? This seems relevant because of the lake's dependence on inflow.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! All copyediting suggestions enacted except for the bolding part; each of those other bolded terms are redirects to this article. We have traditionally bolded such terms but I'm not sure what the current consensus is on that. Will work on references and minor expansion later. This article is pattered on mountain-related FAs, which do not give much, if any, info on ecology or climate (that is for larger geographic articles). But since Mono-Inyo Craters is a range, I can see a valid need for some info in that regard in the geography section. But the main sources for that info should be Eastern California, Long Valley Caldera and Mono Basin. --mav

Everything now fixed except for the expansion (I'm still looking for RSs for that info). Thanks again! --mav 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on Ecology and Climate added. Thanks again for your suggestions for improvement! --mav 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Overall, this is great. I don't know what it takes to be an FA in 2009-10, but this seems like a great article to me. I did notice a few things:

• "Lee Vinning" should be "Lee Vining"
• If you want an RS that talks about the Inyo Craters being next to the Mammoth Scenic Loop, you can cite
• Are you sure that the phreatic activity on Mammoth and the Red Cones are definitionally part of the Mono-Inyo Craters? I don't see a citation for Note 1 in the article. Also note that the map at [9] shows Mammoth and Red Cones to be distinct from M-I Craters. I'm not sure that the USGS has a consistent definition.
  • Part of the reason why I bring this up is that the "Activities" section causes me some cognitive dissonance. I don't think of Mammoth Lakes as being "near" the Mono-Inyo craters, nor do I think of activities around the town or the mountain being M-I crater activities. Red Cones are a bit of a hike away from Devils Postpile, and Devils Postpile wasn't formed from the same volcanic source, so it's odd to talk about that. Bodie and Yosemite are even further away.
  • Activities that I think of when I think of the chain include hiking around Panum Crater, Obsidian Dome, Inyo Craters. Mountain biking near the Inyo Craters, and there's some ORV areas too.
• I'm also not sure that the 1980-2 earthquakes were related to the M-I craters, geologically speaking. I thought that geologists were worried about the "south moat", a magma chamber under the south side of the caldera, not the M-I craters. This is from memory, however.

—hike395 (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions! First two points enacted.
• Third point: Yes, this is perhaps less well-defined than indicated by the article. But the text in the link you provide says "Over the past 35,000 years, volcanic eruptions in the the Long Valley area has been confined to the Mono-Inyo Craters volcanic chain." And the image backs that up. This includes the Red Cones, fumarole activity on Mammoth Mountain, the Mono Lake volcanoes and Black Point.
  • Mammoth Lakes sits on ash from the Inyo eruptions and Earthquake Fault, IIRC very close to town, has been linked to the dike system responsible for the Mono-Inyo volcanic chain. Mention of Devils Postpile and Yosemite removed.
  • Activity comments noted and hopefully fixed.
• I think this is a case of overlapping volcanic systems. Yes, the uplift was related to magma movement within the caldera but the USGS has said many times that it expects that future eruptions in the region are likely to be similar to if not on the Mono-Inyo chain. So we could easily have magma injection into the Mono-Inyo dike/fissure system.

--mav 01:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.topoquest.com/map.php?lat=37.877778&lon=-119.006944&datum=nad83&zoom=4
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Topoquest is simply a host of USGS data. Reference now indicates the USGS as author and Topoquest as publisher. I'll have to take a look at the abbreviations later. --mav 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody above for the great feedback. I will be working on those points today, but first I need to address some issues at the Technetium FAR. --mav 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Policing and Crime Act 2009

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wanting some feedback on getting it up to a Good Article. If you could let me know what I need to add, change, etc. I would much appreciate it :)

Thanks, Calvin (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, and a good start, but needs some work before I think it would pass GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so the lead could be expanded to two (or even three) paragraphs. As one example, the Background section does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• Some sections have good references, but others have none at all, such as "Police reform" - My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article is fairly listy in spots, and it has several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even sections. To improve article flow, the lists could be convertedto prose in many cases and the short paragraphs (sections) could be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Reception is all one sentence paragraphs, for example.
• Two sections of the article are named "Other amendments" - WP:HEAD says to avoid this if at all possible (multiple sections with the same name) as it causes confusion
• Is there any chance for an image or two? Even of the Houses of Parliament?
• I do not know as much about modern politics in the UK as I should, but it seems like there has to be more detail on the bills passage in Parliament than one sentence (with no ref): The Policing and Crime Bill was introduced to the House of Commons on 18 December 2008 and was passed to the House of Lords on the 20 May 2009. What were the vote totals? Who sopke in favor of the bill and who opposed it? Do British bills have sponsors (and if so who was / were they)?
• Ref 8 needs a publisher
• Is there more news coverage on the bill? Editorials for or against it? Analyses of it by news outlets? There area few BBC and Guardian refs, but were thewre more stories?
• Shoule there be a redirect to the article from "An Act to make provision about the police; to make provision about prostitution, sex offenders, sex establishments and certain other premises; to make provision for reducing and dealing with the abuse of alcohol; to make provision about the proceeds of crime; to make provision about extradition; to amend the Aviation Security Act 1982; to make provision about criminal records and to amend the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007; to confer, extend or facilitate search, forfeiture and other powers relating to the United Kingdom’s borders or elsewhere; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder; to repeal redundant provisions; and for connected purposes."  ;-)
• Not sure ifthis would be an issue or not, but articles are supposed to be stable to pass GAN - are there likely to be more developments in the article as the law is put into practice / implemented? If so, would they be major enough to make the article seem unstable? Not sure I expressed this well - for example an article on the Community Charge Poll Tax less than a month after its passage would look different than one written today.

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 _><>°^° 05:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Pond Eddy Bridge

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would love a great review before hopefully taking this 106-year old (to be 107) structure to FAC. I am sure it needs grammar and prose work, but I just finished a rewrite, so a good sentence by sentence review would help me much. Thanks, Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Niagara

General

• Exact page numbers for citations will probably needed. WP:CITESHORT might be of help.

There's only seven pages (158-164), its not that helpful.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Use the convert template to convert tons (use short tons instead of just ton)
• You use "PennDOT" and "Pennsylvania Department of Transportation" interchangebly throughout the article. I'd stick to one or the other.

Lead

• "...Lumberland, New York and Pond Eddy, Pennsylvania, United States." — Mention counties in opening sentence: "... Lumberland in Sullivan County, New York and Pond Eddy in Pike County, Pennsylvania, United States."
• I'd mention the roads the bridge carries in the prose and, possibly, move the refs from the infobox.

1870 suspension bridge

• "The area around Pond Eddy was based around the Delaware and Hudson Canal..." — "around" is used repeatedly. Change to: "The area around Pond Eddy was centered on the Delaware and Hudson Canal..."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "John Augustus Roebling, and rumors arised that he helped supervise the project personally." — WP:WEASEL; I'd try to confirm what his role in the bridge was or just remove the speculation of his involvement and leave it as the bridge being based on his design.

Its only rumors and he was never actually there.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "After the communities of Pond Eddy continued to grow in Pennsylvania and New York, the town fathers decided a bridge should be erected to connect the two communities." — Was their two communities named Pond Eddy or one that happen to have residents living in both states? Also "town fathers", "town founders" might be better.

They were two separate communities, as they are today, legislatively. The first one had a previous name of Flagstone, as mentioned in the article.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "James D. Decker was a local man who was the hired supervisor of construction of the new bridge. He was also the Sullivan County sheriff at the time and former mayor (then-called town supervisor)." — Combined sentences. By the way, which town did he supervise? Change to: "James D. Decker, who was the Sullivan County sheriff and former "town supervisor", was hired to supervise the construction of the bridge."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "He lived personally a location so close to the bridge site, locals often called the bridge as "Decker's Bridge"." — Worded better..."He lived so close to the bridge site that the bridge soon became nicknamed "Decker's Bridge"."

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "...was capable to hold the anticipated traffic." — What was the anticipated traffic?
• "Historians believed that from the beginning of the bridge's life, the bridge was not tolled for Lumberland residents." — more weasel words. Change to: Although, initially, the bridge was tolled, residents of Lumberland were exempted from it."

There were rumors, as mentioned further, its making factually inaccurate without it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "However, the town of Lumberland leased out the new bridge and its tollbooth to private individuals, who tolled everyone, including local citizens. When a person to lease the bridge to could not be hired, the town maintained it, and under this format, people paid nothing." — Reworded: "Eventually the town of Lumberland leased the bridge out to private individuals, who tolled indiscriminately. During times when bridge could not be leased, the town retained control and "

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

1903 petit truss bridge

• "...the "floods of the century" struck the Delaware River Valley" — What caused the floods?

Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Finally in 1926, the mayor of Lumberland, who was a friend of Pennsylvania's governor at the time..." — Which governor?

Governor Gifford Pinchot. Done.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• {{inflation}} might of some use for the old bridge prices.

Someone else will have to do that, I've failed with that template so many times that I stopped using it.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 14:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the inflated prices. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Replacement plans

• "...had its weight limits lowered..." – Any idea what the were lowered from and lowered to?

Still needs some polishing, but it's on its way to being featured. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 03:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • "Flood Scene in Paterson, N.J. (movie)". October 13, 1903" For this, we would need more information in order to locate this movie in order to verify. Who is the author? Publisher? Is it in an archive somewhere?

I just found it this morning. IMDB, which is the place I found it wasn't very specific. Lemme check.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Its a 1903 phonograph movie of the flooding from the Edison Manufacturing Company, and I have it backed up.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

YOu're using cite web to cite a movie? The movie title should be in italics, and I'd really like to see something like Flood Scene in Paterson, N.J. -H36824 (motion picture). Edison Manufacturing Company. October 13, 1903. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper

Fixed all three that apply.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, don't freak. I have 11,327 pages on my watchlist, and the number goes up daily, so its not the end of the world to have a backlogged watchlist.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Prose
  • If I may be frank, the prose in this article needs a considerable amount of work, more than I thought it would. But I'll just list concerns as we go, I guess.
• The area around Pond Eddy was centered on the Delaware and Hudson Canal, which was constructed in the early 1800s. - What was centered on it? business?
• The Erie Railroad also provided a major part of the community's history, with the railroad running up the Pennsylvania side. - First of all, why did it provide a major part; second, it contributed a major part *Fixed for you as example*; third, with the railroad running is just bad prose.
• After the communities of Pond Eddy continued to grow in Pennsylvania and New York, the town founders decided a bridge should be erected to connect the two communities. - when did you mention there were communities in Pond Eddy growing? And since when is Pond Eddy in both states?

The area on both sides of the river is known as Pond Eddy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• The new bridge would make rail shipment of local industries, including bluestone, slate and lumber, much easier of process. - this sentence could be better with better word choice and active words, not passive.
• Historians believed that from the beginning of the bridge's life, the bridge was not tolled for Lumberland residents. - needs a citation directly after it
• Both communities grew large fast, with a new railroad station being built in Pond Eddy on the Pennsylvania side. - with a ... not good again. ;) *Fixed for you as example*
• The loss of the canal, which had a large portion of businesses still, hurt the community financially. - had is better as held or controlled; still should be moved to in front of whatever verb you change to.

• That's all for now. - I have to get some work done today, but you should finish these concerns asap so we can fix up this article. It definitely has FA potential. Sorry for giving you so much work to do! ;) ceranthor 13:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Daniel Case

I did a copy edit from a hard copy I marked up with red pen that shaved about 1.6K from the article's overall length. I hope that addresses most of the prose issues identified above (In general, Mitch, three things for future reference: Omit needless words, prefer the active voice over the passive, and remember parallelism).

On a factual basis, too, the executive of a town in New York is always, then and now, the town supervisor (Or just "supervisor" for short). S/He is never a mayor. Only cities and villages have mayors. Also, I would think that Shohola Township and the Town of Lumberland passed resolutions asking PennDOT to replace the bridge (that would make more sense, and I duly copyedited it as such). Speaking of which, you say Narrowsburg passed one. Well, Narrowsburg is an unincorporated hamlet; it has no government and therefore can't pass any resolutions. Do you perhaps mean the Town of Tusten, whose offices and mailing address are in Narrowsburg? And why would they care so much about the next bridge up the river?

And I must admit I need to see some clarification on this "the stone and lumber mines closed" thing. Lumber is something you can mine? That would be interesting to learn more about.

Lastly, re the "residential home" (is there any other kind?) the tollhouse was converted into, do you know where it is? It would be helpful for your article if someone (cough, cough) who lives closer to the bridge than you do (cough, cough, cough) could go up there and take a picture of it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Union College

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because editors UpstateNYer and Eliphaletnott have been busy substantially updating the article over the past few months. They requested an informal peer review on WP:Universities#Peer_review in September and WT:UNI in October, but further comments from a wider audience would be appreciated.

Thanks, Mabeenot (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick comments: These aren't thorough suggestions, so I'm not taking it off the unreviewed notice at the top (where it might attract someone else's attention), but I might come back later.

• First off, nice work in just a few months!
• Images need alt text per WP:ALT
  • Save for later; we'll get more important things done now so we can pass a GAN. upstateNYer 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Check the disambig & external links. Several disambig pages are linked, and, when I checked, there was one dead link and (I believe) one ref that needed an access date.
  •  Done Not sure why it's claiming that link dead; it brought me there from the check page... upstateNYer 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can something like what the Family Guy article has done with its voice cast (scroll down a bit) be done with the Minerva system pics?
  • Changed the whole section so it's a non-issue. upstateNYer 05:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• The all caps sayings in Seal and motto should be lowercase, per WP:ALLCAPS, and italicized per Foreign terms
  •  Done upstateNYer 05:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! Liquidluck (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article has quite nice images; the prose is generally flowing, and the article seems broad in coverage. Liquidluck's suggestions should be addressed, and here are some more things to consider.

Overlinking

• Only terms that are likely to be unfamiliar to many speakers of English need to be linked, and most terms should be linked only on first use. What needs to be linked is a matter of judgment, but I would say that history, biology, psychology, and engineering don't need to be linked. United States does not need to be linked at all and certainly not multiple times. Centuries are not normally linked. In "Presidents of Union College", Eliphalet Nott should be linked on first use but not on second use or in the caption. Ditto for other links in the lower sections. Too many links are distracting rather than helpful.
  • I'll go thru and take a look; hopefully my counterpart will also. I always link the United States when listing a location (i.e. city, state, US) because it follows the other two locations consistenly. I also always link anything in an image caption that may be linked in the article. This is good for browsers who are skimming the article but reading the captions. This gives readers a quick opportunity to click a link, rather than search long and hard for its use in the article. And for the list with Nott in it, isn't it better practice (by formatting and consistency, if nothing else) to link him there as well, since you're linking everyone else that has an article? But for the other ones, I'll heed your advice. upstateNYer 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital letters

• Many common nouns in the article are being treated as proper nouns. Example: "The Board consists of four Life Trustees, 21 Term Trustees, four Alumni Trustees, two Faculty Trustees, two Student Trustees, and the President of the College. The Governor of the State of New York is an ex officio member. The Board meets three times annually, in February, May, and October. The Board appoints the President of the College upon vacancy of the position; it may also appoint an interim president should the need arise." Shouldn't this be "The board consists of four life trustees, 21 term trustees, four alumni trustees, two faculty trustees, two student trustees, and the president of the college. New York's governor is an ex officio member. The board meets three times annually, in February, May, and October. The board appoints the president upon vacancy of the position; it may also appoint an interim president should the need arise"? Ditto for lots of other common nouns in the article.
• Done, I think.Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists

• When feasible, render lists as straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. The list in "Undergraduate research" and the list of Minerva houses would be easy to convert to prose. The Theme Houses list would be easy to convert if you omitted the street addresses, which will be of little interest to most readers. I think the lists of rankings would also be easy to convert. The student statistics and data might be compressed and summarized in prose. I would also suggest eliminating the list in the "Landmark" section by deleting all the subheads.

En dashes

• Date ranges and page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens. The en dashes should be unspaced.
  • Isn't there a script for that? Could I get the link if you have it? upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Done, I think.Eliphaletnott (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to external sites

• Direct links to external sites are OK in the "External links" section but not in the main text. All of the Minerva Houses have external links, and I see a few others elsewhere. Use an inline citation rather than an external link.

References

• Make sure that the citation numbers snug up against the end punctuation in the main text. I see that some have spaces between the punctuation and the number.
• Done, so far as I can tell.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• The reference section would be much easier to read if you created a Notes or Bibliography section below it into which you put the complete data for each long work that is cited multiple times. Then long, repetitious entries like "Somers, ed., Wayne (2003). Encyclopedia of Union College History. Schenectady: Union College Press. p. 599" would become "Somers, p. 599".
  • Amen to that; I just got chewed out by someone at my most recent FAC by someone who didn't like that style. upstateNYer 01:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  •  Doing... but it will be a process... upstateNYer 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's  Done upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Some of the citations are incomplete. For example, citation 151 lacks a publisher, date and place of publication, and ISBN. Which edition are you citing?
• The DNB and the ANB are standard citations forms for these two works; I have added publication information, however.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

• All of your suggestions were very helpful. Keep them coming, please.Eliphaletnott (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Should the "bibliography" be in effect only the works cited in the article, and the "further reading" other works, but not cited in the article? Eliphaletnott (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Even though Wikipedia is not made of paper, the repetition would be redundant if works under Bib were also under FR. upstateNYer 18:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Editing changes so far look great. Eliphaletnott (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• I am currently seeking updated numbers for various statistics, as well as rankings numbers.Eliphaletnott (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Venues of the 2016 Summer Olympics

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

Regards, Felipe Menegaz 00:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu (talk)

Lead:

• "will be an international multi-sport event to be held in Rio de Janeiro..." – Unlink "international" and remove "to be";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Choose between "pre-exisiting" or "existing", when referring to the venue status;

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why are golf and rubgy sevens frequently capitalized?

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any developments on the IGF decision concerning the golf venue?

No. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Rio de Janeiro is planning to hold all the competitions inside the city..." – Rio de Janeiro or ROCOG?

Both. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But ROCOG already includes city officials, no? In my opinion ROCOG suits better, but I won't make a fuss over it.

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• "...officialy known as Jornalista Mário Filho Stadium..." – Forgot an "l" in "officially";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

General:

• I don't see the need to explicit in every section title that they are competition venues, unless you also have sections for non-competition venues, which you don't;

Based on List of 2008 Summer Olympics venues. Felipe Menegaz 15:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I think that the Beijing page should have that dealt with in some way, as well. Actually, I don't know why there aren't any mentions to the non-competition venues, such as the Olympic Village, MPC and IBC in these pages...

Working on it. Felipe Menegaz 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the Olympic venues were already used for the 2007 Pan Ams, so you should add some adequately licensed images of those. If you do, don't forget to add a proper alt text;

What about add pictures (some non-free) to the tables? Felipe Menegaz 16:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, provided the tables are kept simple and their layout isn't majorly disrupted. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove that "Pic." header and place the image column under the "Venue" header. It's a pity that they appear so small... If you didn't add images for all venues, then you could place those images outside the tables, but I prefer to have pics if they are available. We gotta find a way of having them all, but bigger. I will think of something. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking to add lots of iformation such as coordinates, building cost, constructions years, location (Olympic zone), etc. We gotta find a way of having them all... Felipe Menegaz 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are plenty of redirects and some of them should be fixed.

Working on it. Felipe Menegaz 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Carioca (talk)

Red links:

• There are several red links in this page. Are you planning to create articles for each one of the red links?

Yes. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• There is a typo in the Notes section: 'Although the official opening of the games is scheduled to be on August 5, 2016, football matchs will begin on August 3" – Forgot an "E" in "matches";

Done. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Competition venues:

• Are you planning to add images to all the competition venues (the following sections lack images, at the moment: Existing competition venues, Temporary competition venues and Competition venues outside Rio de Janeiro)?

Yes. I stopped because I was thinking in adding the non-free images to the existing venues. These venues will be renovated and would be interesting to use the non-free images to show how they will look like in 2016. Felipe Menegaz 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Alan Khazei

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that this article will be viewed a lot over the next week. Alan Khazei is running to become US Senator from Massachusetts to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. The special election Democratic primary will occur on December 8,2009. I think that improving the quality of this article & other articles related to the upcoming election will be really useful for people coming to Wikipedia to find information about these candidates. It would be great to get this article & other articles related to the upcoming election to good/featured article status. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Khazei sounds like a very deserving character for a Wikipedia biography, and I was interested to read about him. This article is a commendable effort, but has a way to go yet before it can be seriously considered for GA or FA.

• Infobox: the long list of "Awards" details belongs in "Awards and recognitions" subsection. No need for it here (infobox info should be brief)
• Lead
  • This short lead omits significant information contained in the article. For example the article has a section on SeviceNation which is not mentioned in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the whole article, with everything of significance at least mentioned.
  • First sentence should follow name with (born May 28, 1962); standard practice for biographical articles
  • Spell out Chief Executive Officer at first mention (some may not know what CEO is)
  • "Non-profit organisations" rather than "non-profits" (an unknown abbreviation in the UK)
  • Final sentence needs updating per this
• Upbringing etc
  • Minor prose point: two successive sentences beginning with "He graduated...". I'd begin the first "In 1979 he graduated from St. Paul's School...", thus avoiding the repetititon
  • "St. Mary's Church" is a bit too vague - there are about half a million of them. A bit more identification is necessary (also delete the gap between punctuation and citation).
• City Year
  • You describe City Year as an AmeriCorps organisation, but later report that Clinton was "inspired by visiting CityYear to found the Americorps program." Chicken and egg?
  • "In 1988 Khazei and his then–Harvard roommate..." Former roommate, surely? Khazei graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987.
  • More important, I am interested to know why a 27-year-old Harvard law graduate with a lucrative career beckoning should found a community service project. There is nothing indicated here in his background to suggest he would do this. Do we have any information as to what motivated him? There's other things we need to know, like was this his full-time occupation or a spare time thing? How was the organisation funded? Did it grow rapidly or gradually?
• Save AmeriCorps campaign
  • Let's name and shame: who cut the AmeriCorps funding by 80%?
  • 100 hour → 100-hour
  • This sentence confuses me: "This campaign led to half of the AmeriCorps funding being restored in 2003 and to all of the previous funding plus a $100 million increase appropriated for 2004." First, if funding was cut in 2003 and restored in 2003, wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer at the beginning of the section to a proposed cut? Secondly, "half of the AmeriCorps funding being restored" – does this mean that half of the (proposed) cut was restored? Thirdly, what does "all of the previous funding" mean? I assume that $100 million was added to the 2003 funding prior to the cut, but the prose must make all of these facts clear.
• ServiceNation
  • Begin the section by explaining what ServiceNation was, rather than with Khazei being honoured for organising it.
  • To what does "NonProfit Times' 2008" refer? Is NonProfit Times a journal? If so it should be italicised. The apostrophe is confusing. Perhaps rephrase as "Khazei was recently recognized by NonProfit Times as one of its 2008 "Executives of the Year"...
  • "...700 other national service leaders." Your use of "other" reads as though Obama and McCain were national service leaders.
  • "At the summit, Obama and McCain together pledged to expand national service in an event that was broadcast on national television." Needs rewording: "At the summit, which was broadcast on national television, Obama and McCain both pledged to expand national service." (note "both" rather than "together")
  • "The ServiceNation coalition..." What coalition?
  • Second paragraph: first sentence is way, way too long and meandering - needs to be broken into two or three sentences.
• Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act: a single short sentence does not justify a separate section. Either expand the section, or merge the sentence into another section.
• Other work
  • Khazei's work for Save Americorps has been mentioned earlier, in a section entitled "Save AmeriCorps campaign", and doesn't require repeating here.
  • I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure that some of the bodies listed in the second paragraph could be wikilinked. Have you investigated?
• United States Senate campaign: this will need to be updated, and presumably redrafted in the past tense.
• Positions on key issues
  • What is "deficit-neutral health care reform"? (Jargon like this should be avoided)
  • Roe v Wade should be briefly explained - the link is insufficient on its own
  • Another impenetrable sentence: "However, he has stated that he would vote for a health care reform bill that includes the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, and would work later to change this amendment." This should be reworded in a way that enables the general reader (a category that includes many non-Americans) to understand it.
  • Style issue. The sudden adoption of single-sentence paragraphs is unwelcome. This part of the section needs to be rewritten to give a proper prose flow.
  • "He calls for a pragmatic approach to improving education by strengthening programs proven to work, including public charter schools and higher salaries for teachers." I question use of the word "including" in this sentence, as it suggests that "public charter schools" and "higher salaries for teachers" are being offered as examples of "programs proven to work". Neither is a "program" in the accepted sense of the term.
  • "He has stated that gambling costs taxpayers $3 due to increased bankruptcies for every $1 earned in revenues." Clumsily worded. Try "He has stated that, due to increased bankruptcies, gambling costs taxpayers three times as much as is collected from gambling taxes" (though I'm still uncertain as to how this is so; perhaps more explanation necessary?)
  • LGBTQ - spell it out.
• Senate endorsements: Out of date stuff now. Suggest reduce to a few brief comments and incorporate with the earlier section.
• References: These are nearly all bare links at the moment, and need to be properly formatted. The required information is Author (if known), Title, URL, Publisher, Date and last access date. See ref 2 which is correctly formatted. Something has gone wrong with No. 10
• External links: These should be formatted so that we can at least see what they are. See the last but one item.
• Images lack author information. You probably need the help of an expert image reviewer to ensure that the licenses are correct.

Much work needed then, but I wish you luck with it. As I am not watching peer reviews regularly at the moment, please contact my talk page if you have issues arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan Chhatari

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is about one of important personality from Uttar Pradesh who have held many key positions at various Government/Public levels. I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status.

Thanks, Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with what Ealdgyth wrote above. It sounds like he was an interesting person and led a full life. However, the article needs a fair amount of work to better conform to the Manual of Style, Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and can be up to four paragraphs long. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, so this needs to be expanded considerably. Please see WP:LEAD
• It also helps to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example, here many readers might not know much about the British Raj or know what the United Provinces were.
• The article is oddly organized - as far as I can tell we are never told in the article itself (ignoring the infobox and lead) when or where he was born or died. It is usually helpful to include some sort of Early life section that gives the basics of his birth, family, education, early career.
• It is also usually helpful to follow chronological order unless there is a very good reason not to. Here, the first section after the lead is about 1929 and 1930, the following section starts in 1923 to 1926, then skips ahead to 1931.
• There are many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that could be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve the flow of the article.
• I am not sure how the subject of the article should be referred to - the WP:MOS says usually just the last name is used, so "Chhatari". The article uses "Nawab of Chhatari" or just "Nawab". SInce this seems to be a title / office and not his name, I am not sure it should be used.
• Use of italics in a direct quote does not follow WP:ITALIC
• What did he do from 1947 to 1965?
• Once all the other issues are addressed, this oculd use a copy edit to polish the language. ALso watch for WP:PEACOCK terms
• I know Ealdgyth said this already, but 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

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

New Zealand general election, 2008

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks to be a good candidate for a Good Article, and some feedback on what (if anything) needs to be done might push people along.

Thanks, IdiotSavant (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: To get ready for GAN, the article would have to be re-organized significantly. For one thing, the lede should be a summary of the whole article and should not include material that is undeveloped in the main text. It would be helpful to readers who live outside New Zealand if the first main text section included background material about New Zealand election procedures in general and about this election in particular. Some of that material appears in the existing lede and some, the 2005 material for example, seems to be tacked on in the form of bulleted lists near the bottom of the article. To make this into a good article, I think you have to re-write with a foreign audience in mind; that audience may know nothing about the geography, history, or politics of New Zealand. Here are a few more specific suggestions related mainly to prose and Manual of Style issues.

• The tools at the top of this review page find problems with dead links and a disambiguation link.
• The images need meaningful alt text, meant to describe the images to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT has details.
• "The loss of seven seats by 'other parties' shown here compared... ". - Generally, double quotation marks are preferred to single; i.e., "other parties".
• "Key announces shape of new National-led government, National Business Review... " - The title should be in quotation marks and National Business Review in italics.
• "The 19 general electorates which Labour retained all have a predominantly urban character, excluding Waimakariri, a predominantly urban area but with a significant rural population, resulting in a Labour MP narrowly elected but National winning the party vote commandingly." - Awkward sentence. Suggestion: "The 19 general electorates which Labour retained all have a predominantly urban character, excluding Waimakariri, a predominantly urban area with a significant rural population. In Waimakariri, a Labour MP won narrowly, but National won the party vote by a large margin."
• "excluding Waimakariri" - Wikilink Waimakariri?
• "Palmerston North remains the only provincial city with a Labour MP. The two seats of Hamilton... " - Wikilink Palmerston North and Hamilton, New Zealand?
• I'd suggest turning the list in the "Dates" section into straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. Also, it's usually not necessary to include the day of the week in dates.
• Ditto for the lists in the "Retiring MPs" section.
• Ditto for the lists in the "MPs who lost their seats" section.
• "(list MP at number 14)" - What is the meaning of "at number 14"?
• "The Electoral Finance Act 2007 passed by the Labour government had a "chilling effect" on political activity in 2008, according to the Electoral Commission." - It would be helpful to add a brief explanation of this act in addition to linking to another article.
• "the latter crossing the two-dollar-per-litre mark in late May" - For clarity, the currency needs to be specified, and the amount needs to be converted to imperial units (dollars per gallon) as well as appearing in metric.
• "unveiling a plan worth $150 billion whereby all retail deposits would be unconditionally covered" - Does "covered" mean "insured against loss"?
• "Also signed up to the plan was the National Party, with deputy leader and finance spokesperson Bill English saying that there was 'still time to change the...scheme if banks find it hard to borrow overseas'." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Suggestion: Also signed up to the plan was the National Party. Its deputy leader and finance spokesperson, Bill English, said that there was "still time to change the...scheme if banks find it hard to borrow overseas".
• It might be helpful to explain how deposit insurance (if that is what is meant by "unconditionally covered") might make it harder for New Zealand banks to borrow overseas.
• "This implied higher costs for KiwiSaver, Working For Families... ". - Wikilink KiwiSaver and Working for Families?
• "Over the next fiscal year, Dr Cullen... " - Who is Dr. Cullen?
• "the New Zealand First party was cleared of wrongdoing by the Electoral Commission, which was investigating donations that the party failed to declare." - Shouldn't this be "allegedly failed to declare"?
• Most of the "Boundary changes" section lacks sources. A good rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every set of statistics, direct quote, or claim that might be challenged. The "Opinion polling" section is completely unsourced.
• "The situation after 2005" - I'm not sure why this section or the subsequent 2005 sections have been included. They don't seem directly related to the 2008 election. Would readers outside of New Zealand find this information useful? Could all of this be summarized in a sentence or two and included in a "Background" section near the top of the article?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in soliciting feedback about the article and how it meets featured article criteria. Any comments are welcome!

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This certainly appears to be comprehensive, stable, neutral, and reasonably well-illustrated, and well-sourced. It's quite interesting as well. I noticed quite a few minor prose and style issues, fixed a few, and listed others below. I'm sure I didn't catch everything because I began to flag toward the end. The special effects section seemed awfully long, not bad but long. A copyedit of the lower sections from "Special effects" down would be a good idea.

Lead

• "Bennett and Nimoy collaborated with effects house Industrial Light & Magic to develop... " - Add (ILM) after spelled-out version on first use?

Plot

• I don't know how you feel about sourcing or what the project conventions might be, but generally it's a good idea to provide at least one source for each paragraph. Perhaps all of the plot claims are supported by Rioux?
• "On arriving at Earth Spacedock Doctor Leonard McCoy begins to act to strangely." - Add comma after Earth? Otherwise it's possible to think on a quick read that McCoy's title is Earth Spacedock Doctor.
• "Believing the Genesis device a potent weapon... " - Insert "to be" so this reads, "Believing the Genesis device to be a potent weapon... "?
• "In the standoff that follows Kruge orders one of the hostages on the surface be executed... " - Insert a comma and "that", so this reads, "In the standoff that follows, Kruge orders that one of the hostages on the surface be executed... "?

Cast

• "who is resurrected by the effects of the Genesis Device" - I noticed a mixture of "Genesis Device" and "Genesis device" in the upper sections and began changing the big D to little d. Maybe, though, I should just ask before changing any more of these. Do you want D or d? I went for "d" because "device" appeared to be descriptive rather than a formal name.
• "Nimoy found the most difficult scene to direct one where McCoy talks to an unconscious Spock in sickbay en route to Vulcan." - Much as I like concision, it might help to insert "was" between "direct" and "one". Also, "in which" might be better than "where". Ditto for other places in the article where the construction "scene where" appears.
• "in a minimal amount of scenes" - "Number" rather than "amount"?
• "Kelley asserted that the opposite was true; "tribbles," he said," - Period after "true" and cap T on Tribbles? Otherwise, the quotation needs to start with an ellipsis (but maybe it can't).
• "Navigation officer / acting science officer" - Maybe "Navigation officer and acting science officer" to avoid the front slash?
• "He is forced into the closet at phaser-point by Uhura." - What closet? Am I missing something?

Development

• "he had disagreed with changes made to The Wrath of Khan's ending without him." - This could be misinterpreted to mean that the film ended without him in a changed way. Maybe "he had disagreed with changes made without his consent to The Wrath of Khan's ending."
• "After persuading him otherwise, Nimoy was given the job." - Suggestion for clarity: "Nimoy, after persuading Eisner otherwise, got the job."
• "first reaction to the news of Nimoy as director was that Bennett" - I don't believe Bennett is mentioned before this instance. This one should be spelled out and linked rather than the second use in the next sentence.
• "Nimoy wanted to make sure that each character got a small but significant scene to make them more grounded and real." - "Character" is singular, but "them" is plural. "Him or her"? Or, if that's awkward, "Nimoy wanted all of the characters to have significant scenes, however small, that made them more grounded and real."
• "The name of the antagonists' ship, the Bird-of-Prey, remain unchanged, as in the Star Trek original series episode "The Enterprise Incident," Spock mentions that the Romulans loan the designs for their ship (and presumably the cloaking device as well)." - Should that be a terminal period after "Incident"? Shouldn't that be "name ... remains"? The sentence appears to be two that have been accidentally run together, but the terminal period might come after "unchanged". Not sure.
• "Since items such as the look of the bridge... " - Wikilink bridge?

Design

• "the physical model was a foot smaller than the Enterprise built for The Motion Picture" - Maybe consider a metric conversion; i.e., 12 inches (30 cm)?
• "Rather than painstakingly wiring thousands of small lights, the model was made of clear plexiglass and then painted;" - Dangling modifier. Maybe "Rather than painstakingly wiring thousands of small lights, they made the model of clear plexiglass and then painted"?
• "illuminated from outside by fiber optics and 2000-5000 watt lights" - Suggestion: "illuminated from outside by fiber optics and lights of 2,000 to 5,000 watts."

Costumes and makeup

• "Fletcher ended up designing the Klingon and Vulcan makeup in addition to his costuming chores." - He didn't design his costume chores. Maybe "In addition to working on costumes, Fletcher designed the Klingon and Vulcan makeup".

Filming

• "To guard against leaks that had affected the news of Spock's death during the production of The Wrath of Khan,[b] precautions made to make people accountable for their scripts and secure the sets." - Something missing here. Suggestion: "To guard against leaks that had affected the news of Spock's death during the production of The Wrath of Khan,[b] the film company took precautions to make people accountable for their scripts and to secure the sets."
• "The creatures started as small, slimy crawlers, then grew to lengths of eight feet." - Metric conversion?
• "ILM's solution involved rigging the worm with fishing line that were pulled in a choreographed" - "Lines", plural?
• "the hope was to get as much usable shots as possible on one take" - "Many" rather than "much"?
• "used a large 15 by 15 feet (4.6 by 4.6 m) floodlight" - Hyphens needed. The {{convert}} template is handy for things like this: 15-by-15-foot (4.6 by 4.6 m). Ditto for "the top of a 110 feet (34 m) crane".

Special effects

• "Eastman 94 for all effects shots save those that required blue screen... " - Should "blue screen" be linked or explained?
• "The cafeteria was a set built at ILM and filled with forty extras" - Digits, 40?
• "eaten away by acetone" - Wikilink acetone? Ditto some of the other terms like vermiculite?
• My attention began to wander here. While the detail is impressive, it's almost too much.

General

• The lead image needs alt text.
• Citation 81 has a dead url.
• Should et al. in the citations be in italics since it's Latin?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mabeenot comments: Wow. I didn't know we had a video of the Enterprise blowing up on Wikipedia. That's awesome. Here are a couple suggestions for the article:

• There are a few red links on the page, mostly for people working behind the scenes like makeup artist Thomas R. Burman, cinematographer Charles Correll, and effects cameraman Scott Farrar. If you're looking for FA status, the red links have got to go. Either new articles need to be created for each of the red links or the red links need to be removed from this article, depending upon notability.

• Could any of the sources in the "references" section become footnoted references under the "notes" section? It'd be nice to consolidate the two sets of sources and point to where each reference was used.

• I hope you pursue Finetooth's detailed response. That was a great critique.

Thanks for working so hard on Search for Spock. When you're done, do you have any plans on getting Voyage Home up to GA or FA status?

-Mabeenot (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, more for your benefit than David's, there is no FAC requirement for notable redlinks to be created, nor has there ever been one, though it's nice if only for aesthetic reasons. (Seriously, whose bright idea was that colour back in the day?) All the best, Steve ^T • C 19:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've read this a couple of times now; I haven't commented so far, because there isn't a lot that I can see wrong with it, so I didn't want you to think I'd done a half-assed review. :-) Anyway, I think it probably needs another pass on the copyediting front. Not so much to remove the usual redundancies and ambiguity-spawning elegant variations and the like, but more for typos and minor mistakes (e.g. "The designer and the production staff was satisfied with the Klingon costumes he made on the first film.") On the content side, all I'd point to is that the "Themes" section feels a little light compared to that of the other Trek articles you've fashioned (though I can easily believe that it hasn't been subject to the same levels of analysis), the infobox should probably include the budget= and gross= fields, and the statement "The film received generally positive reviews from critics" is currently uncited. Though it might not be so much an issue on the other Trek articles, this film is one that's (at least nowadays) not considered as strong as some of the others, so I can definitely see that statement as one that might be challenged, even if it's a correct summation of the 1984 critical response. Finally, do you think the dollar amounts would benefit from being corrected for inflation, at least for the most important sums (budget and gross)? This can be done through the {{formatprice}} and {{inflation}} templates, e.g. "The film made $76,471,046 (${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|76471046|1984|r=-4}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTISOYEAR}})" which outputs "($224 million as of 2024)". Feels weird to say that about a film that was made in my lifetime, but there y'go. Otherwise, nice work yet again. Steve ^T • C 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm still looking for more stuff about the themes (you'd think that it would be easier to find, given the Wagnerian nature of the film, but hey.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://trekmovie.com/
    • http://www.slashfood.com/2009/10/12/the-8-lamest-fast-food-kids-toys/

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Murder of Teresa de Simone

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I helped take this article to GA Status and going over it again I believe that it could qualify for FA status and would like input from other wiki editors. Particularly I want to make sure I satisfy criterion 1a and 1b.

However I will point out one major problem with this article and that is that information related to Teresa de Simone simply doesn't exist prior to her murder! I can't find any biographical information in regards to her that isn't related to the murder, I can't even find her year of birth let alone date. It seems bizarre that this (even basic) information doesn't appear to exist anywhere that I can find, whilst I absolutely respect the rights of the family to their privacy, anonymity and grief I'm surprised that none of the refs in the article have mentioned this information.

We also need to be mindful that Sean Hodgson is still alive and so WP:BLP most definitely applies and that the sections relevant to him (particularly since is undoubtedly innocent) should be upheld to the highest standards.

Thanks, Sanguis Sanies (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a fascinating tale well-told. I think it's close to FA, though I do have a few suggestions for further improvement. All of the newspaper names should be in italics, for example. I made a few changes as I went, including changing one long quote to a blockquote. Please revert this change if you don't like the blockquote. Or, if you like it, two or three of the other quotes of four lines or more could be rendered as blockquotes (without quotation marks) as well.

• I'd eliminate the bold phrases in the lead except for the title per WP:MOSBOLD.
• The Manual of Style deprecates the use of fancy quotes such as the ones around the text box in the Hodgson trial section. WP:MOSQUOTE has details.

Murder

• "When her shift at the Tom Tackle ended at 2300 UTC she went on to Fridays... " - Wikilink UTC on first use?

Police investigation

• "Detective Superintendent John Porter of Southampton C.I.D. - Spell out C.I.D on first use, thus: Criminal Investigation Department (CID)?

Arrest of Sean Hodgson

• "Sean Hodgson (aka Robert Graham Hodgson)... " - Spell out "also known as"?
• "It was not routine to make audio recordings of police interviews at the time, and much of the original police paperwork from the case has so far not been located." - It would be better to say something like "has not been located through 2009" rather than "so far".

Acquittal and release

• "Hodgsons is potentially Britain’s the longest serving innocent inmates." - Something missing here. The sentence doesn't make sense.
• "While imprisoned his identity was stolen making it difficult to access insurance and housing." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the paragraph above it.

Operation Iceberg

• Shouldn't David Lace be mentioned by name in this section? It seems a little odd not to mention him and then to jump to a "David Lace" section without the connection being made explicit.
• "they are on the right track and hopefully could be close to solving this 30 year old murder... " - Did the source have hyphens here; that is, "30-year-old murder"? I yearn to add them.

David Lace

• Wikilink sibling and analgesics?

Notes and references

• The appeals citation needs more details. "R v Robert Graham Hodgson EWCA Crim 490" is quite mysterious. At the least, the abbreviated parts should be spelled out, so that EWCA appears as "England and Wales Court of Appeal". Perhaps Crim stands for Criminal Division? What does "R v" mean?
• The Appeals Notes section on my screen looks cluttered and a bit hard to read. Would four columns or some other arrangement work better than six?
• Newspaper names like The Guardian and Southern Daily Echo need italics. I see lots of these in the Reference section. If you use the "work" parameter rather the "publisher" parameter for the newspaper name, the template will add the italics automatically.
• Triple dates like 4 December 1979 should be unlinked.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Finetooth comments: Thank you

Acquittal and release

• point 1) The sentence could be written a bit better but it is essentially correct; it is potentially possible that there is (or has been) a Briton who has been imprisoned longer who was innocent. So Hodgson is the longest known.

Operation Iceberg

• point 2) It doesn't, however since this is a direct quote so bad grammar is fine.

Notes and references

• point 1) R stands for Regina which is the Queen regnant. Essentially the crown if held by a woman.

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.pub-explorer.com/hampshire/pub/encoresouthampton.htm a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Anti-Hindi agitations of Tamil Nadu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get general feedback on how to get this article move to a Featured article status.

Thanks, --CarTick 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: You have indicated that you would like feedback on how to get this article to FA status. I have not had time to study the prose in line-by-line detail, but a quick readthrough and scrutiny reveals a number of issues that need attention:-

• There are several disambiguation links that need fixing. Go to the toolbox on the top right of this page, click on "disambig links." That will reveal what needs to be fixed.
• The images all need alt text. If you have problems dealing with this, let me know and I'll help. If you haven't done so already it may be an idea to look at WP:ALT
• The images may be public domain in India, but for free use on Wikipedia they need to be PD in the United States. Generally this means they need to have been published before 1923, which is obviously not the case here. You need to establish, with the help of an expert image reviewer, whether these pictures are PD in the US under some other criterion.
• The lead needs to expanded into a summary of the whole article rather than a brief introduction.
• Section headings
  • Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case uless they are proper nouns or form a title. Thus "Government response" not "Government Response". (and others)
  • Avoid beginning section titles with "The..." unless this is part of some formal title." Hemce, "Day of Mourning" not "The Day of Mourning" (and others)
• Some subsections are far too short to be freestanding, e.g. "Riots in the North". They should be incorporated into the sections.
• The repeated use of quotation boxes, even for short quotes, is disruptive to the smooth reading of the article. Short quotes should normally be incorporated into the text. Longer quotes (100 words+) may be in blockquotes - I have converted the first two long quotes in the Government response section to blockquotes so that you can see what needs to be done. But the majority of your quotes are not long enough to justify using blockquotes.
• I notice that some sections are in bullet-point format. This is very much frowned on for potential featured articles. These sections should be converted to prose.
• Reference formats
  • On-line references (Nos 1, 38, 42 etc) need access dates.
  • All references need publisher information
  • Ref. No 1 goes to a page that appears unrelated to the topic under discussion
  • No 3 goes to a "Not Found" message. There may be others - please check
• Odd points
  • The quantity 1635 should be written 1,635, 1200 should be 1,200. Check for others.
  • Consistency in spelling required; at present, for example, you have "organizers" (American) and "organisation" (British). It makes sense to stick to Brit spellings (you have adopted British date style), so please check for spellings such as "favor" etc. "Normalcy" in BritEng is "normality".
  • "climbdown" is a single word, not two.

All these issues need to be addressed. The prose doesn't seem at all bad, but probably needs the attention of a conscientious copyeditor. A most interesting article, well worth some further effort to take it towards FA. Maybe GA as a transitional stage?. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks brian for the review. i will incorporate the comments.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Public domain, In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain and If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.). That would mean File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg, File:Rajaji1939.jpg and File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg though are in public domain India now, they were not in January 1, 1996, and therefore, not in United States now because US does not follow the rule of shorter term. If it is not in the public domain in U.S, it can not be used in wikipedia. too bad. looks like we need to delete all these images. hope my assessment is correct, pls correct me if i am wrong. --CarTick 00:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

correct assessment for File:Nehru Gandhi 1937.jpg and File:Rajaji1939.jpg. But File:Jinnah Periyar ambedkar.jpg has been released into PD by the periyar kazhagam (if we switch to wikiality123's version), for all purposes. That means PD in US too. So we can use that as it was released into PD and not lapsed into PD. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

that is correct. permission from the copyright holder, in this case, periyar kazhagam should be fine. --CarTick 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
  • Magazine titles need to be in italics also.
  • Current ref 51 has the title of the journal and the issue number in the link title. Should be broken out to have an author, title of the article, journal, volume and issue, and page numbers. Also for current ref 52, 66, and 80
  • What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?
  • what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton comments -Tick

• Sodabottle and I have re-written the lead.
• I have removed two images which are in public domain in India but not in US. I have replaced the third image with a duplicate image (permission for use here had been granted by the copyright holder). --CarTick 21:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton comments - Sodabottle

• Fixed disambiguation links
• Added Alt Text to remaining images
• Changed Section headings to confirm to MoS per Brian's comments.
• Short subsections have been eliminated and their contents incorporated into other subsections
• Reference formats 1) access dates added 2)publisher information added for all online refs 3)ref no 1 is citation for no of languages in India, source for general background for the article 4) fixed dead links in citations, verified all others
• Odd points 1)number format fixed
• Quotation box issue fixed
  • Still to do : 1) British English conformance ) bullet points to prose conversion--Sodabottle (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • all Fixed by User CarTick by 10 dec

All suggestions/issues raised by Brianboulton now incorporated/fixed --Sodabottle (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ealdgyth comments - Sodabottle

• Fixed Magazine and Newspaper titles using cite news and cite web templates as suggested by Ealdgyth --Sodabottle (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fixed Indian Recorder and Digest in journal format. Indian Review (by Natesan and Co) is an annual year book and not a journal. Similarly India Today (by living media) is also an annual year book and not a journal. So they are left as such with cite book template
• What makes http://www.sangam.org/2009/09/Anna_Centennial_3.php?print=true a relialbe source?

  • This has been backed up by another book now. However, this has been used as a source not for "what happened" but for "why they claimed they did it". Since the "they" in question is the DMK party, and sangam.org link is a lecture by Sachi Sri Kantha (a scholar with multiple Gscholar hits, BUT in another field) which quotes from a primary document of the DMK where they defend their actions. "What happened" has been sourced from a reliable source (scholarly work). And "what they claimed" has been sourced from DMK's own publications of that time period (now backed up with other scholarly work from Anthem press). --Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• what makes http://www.dmk.in/ahindi.html a reliable source?

  • Same as above. This has been made the source for "why they claim they did it". As this is the official website of the DMK party this has been used as source for their "claim". Now it has been backed up by two more sources (one recent newspaper article and another journal article from the same time period) plus the legislative assembly proceedings discussing the . As in the above case "what happened" has been sourced by other RS including books and newspaper reports.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All comments/issues raised by Ealdgyth incorporated.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Eastern Front (World War II)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I belive that this is a very important part of Human history and definied the next 40 of history (1950-1990). This article deserves to become an FA.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Although this is an interesting article about an important subject, I note several problems that will prevent it from becoming GA or FA in its present condition. Ealdgyth has mentioned the incomplete or malformed citations. Here's a short list of other significant problems.

• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds 15 wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
• The alt text viewer shows that the article's images need alt text. Alt text is meant for readers who can't see the images, and it is not the same as captions for sighted readers. WP:ALT has details. Suitable alt text is required for FA.
• The link checker finds two dead urls in the citations.
• Large sections of the article lack sources. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph (except the lede paragraphs), every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that has been challenged or is apt to be challenged. A general bibliography or reading list can't substitute for inline citations that support the article's claims. WP:V and WP:RS have details.
• Image:Reichstag flag original.jpg needs a fair-use rationale specific to this article.
• Claims challenged by "citation needed" tags should be addressed.
• Links to external sites should be replaced by inline citations.
• The existing lead serves as an essay-like introduction rather than a lead as defined by WP:LEAD. Ideally, the lead should be a summary or abstract of the entire article rather than an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include anything important that is not mentioned in the main text.

It's difficult to track down reliable sources for material added in the past by other editors, and it can't be done in a hurry. However, until the article is fully sourced, it's not stable. For that reason, it's probably too soon to do a detailed analysis of the prose and of all possible Manual of Style issues. After the problems above have been addressed, please bring the article back to PR. I'd be glad to do a follow-up review that looks more closely at details. Meanwhile, I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Help at Any Cost

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a stable WP:GA for a while and I would like to see what people think, and what could be done to improve it. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-done and quite interesting. I made a few changes to punctuation, and I have a very small number of suggestions related to prose and style. My main concern is that the article might not be comprehensive in two ways; the voice(s) of the industry's promoters are missing, and the details of the hearings are missing. It's possible that the industry backers hunkered down, that their lawyers advised them not to talk, and that nothing came of the hearings. If you are thinking of taking this to FAC in the future, you'll want to make sure that the article covers these two areas somehow.

• The image needs alt text, meant for readers who cannot see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
• "Representative George Miller held hearings on the matter... " - Would it be helpful to add that he's a Democrat from California?
• "In Help at Any Cost Szalavitz investigates the teen rehabilitation industry and focuses on four programs: Straight, Incorporated, a copy of the Straight Inc. program called KIDS, North Star wilderness boot camp, and the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools.[6][4][11]" - It's generally better to arrange the citations in ascending order; i.e., 4, 6, 11.
• "Some of these programs cost parents over US$2,000 per month." - Since the article is U.S.-centric, it's not necessary to add the US in front of $2,000.
• "calling the work "a courageous—if horrifying—study of the tough-love industry". - I changed the en dash here to an em dash because I've never seen a mixed pair before, but if the en dash is an accurate part of the quote, you should probably revert my change.
  • My change is OK; it falls under the house-style exceptions listed at WP:MOSQUOTE. Finetooth (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• "The House Committee on Education and Labor held additional hearings on the matter on April 24, 2008, again chaired by Representative George Miller." - Just "Miller" since his identity is fully established earlier.
• The existing citation formatting is a mixture of m-d-y and yyyy-mm-dd. It can be either but not both. Ditto for the formatting in "Other reading" and "External links".
• McAllister, Robert John (2007), Emotions: Mystery Or Madness, AuthorHouse, ISBN 1425982441 - What makes this a reliable source? Was it vetted by outside experts, or is it self-published?
• I wondered about the lack of any mention of people defending or favoring these programs. Did any industry representatives or lobbyists or business owners speak at the hearing? Is anyone on record in their defense?
• What did Miller's committee decide? Did it take any action? Did the members vote on anything or make any recommendations? Were they unanimous in their votes, recommendations, or public statements on the matter? Have any laws—state, federal, or local—been passed since the hearings to regulate this business?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...

I don't have much experience with this process, but I will suggest a couple of things that strike me after reading it:

• Each time you list the 4 programs, I have a hard time differentiating among them and have to re-read them, perhaps you could separate them with colons or semi-colons?
• Several times you mention that the programs are not successful, but success is a relative term, and I would like to know what basis the programs are being judged against if that is in the book.
• You go into a lot of detail about Synanon and its demise. Is that addressed extensively in the book?

I hope that this can help with the article a bit. Riverpa (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay I will look into above. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by Fainites

I have ordered a copy of the book and will comment more when I have read it, but the first thing that strikes me on a quick read of the article was that I was left wondering what the conclusions were ( if any) of those hearings which are mentioned in the Aftermath section of the article.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah good point, I will research that more. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On content.

• A brief summary of the message/underlying beliefs/tough love philosophy of proponents would be helpful. (It's summed up quite neatly in the introduction from p.3 onward). The book deals with how being a teenager is seen as a pathological state and the fact that in the US parents have the right to send their children to whatever lockdown facitilies they choose, without appeal or the need for any justification or diagnosis. This is something many non-US readers may not be aware of.
• Timelines. The book takes some pains to chart the rise and fall of these programmes and how the same or similar idea moves from one type of programme to another after scandals, investigations and official censure. You cover Synanon. However, you don't mention The Seed which is equally covered in the book. The Seed was based on Synanon but it is equally important - not least because it was a government-funded behaviour modification programme and it was investigated and criticised in the 70s. Straight Inc. sprung directly from The Seed in response to the decline of The Seed and parent led anti-drug campaigns. The rise of the wilderness bootcamp comes with the decline of Straight Inc. and the like, and links here from combining the ideas of state funded bootcamps with old-fashioned wilderness programmes and adding Synanon/Straight/Seed "tough love". The "speciality school", though existing already, gathers strength following scandals and investigations about the wilderness programmes and you can find out the information here. WWASP took off after Bacon's death. est really comes in with WWASP. KIDS had Medicaid until 1998.
• I think the rise of facilities based abroad for US teens in places like Western Samoa, Mexico and Czech is worth a mention. These ones tended to fall foul of local laws on child abuse.
• The book also makes the point about the financial advantages of wilderness programmes. No facilities or trained staff, minimal equipment and food, huge fees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainites (talk • contribs)

If we can find secondary sources for this stuff, that would be excellent. I would rather not engage in WP:OR and rely on primary sources in this article. Cirt (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything I suggested is in the actual book I was thinking in terms of beefing up the description of the books contents rather than adding any outside material. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, but so far I have used entirely secondary sources for the Contents subsection, and I am a bit apprehensive about mixing that section to then include both secondary and primary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Critical reviews. I searched around to see if I could find any serious responses by proponents other than comments on blogs but no luck so far! Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Regarding what happened following those congressional reviews - there's some links here to proposed legislation etc. Here is Millers opening statement . It looks as if this resulted in legislation earlier this year.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, would rather use secondary sources for information on that, if possible. Not sure if there are secondary sources directly linking results of that legislation to this release here book. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Providence Grays all-time roster

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I my intent is to take this to the FL level. Any help with the prose would be fantastic as it is not my strong suit.

Thanks, Neonblak ^talk - 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't reviewed this in detail, but since there is a symbol for "player-manager", it ought to also be colored. Since two of the player-managers are also HOFers, there probably should be 3 colors - one for HOFers, one for player-managers, and one for HOFers who were player-managers. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead made the change you requested, including changing the Hall of Fame color to be consistent with other FL Hall of Fame color indicator.Neonblak ^talk - 18:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks pretty good to me. I did a light copyedit of the lead - please revert if I introduced errors. Hhere are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead is six paragraphs, too long per WP:LEAD (max of four). After the first paragraph, it is basically a short history of the team. I would probably make the last five paragraphs a History section.

I thought it was too long as well, but I wasn't sure if the text just needed to be summarized more, or if some other remedy would be recomended. I am not sure I have seen narative sections in FL candidates, but I will rummage through them and see how others have done this.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been a major author on four FLs (none sport related) and all have narrative text before the tables. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I was not sure what this meant - missing word? ...1882, the Grays hired Harry Wright to be their manager, who brought back his [relative?] George Wright to play.[20][21]

Typo, meant to be his brother.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I also thought the last sentence was a bit vague The Grays' final season was in 1885, a season in which they finished at their lowest positional standing in their history, as well as their worst winning percentage.[1] I would at least give their standing (third?) and I think I owuld add a sentence about why the folded as a franchise - assume it was financial?

I will try and find more sources that provide more specifics on why the team folded.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The Alt text tool shows no alt text - this will be needed per WP:ALT
• I did not copyedit the text in the table - I noticed there is a tendency there to use numbers where the WP:MOS says they should be spelled out. Usually numbers ten and under are spelled out (although scores like 5 to 3 would not be). There are a fair number of "he played 1 game" sort of sentences that should read "he played one game" (unless there is some sort of baseball MOS I am unaware of).
• I also think statistics can be kept as numbers, so Kemmler played in 2 games with 1879 Grays, and collected 1 hit in 7 at bats. would be Kemmler played in two games with 1879 Grays, and collected 1 hit in 7 at bats.? I would check with someone who knows baseball style here better than I do - perhaps User:Killervogel5

This issue was raised during a previous FL of mine, where it was stated that the numbers needed to be either ALL spelled out, or all enumerated, so I chose the latter. The idea being that it needed to be uniform throughout the table, not just the individual player's line. I think with this issue, I will let the FL process weed it out.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also watch the overuse of and - two quick examples with suggested corrections:
  • He was the starting shortstop for the 1878 Grays, and batted .237, and scored 30 runs. could just be He was the starting shortstop for the 1878 Grays, batted .237, and scored 30 runs.

I agree, and will go through and make these changes.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • In 1883, he played his only season in Providence, and was the starting right fielder. could just be In 1883, he played his only season in Providence as the starting right fielder. (also not sure you need the "In 1883" part as the previous column gives the year - could also be something like In his only season in Providence, he was the starting right fielder.)

I agree with this as well, I thought it wierd that I was pointing out the season in which the player was with the team, when it was already in the table. I will change these incidents, but will leave alone the others where I am pointing out a specific season of interest, for a player who played multiple seasons with the club.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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 _><>°^° 16:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

These suggestions are great, thank you for your help.Neonblak ^talk - 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

---

1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'd like to add this to my queue of future FACs. I think it's not far from there now, and would appreciate whatever thoughts people are willing to provide about improving it. Steve Smith (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Thorough account of a now rather distant political cause celebre which makes entertaining reading. No dablinks, no broken external links, all alt text in place. For obvious reasons I have largely confined my comments to the prose, and many are no more than suggestions that you might consider.

Steve Smith response: Outstanding work as, always; I'll implement most of these suggestions in the next few days. In the meantime, I've responded to a few points/requested some clarification below (my comments in bold). Steve Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Lead
  • I have resized the lead image - no reason for it to be so small. Is it possible to identify the cabinet members, at least those who appear in the story?
    • They're all identified on the image description page. I could add them to the caption, but you say below that my captions tend to be too long already. Thoughts?
      • It's not a major issue. If it was me I'd put the names in and make an exception of the caption length, but it's your decision. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • First sentence - confusion towards the end. And MLA should have an appropriate link. I suggest, for clarity, "...by a backbench group of legislative assembly members (MLAs) from his Social Credit party."
  • "...before being elected in 1935." suggest "...before his election victory in 1935."
  • Perhaps "insurgents" is too strong a term for parliamentary rebels? Could they not be termed just "rebels"?
  • (amused aside) A political party that calls itself "Social Credit" wins an election, then has to call in experts from Britain to show it how to implement Social Credit! You would have thought they mght have found this out a bit earlier.
    • You'd think. Aberhart was a bit of a catastrophe.
  • Overall, the lead could do with a bit of expansion if it is reflect the whole content of the article.
• Background:
  • Suggested rephrase: "he repeated them so often that..."
  • Link caucus - it's not much of an article but better than nothing
• Genesis of a revolt
  • "...Aberhart would not or could not implement that system on which they had been elected." Suggest rephrase: "...Aberhart would not or could not implement the policies on which the party had been elected."
    • I'm concerned that "policies" might imply too much specificity; they really weren't elected so much on policies, per se, as on a vague promise of ending the Depression through the magic of "social credit". Mind you, "system" might be too strong too. Maybe "promises"?
      • Yes, promises looks right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Awkward prose: "...began to meet in Edmonton's Corona hotel to, as Ernest Manning biographer Brian Brennan puts it, "plot Aberhart's downfall". First, did they "begin to meet" or did they "meet"? Secondly, we haven't been told who Manning is. Thirdly, I'd place the comma after "hotel", and thus run the sentence as "met in Edmonton's Corona hotel, to "plot Aberhart's downfall" according to Canadian author Brian Brennan, biographer of future premier Ernest Manning."
  • Repetitive phrasing: "Ross resigned over ... Cockroft resigned over" I'd make the second "left", and I'd say "a combination" rather than "some combination".
  • Full ministerial titles are considerable mouthfuls, and make reading arduous work. Do we really need to know the full portfolios of Chant, Cross and Fallow? Maybe they could ne just "ministers"? There is also one and too many in the sentence dealing with Manning's illness.
  • "It limited its commitment...": both these "its" need specifying. ("The speech limited the government's commitment...")
• The dissent becomes overt
  • Not really a Wikipedia section title - these don't normally begin with "The..." and are usually telegraphic, e.g. "Open dissent"
  • "...this call was endorsed by Social Credit backbencher Blue." Reads oddly, suggest call him Albert Blue. I'd also give Ansley his first name when reintroducing him to the story.
  • "...they began a filibuster" Specify who.
  • We need a reminder of who "Brown" is.
• Sideshows: coronations and recall petitions
  • Not an encyclopedic heading, I'm afraid. There was one coronation and one recall petition The main subject of the section is the recall petition, and I'd title it just that.
  • Pronoun confusion: "Douglas, challenged by Hargrave for the leadership of the social credit movement and under attack by some of his followers for a lack of cooperation with the world's first social credit government, offered to host him..." It is not clear who is meant by "his" and "him".
  • More repetitive phrasing: the words "the petition" at the end of the section are not necessary.
• Manoeuvring and negotiation
  • Isn't "maneuvering" the US spelling (which I believe this article uses)?
    • I aimed for Canadian spelling, rather than US (hence "rumour", "favour", "labour", "travelled", "channelling") or British (hence "emphasized", "authorized") - we're a bit of a schizophrenic lot. I'm actually not positive about the Canadian spelling of that one, though - I'll check it out.
  • For clarity I suggest "...and the motion itself was defeated."
  • Social Credit Measures Act in italics?
  • Why the confusion over dates? Here, April 8 or 12, earlier March 11 or 12
    • My best explanation is that scholars of Alberta political history are sloppy. I don't know - I'm just repeating what the sources say, and the sources can't seem to get their shit together. I might resort to some primary sources to settle the discrepancy, if I can find them.
  • Final sentence lacks clarity on Brown's warning. A slight tweak would give "The bill was passed, and the insurgents were placated, though Brown made it clear during a cross-province speaking tour that they were determined to see social credit implemented, and warned that 'if anyone gets in our way, he's going to get into trouble...we must choose between principles and party, between Social Credit and Premier Aberhart'."
• Social Credit Board and commission
  • "was composed of" → "comprised"
  • What is the "Executive council"? Is this another term for "cabinet"?
  • "MacLachlan ... arrived in London May 9, where he met with Douglas at his fishing lodge." A fishing lodge in London?
  • "Douglas refused to come himself..." Say where he refused to come to.
• Aftermath
  • Who is Joe Unwin?
• Images
  • In each case we are told "author unknown" and in the licenses that the author died more than 50 years ago. How do we know?
    • I think you misread the license - they're in the public domain because they're of Canadian origin and were taken before January 1, 1949. Life of the author has nothing to do with it (Canadian copyright law as it pertained to photos used to be kind of odd that way).
  • Do we know that the images are PD in the US? Only the last of the images has a license which indicates that this is the case.
    • All are in the PD in the US by virtue of being in the PD in the country of origin as at the date of restoration. I'll tag that to make it clear.
  • In most cases the captions are rather too long, and should be shortened.
  • Trivial point: if the depicted archdeacon is an Anglican, his title is "The Venerable" not "The Reverend".
    • I know less than nothing about this sort of thing, and am just copying the sources. Is there any denomination that has Archdeacons that would be called "The Reverend"? Would it be correct if I just left it as "Archdeacon S. H. Middleton", or is the honorific mandatory?
      • I don't know of any other denomination that has archdeacons. It would be fine to omit the honorific. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these points help. As I am not able to watch individual PRs, please use my talkpage for any queries, complaints etc. Thanks anyway for an interesting read on a subject entirely new to me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Greeks

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has seen substantial work and would like to improve it further. Looking forward to general hints and tips as well as comments on more serious errors I might have missed.

Thanks, Anothroskon (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton: A few comments, not a full review, unfortunately:-

• A disambiguation link needs fixing (click on link in box top-right of this page for details)
• Dead links, refs [2] and [9]
• Some of your foreign language sources do not indicate the language used.
• Infobox confusion:-
  • "Total population" might be construed as population of Greece rather than of Greeks, so I think I'd change this to something like "World population of Greeks". But the question then arises: are the same rules as to who are "Greeks" being applied in all countries in the following list? For example, if 3 million in the US claim Greek descent, on what basis is the population figure of 1,350,000 arrived at?
  • "Regions with significant populations": first, you should specify significant Greek populations; second, what you have listed are countries, not regions; third, I don't know how you are defining "significant", but surely Turkey's Greek population of 2,500 can't be considered as a "significant" number (about one sixtieth of one percent of the world Greek population)? Same is true, I think, for all the countries in the list after Argentina.
  • Language: Greek – surely this applies to Greece rather than Greeks as a whole? Most of those outside Greece will speak the language of their countries of adoption?
  • Religion: "Greek Orthodox" is not a religion, it is a subset of Christianity. But I would question whether it is right, in any event, to assume that all Greeks, anywhere in the world, adhere to the Orthodox Church, even nominally. Most French people are Roman Coatholics, but some aren't.
  • Footnote confusion: in the infobox you are using a, b, c etc for footnotes. In the main text your first footnote is "1", but for your second you use "a", which means there are two footnotes marked "a" in the article.
  • Finally, is this the right infobox for the lead? It seems to me that the box in the Identity section, (together with the four photos) should be the lead infobox, with the population statistics incorporated somewhere else. Think about it.

Sorry I don't at present have time for more comments, but I hope these remarks are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Brian, thank you very much for taking the time to read through the article and make the above comments. I will begin implementing them presently. Again thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Siege of Damascus (634)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it for feature article nomination, i need all types of comments and suggestion that would help me to further improve this article so that it may pass the feature article criteria.

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Please alphabetize your references.
  • As I pointed out in the Yarmuk article, using Gibbon is not using the best quality sources. He's out of date, and at this point should only be used as a source for articles about the history of history.
  • Also, you've managled the Gibbon, it should be "Gibbon, Edward (revised by Henry Hart Milman). Although I'm not sure how much "revision" happened, as it doesn't look any different than a scan of a much earlier printing of the work (Victorian era, I'd guess.) Milman died in 1868, so this isn't a significant recent revision

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• wht should i do ? except for gibbon there is no other source tht illustrates siege of damascus in such a detail.

by the way almost all the references given to gibbon in the article are further supported by modern sources, so is it all right using gibbon since wht ever he stated is now supported by modern historians as well.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BirgitteSB

• General: I found this article to be interesting and informative, but it still needs work. This needs major copyediting. The grammar is often strange (Early Muslim armies lack siege equipments and therefore usually avoided siege warfare until it was inevitable as in case of Damascus, Emesa and Alepo, during the conquest of Levant.) and in some places incomprehensible (Blocked of the city cut off the supplies of Damascus.). Some of the wikilinks point to disambiguation pages instead of good targets; all links need to be checked. Is it "Byzantine" or "Eatern Roman", pick on and stick with it. Also be careful that you use "Rashidun Caliphate" and "Rashidun army" consistently. Was the "Thomas Gate" called this at the time before Thomas made these significant sorties from it?
• Intro: Need to be a more complete summary of article per WP:LEAD.
• Background: While this is nicely informative of where the offensive action is coming from, it neglects to give the background of the Byzantine side.
• The siege: The tone in this part is too dramatic at times. Also this narrative seems to have been broken during rewrites and never repaired. A subsection begins: After all hopes of the reinforcement from Heraclius were finished, Thomas decided to launch a counter offensive to drive the Muslims away. The following morning, . . . No time is established as the day of this initial decision to put "the following morning" in context. This would be best fixed by moving further away from a dramatic narrative and closer to encyclopedic tone. Bulleted lists should be avoided and worked into prose. While the events of the siege are laid out chronologically there is little context regarding the timing. How long they waited for relief? Between sorties? One way to fix this is to change the subsections here to chronological labels if the information of exact dates is available (i.e. see Siege of Malakand). It would be nice if there were more information on events within the city. Can we discover what festival was being celebrated when the city fell? I'm confused by the pact of surrender. It is formatted somewhat like a quotation but it has two separate references within different parts. This should be clarified.
• Aftermath: This gives the near-term battles and the long-term campaign aftermath. But nothing about the aftermath for the city itself. How was Damascus administered in the near-term and how did life change for the remaining residents?
• Images: A map showing Damascus in relation to Antioch, Bosra, and Ajnadayn would be helpful. File:Mohammad adil rais-siege of damascus.PNG use a font that is too small to be legible and the key calls for a Black marker for "Besieging armies" that is absent in the map. Captions should put the actual picture in context rather than contain an ancient narrative under a modern picture. The caption about the city rising so that the wall is now only 7m above street level is really great, but check the others.
• Notes and References: I don't know a great deal about how to make these work but I notice some here do not add up. There is a note b in the intro without ever seeing note a. There was a reference that I could not match to the Bibliography (number 36). These all need to checked. It bothers me to have the Bibliography split labeled "Primary Sources" and "Modern Sources". "Ancient" and "Modern" would be better. These aren't exactly first-hand accounts given the dates 100-300 years after the siege.

Good luck.--BirgitteSB 22:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your excellent peer review and suggestion,

You wrote....

• The grammar is often strange........etc

Will fix it shortly..

• Some of the wikilinks point to disambiguation pages instead of good targets; all links need to be checked.

Checked them all, Thomas was disambiguation, removed it.

• Is it "Byzantine" or "Eatern Roman", pick on and stick with it.

Its byzantine now.

• Also be careful that you use "Rashidun Caliphate" and "Rashidun army" consistently.

i have worked on it, now using muslims and muslim army instead of repeatedly using rashidun caliphate and rashidun army.

• Was the "Thomas Gate" called this at the time before Thomas made these significant sorties from it?

yes it was called so, its after the name of one of the 12 apostles of jesus.

• Intro: Need to be a more complete summary of article per WP:LEAD.

done, please check it if its fine now.

• Background: While this is nicely informative of where the offensive action is coming from, it neglects to give the background of the Byzantine side.

Done.

• The siege: The tone in this part is too dramatic at times. Also this narrative seems to have been broken during rewrites ..........

Done, cant label it chronological as no fixed dates are available. tone fixed.

• it would be nice if there were more information on events within the city.

No info is available on this.....

• Can we discover what festival was being celebrated when the city fell?

Birth of a son to a high priest. this has been added in the article.

• I'm confused by the pact of surrender. It is formatted somewhat like a quotation but it has two separate references within different parts. This should be clarified.

Both reference gave the same text of the pact, i hv fixed them putting both of them side by side.

• Aftermath: This gives the near-term battles and the long-term campaign aftermath. But nothing about the aftermath for the city itself. How was Damascus administered in the near-term and how did life change for the remaining residents?

added info about damascus city's later life.

• Images: A map showing Damascus in relation to Antioch, Bosra, and Ajnadayn would be helpful.

will try to make one as soon as possile.

• File:Mohammad adil rais-siege of damascus.PNG use a font that is too small to be legible and the key calls for a Black marker for "Besieging armies" that is absent in the map.

I see on most of the maps tht front is usually of this size, making it bigger may be look uglier.

In the military maps, the key usually have a black and white image of the boxes that refers to cavalry and infantry (Infantry is shown by a black box, while cavalry by a half black and half white box), It wasnt appropriate to give both cavalry and infantry symbols on info box for a siege, so i put only one by tagging it as "Besieging armies", you can suggest me some thing rather more appropriate, it will be helpful.

• Notes and References: I don't know a great deal about how to make these work but I notice some here do not..........

done.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Fortress (Square Enix)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be PR'd and added to the Final Fantasy XII Good Topic in the next few weeks. There's not much to the article at the moment, but I suppose even short articles can use improvement. Thanks! --PresN 05:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Short and sweet. Some comments:

• Who's Tony Holmsten? The picture's caption mentions his name, but that's it.

• The external link to another wiki probably isn't necessary.

That's all I've got. An internet search didn't reveal much about the game, so there may not be much more that can conceivably be added at the moment. — Vantine84 (t – c) 05:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed and fixed, thanks. --PresN 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• No dabs or dead externals, and dates throughout are consistent—expected in a short article, but good.
• I added alt text to the infobox; check that it matches reality. :)
• All the "Square Enix"es feel slightly repetitive. Not sure if that's curable, because "Squeenix" is not exactly encyclopedic (lol). Minor anyway.

--an odd name 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems fine as a stub or start-class article. I have only a few minor suggestions about prose and style. You might want to bring the article back to PR for another look after the game comes out and there's more to say about gameplay, setting, characters, music, versions, and critical reception.

Infobox

• "Concept art made by Tony Holmsten, one of the concept artists for the game" - Delete "made"? Delete the second use of "concept" to avoid repetition? The altered caption would read, "Concept art by Tony Holmsten, one of the artists for the game".

Lead

• "Fortress is the codename of an unannounced video game currently in development as a spin-off of Square Enix's Final Fantasy series." - Tighten to "Fortress is the codename of a video game being developed as a spin-off of Square Enix's Final Fantasy series"?

Development

• "Preproduction work for Fortress began in the second half of 2008, outsourced by Square Enix to the Swedish developer GRIN." - Since 2008 wasn't outsourced, perhaps this would be better: "Preproduction work for Fortress began in the second half of 2008 when Square Enix outsourced it to the Swedish developer GRIN."

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! --PresN 19:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I've been working very hard on expanding, cleaning up, and adding sources and refs to it over the past few weeks, starting from a small stub. These changes have occurred since I began work.

I would appreciate any criticism, praise, comments, thoughts, copyedit suggestions, etc, that anyone has for this article. I'd like to eventually nominate it for GA.

Thanks in advance, I.M.S. (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Gongshow comments:

This is a very nice article. I would even say this article is slightly further along than Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One at the time when that was reviewed. Here are some (mostly minor) suggestions:

• Lead

• "late 1969" --> "October 1969". Also, per WP:LINKS, I'd remove the wikilink to 1969 (and 10 October 1969 in the infobox).
• "although not extremely successful" --> Kind of vague, I would reword slightly to specify the type of success; e.g., "although not a major commercial success".
• "critically well received" --> "critically well-received"
• "failed to chart completely in any country" --> no need for "completely"
• "after a two year absence there" --> no need for "there"
• There should be a comma after "Victoria".
• "#62"..."#105": I don't know if this is officially part of any guideline, and I see that some older GA articles use this format, but in my experience, the trend is to spell out "number 62", "number 105", etc.

• Background and recording

• "seriously, however on 4 April" --> "seriously; however, on 4 April"
• "an article was featured in New Musical Express magazine featuring his band, Maple Oak" --> "an article in New Musical Express magazine featured his band Maple Oak,"
• "He would take a more permanent position with The Kinks this time.[10] Dalton remained with the group until 1977, with the release of Sleepwalker." --> "Dalton remained with the group until 1977, before the release/after the release/during the recording of Sleepwalker".[citation]
• "The Turtles' next LP, Turtle Soup, with engineer" --> "The Turtles' LP Turtle Soup with engineer"
• "end to the notorious ban" --> I would remove "notorious" and briefly state why the Kinks were banned by the AMF in the first place.
• "While Davies was abroad the other members" --> "While Davies was abroad, the other members"

• Sessions

• "Once everything was settled with the group's lineup and business in general, Davies turned..." --> "With the group's lineup and business in order, Davies turned..."
• "a few months back" --> "a few months earlier"
• "a two week series " --> "a two-week series"
• "Sessions for Arthur" --> "Sessions for Arthur"
• "album would be finished" --> "was finished"
• "The Kinks would play a few small gigs" --> "The Kinks played a few small gigs"
• "but they would devote most" --> "but they devoted most"
• "Tapes for this record would eventually be delivered to Pye and Reprise Records, although it would never see" --> "Tapes for this record were eventually delivered to Pye and Reprise Records, although it never saw"
• "late-July" --> "late July"
• "A date was finally set for release of Arthur, on 10 October" --> "The Arthur release date was finally set for 10 October"

• Reception

• "with a double, back-to-back review" --> "back-to-back reviews"
• "and going on to state that" --> "and adding that"

• Singles and chart performance

• "#30", "#105" --> "number 30", "number 105"

• Bonus tracks on CD reissues --> When were the reissue(s)?

Overall, the article is informative, well-referenced, has a good flow to it, and should not require too much more to pass GA. Again, congrats on the good work!  Gongshow ^Talk 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! - I.M.S. (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K., done now. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

List of Canaan episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's good enough to be a featured list, and I'd like to get some feedback so that can happen soon. Thanks, Malkinann (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Most FLs do not have "this is a list of blah episodes". Try "The episodes of Canaan is directed by Masahiro Ando."
• 428: Fūsa Sareta Shibuya de has been wikified too many times - linking it once is enough.
• Choose between Canaan and CANAAN and keep it consistent.
• Please alternative text to the pictures.
• Pictures should not be restricted to allow for user preference.
• A DVD release table should be created. Look at List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes#Volume DVDs for an example.
• The publisher field of references should be filled in.
• Translate the titles of the references into English where possible.
• Please use reliable sources for the list. What makes the following sources reliable?

• "【TGS2008】「428 the animation」TYPE-MOON監修シナリオ、TVアニメに" (in Japanese). 2008-10-12. Retrieved 2008-09-01.
• "CANAAN (2009)" (in Japanese). All Cinema. Retrieved 2009-09-01.
• "428 ～封鎖された渋谷で～" (in Japanese). 2008-09-10. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

• Removed. Extremepro (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• "AT-X『CANAAN（カナン）』7月22日より放送開始。" (in Japanese). Retrieved 2009-09-01.
• "MOON PHASE 雑記 June 6, 2009 entry" (in Japanese). 2009-06-06. Retrieved 2009-09-01.

• Removed. Extremepro (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amazon is not generally seen as a reliable source and refs 16-24 are from Amazon. Please use publisher's refs or third-party refs if possible.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Extremepro (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Timothy Perper (talk · contribs)

The summaries are imprecise and need a lot of work -- see the Talk page for some examples. I can't do that since I have no idea what the author is driving at in a number of places. I also think there's too much detail, but that may be a matter of taste. It's a good first start, but it needs a lot of work. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ominae (talk · contribs)

I'll go and work on fixing the summaries, especially in reducing since they give too much plot IMO. I'm too busy attending finals right now, so this'll be done maybe next year. Same goes with the links provided by Extremepro. I remember the gpara and allcinema links are reliable are third-party; I remember someone telling me to use the latter and the former is a news site. For the livedoor blog and the moonphase one, I probably will have them removed. Ominae (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Nathan Drake (character)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am aware that this article is young (very, very young, as it was created yesterday), but I've listed it for peer review because, comparing it to other FA video game character articles, I believe it is close to the quality generally looked for. However, I generally have issues copyediting and finding problems within my own work, so I feel I need other, objective editors to come and tell me what is wrong with it ;). But really, I'd like to hear what others have to say about improving the article to that kind of level.

Thanks and Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the kind comparison to Master Chief, but I've been meaning to spruce that guy up for a while... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overall, a very good article, I'd say it's definitely GA-worthy, and quite close to FA off the bat. I'm pleasantly surprised there's so much info about the guy, but then again I don't pay attention to PS3 news :)
  • The prose has some issues with repetition and somewhat long phrases (using two words when one will suffice, etc.) An example is the second paragraph of the lead, where there's lots of repetitious wording and phrasing: "Naughty Dog designed Drake to resemble the heroes of Pulp magazines, novels, and films. In an effort to make the character relatable to players, they gave Drake an everyman persona, with his costume consisting of a white or black t-shirt and a pair of jeans. Drake's persona derived inspiration from a variety of sources, including Johnny Knoxville and Harrison Ford, with aspects from other action-adventure characters drawn from. The directors gave North the opportunity to influence the character himself, allowing him to ad-lib lines and influence the direction of the character as well. Drake possess a strong personality, and often makes wisecracks and quips during the game. The designers gave him realistic reactions to his environments, so that he stumbles while running, just barely makes jumps, and recognizes how absurd the situations he finds himself in are." Since this is the lead, you can probably condense this information a little more and streamline it.
  • Some accessibility concerns: we should give readers the bare minimum of knowledge to comprehend the article, making sure they don't have to link out of the page (following wikilinks) to learn necessary information. In that spirit, explain who Knoxville and Ford are (daredevil Johnny Knoxville, etc.); what the PlayStation 3 is, Lara Croft and Jones, etc., and not just in the lead.
  • Is that GameDaily mention really important enough to mention in the lead? I feel like the previous sentence is a better finisher.
  • Everything should be linked in the article body once, even if linked in the lead.
  • Who is Kory Heinzen? Naughty Dog? After you explain who they are, you don't need to keep saying "Naughty Dog staff".
  • Once you've said Nathan Drake in the body, just switch to Drake.
  • MoS stuff: There's some elements that need to be italicized (National Treasure, Develop Magazine, et al), and you've got curly quotes ’ in some quotations and other areas that need to be converted to straight quotes (find and replace works wonders here.)
  • If there's less than three sentences to a paragraph, it's not a real paragraph and needs to be merged (see last bit of development, etc.)
  • I'm not sure about "Hennig - "We deliberately costumed him very simply..." in terms of actual grammatical correctness and if this is an acceptable style for encyclopedia writing (plus, even I don't know WP:MOSDASH, this prolly runs afoul o' that.) I would just change it over to "Said Hennig" or something like that.
  • Outward appearance has another quasi paragraph, and I think would flow better by breaking up Hennig's quote. Star off with his shirt and clothing (the beginning of the first paragraph, then the third paragraph), and then talk about his face and his physique.
  • It'd be nice to discuss the dates of release for the games (in appearance or somewhere in the article.)
  • The merchandise and promotion section could use some beefing up with info from the latest game promotion, methinks.
  • The reception is a bit choppy (there are some incomplete sentences, such as "With Now Gamer claiming Drake as the new PlayStation 3 poster boy."
• References:
  • Current ref 21 has the copypaste code from G4 in the title (it's annoying, they must have just implemented that I think.)
  • If you're going to use {{cite video game}} without using the built-in quote parameter (my personal choice), I would suggest using quotes and em dashes to distinguish between the citation and the cited material (see what I did in Halo Wars for what I'm talking about.)
  • In terms of citations you're going to have to justify at an FAC... Joystiq, Kombo, CIO.de, Bitmob, vg247
• Images: Given that there's so little change between the final design and the game character, I don't think File:Nathan Drake concept art.png has much justification per WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'll take a look through my LexisNexis and Proquest subscriptions and see if there's any print material that might be used to add or verify things in the article. Send me an email and I'll reply with a PDF attachment (can't send attachments through the wiki-interface.)

Good work, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

YuYu Hakusho

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed YuYu Hakusho for peer review because I've tried to do extensive work on the article this past year. I'm relatively new to writing about anime articles, so I need some guidance. I lack pretty much any and all print material and have relied mostly on online sources for citation, so any feedback on how the article can be improved as is would be appreciated.

Thanks, Hibana 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2 (talk) The article looks very good, I'll see what else I can comment:

• The encyclopedia section from Anime News Network is not a reliable source since it's user edited.Y
• Urls from amazon contain unnecessary parts: for example "http://www.amazon.com/Yu-Hakusho-Spirit-Detective-Yusuke/dp/B00005T30G/ref=sr_1_6/103-3991382-5456658?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1194325422&sr=8-6" can be changed to "http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00005T30G/"Y
• The production section seems good so it doesn't seem to need the tag.Y
• Some references from the volumes need to be formatted in cite book template.Y
• In a recent GA, I have been told that Comipress is not a reliable source (though it wasn't discussed yet).

Comment: I've seen sales numbers ranging from 40 to 47 million copies, but all from unreliable sources. I will leave it until a discussion takes place or I find a more substantial figure. ~ Hibana 20:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some parts from the plot section seem unnecessary. For example, the first paragraph completely describes Yusuke's relationships. It could simply start with "In an uncharacteristic act of altruism, street-brawling delinquent Yusuke Urameshi is hit by a car and killed, saving a young boy by pushing him out of the way." Then, Keiko can be described when she Yusuke has to revive as she plays an important part in that situation. If some characters are not very important for the plot, they don't need to be mentioned here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• Add alternate text to the infobox picture. Y
• Translate references titles into English using trans_title, making sure not to use square brackets cause it ruins it.Y
• Refs 44, 46, 47 need to say that they are in Japanese.Y
• adjacent wikilinks as seen in Nielsen ratings and Cartoon Network can be misleading to the viewer. Rearrange the sentence?Y

Comment from KrebMarkt
About File:YuYu Hakusho volume 1.jpg and only about it.

• Can you explain why replaced Japanese cover with English cover? I wonder on which guidelines you made that decision
• The FUR is screwed up as it was suitable for the Japanese cover and not for English cover. So it will fail in case of a GA review.
• For information replacing Japanese with English equivalent or the reverse without proper discussion and consensus to do so can be now reverted since that discussion.Resolved. --KrebMarkt 10:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

Chronic periodontitis

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured article status (it is one of the most common diseases in the world!)

Thanks, Ashley Payne (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. A good idea is to check out other disease FAs to see how they are done, which should help you with referencing issues. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, contains much useful information about an important topic, and is coming from an author who knows a lot about the subject. Even so, it is not yet of GA quality, let alone FA, for several reasons. The main problem, as I see it, is that much of the article seems to have been written with a professional audience in mind. The cure isn't to speak to "the patient" from a position of authority but to find neutral, declarative, language supported by reliable sources. In the highly technical places, the cure is to translate, insofar as possible, into plain English. This is no easy trick, but I'm sure it can be done. Here are my other suggestions.

• You'll need illustrations for FA and probably for GA.
• The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.
• "Patients should realize that the gingival inflammation and bone destruction are largely painless. Hence, people may wrongly assume that painless bleeding after teeth cleaning is insignificant, although this may be a symptom of progressing chronic periodontitis in that patient." - Suggestion for more neutral (rather than judgmental) language: "Gingival inflammation and bone destruction are largely painless even when they cause bleeding after teeth cleaning. Although painless, the bleeding may be a symptom of progressing chronic periodontitis."
• The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The two most common solutions are to expand or merge. The "Diagnosis" section, for example, is much too short and could be expanded. Examples of how other editors have handled the Diagnosis section (and other matters) in FA articles can be found at WP:FA#Health and medicine.
• Although this article seems well-sourced on average, some paragraphs have no sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that might be reasonably challenged. The "Signs and Symptoms" section, for example, includes material that is not common knowledge, yet it is not supported by a reliable published source (RS). Your first-hand knowledge of the topic, although certainly useful in giving you insight, can't substitute for an RS. WP:RS has details.
• The target audience should be the general reader rather than the specialist. The language in the "Pathology" and "Microbiology" sections is highly technical, and it might not be meaningful to a general reader. Insofar as possible, it would be helpful to recast this material in ordinary English. WP:MEDMOS#Audience has general suggestions about how this might be done.
• Direct quotes are often fine as illustrations of certain points; however, they can be overused. The "Treatment" section in this article relies too heavily on long direct quotes. The quotes are from professionals speaking to professionals rather than a general audience; for Wikipedia's purposes, this is the wrong audience. Ditto for the long quotes in the lower sections.
• The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds six wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.
• The link checker finds a dead url in one of the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Marwari horse

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been listed as a GA and I would like suggestions on what needs to be done before FAC.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.horsemarwari.com/index.htm
      • This is run by Francesca Kelly and Raghuvenda Singh, two of the foremost experts on the Marwari horse, who also helped create the breed registry and work closely with the government to promote and protect the breed. Kelly has written a book on the breed.
    • http://www.endurance.net
      • Removed and removed the info associated with it (it wasn't that important anyways, and on a second look could be viewed more as a plug for one particular farm).
    • http://www.dnaindia.com/
      • This website is published by corporations that also own Indias top daily Hindi newspaper and an international cable TV station.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on sources, Ealdgyth, and thanks also for the dash and template tweaks that you made. Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is generally well done and quite interesting, it needs some work on providing more context to the reader and some language cleanup before it would be ready for FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I am not an expert on India, but I know a bit more on it than I do about horses. I think it would be helpful to more clearly identify the regions within India. For example, the lead sentence could be The Marwari or Malani[1] is a breed of horse from the Marwar region of India. This tells the reader a bit more about the horse and etymolgy of its name becomes clearer too.
  • Done.
• I think I might try to add a bit to the first sentence too - does it really follow this from WP:LEAD in its current state (or is it too short)? 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]
  • I think done. Is there anything else that you would add to this opening sentence?
• I would also identify clearly where in India Marwar is (perhaps in the lead The Rathores, traditional rulers of the Marwar region of [northwest?] India, ..., definitely in the article). Since Jodhpur is the chief city of Marwar and the region seems to also have been known as that (and the name Jodhpur is probably better known) it might help to mention that somewhere in the lead too (already in the body).
  • Done.
• I think I would also make clearer in the article where Kathiawar is - perhaps even give a rough distance between it and Marwar, so the reader has a better idea of the physical separation between these two similar breeds
  • Done, I think. I don't think the distance is really necessary, just that they were fairly close.
• Malani is given in the lead and the infobox, but not explained anywhere. My guess is that it is from another language or dialect, but it should be explained if possible.
  • I'm not really sure. This is a name that came up in a few sources, but none really explained the difference between the two names. I believe both names, as well as the italicized words, come from the Marwari language, but I don't know for sure, and I think that adding this in without a source would be OR.
• I would also identify all non-English words by their language if possible, so what language is Marwari from? or Malani? Or these four italicized words: "The Marwari often exhibits a natural ambling gait, close to a pace, called the revaal,[6] aphcal[4] or rehwal. .... Horses with long whorls down the neck are called devman and considered lucky, while horses with whorls below their eyes are called anusudhal and are unpopular with buyers.[7]"
  • See above.
• Slightly awkward - I understand what it means, but had to read it several times before being sure I understood: White horses are bred specifically for religious use in India, but are generally not accepted into Marwari studbooks. perhaps better as Although white horses are bred specifically for religious use in India, they are generally not accepted into Marwari studbooks.
  • Done.
• For those of us not sure of the subtleties of horse color names, could these be added to the captions of the four Marwari horse photos "A roan Marwari stallion" (or what ever it is). I also was happy to learn a new word - skewbald!
  • Added.
• Can conformation be linked or explained in The ponies were small and hardy, but with poor conformation...
  • Linked.
• Out of place chronologically When the Moguls captured northern India in the early 1500s, they brought Turkoman horses that were probably used to supplement the breeding of the Marwari.[6]
  • Fixed.
• There is a 300 year gap in the history - with the English love of horses, is there no mention of the English and the Marwari during the British Raj?
  • The Brits actually disliked this breed, and tried to wipe it out. I've added the info I can find here.
• Similarly, the British left when India became independent in 1947, so In the 1950s, the British jagirdari, an act that abolished land ownership by Indian noblemen and hence reduced their ability to take care of animals, resulted in many Marwari horses being sold as pack horses, castrated or killed. seems very odd - a British legal act in the 1950s in India? If it was an earlier act, why did it only adversely affect the horses in the 1950s? It is confusing...
  • Don't really know the answer to this, so removed mention of specific act.
• Avoid the use of vague time words like today in The intervention of Maharaja Umaid Singhji saved the breed [when?], although its purity is in doubt again today [when?] and Umaid Singhji's grandson, Maharaja Gaj Singh II, also worked to save the breed.[6] or again in Today [Since 1999], the Indigenous Horse Society of India is responsible for setting breed standards and maintaining the breed.
  • Added specification for first part, removed second part about purity due to vagueness. Removed IHS part due to it being superseded by new registry.
• In fact these two sentences are redundant and I think the first could go: Today, the Indigenous Horse Society of India is responsible for setting breed standards and maintaining the breed. [...one sentence removed here...] In 1999, Kelly and Raghuvendra Singh Dundlod, a descendent of Indian nobility, led a group that founded the Indigenous Horse Society of India, a group that works with the government, breeders and the public to promote and conserve the breed.
  • Actually removed the first sentence, rather than the second. The first has been superseded by recent registry shakeups, but the part about 1995 provides an important stepping stone to the creation of the registry.
• I would say this is in France The first Marwari was imported to Europe in 2006, when a stallion was given to the Living Museum of the Horse.[14] (Also the British were in India for centuries and never brought a single Marwari home to Europe??)
  • Added French, and again, the Brits disliked these horses, so I have found no mention of them exporting any from India.
• Another unclear place - what exactly is the Marwari Horse Society of India? Is it separate from the government (as the first sentence seems to imply) or a government body (second sentence)? In late 2007, it was announced that there were plans to create a stud book for the breed, with the Marwari Horse Society of India working together with the Indian government toward this end.[15] In 2009, a registration process was initiated, and it was announced that the Marwari Horse Society was a government body which was the only government-authorized registration society for Marwari horses [or just "for this breed"].
  • Clarified that (from what I can tell) the organization became a government body, although it previously was not.
• Awkward In a 2007 study, the Marwari was found to be the most genetically distinct breed amongst five of the six Indian horse breeds studied. The other breeds were the Spiti pony, Bhutia pony, Manipuri and Zanskari.[17] How about this instead A 2007 study of all Indian horse breeds except the Kathiawari found the Marwari to be the most genetically distinct breed amongst the five studied.[17]
  • Fixed.
• Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Thoroughbreds are linked twice in one section, for example.
  • Fixed that one, and didn't see any others.

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 _><>°^° 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Steve Dodd

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because: I would like to minimise prose and copyediting issues if/when at FAC; I have not previously written an article containing a filmography and want to be alerted to any problems with its layout; and I want to test views about the reliability of sources, given the purposes to which they have been put. Reviewers may wish to check my initial chat with Ealdgyth on the article talk page on this point. To anticipate one possible query about options for alternative sources: Steve Dodd played only minor roles on film and TV, so he is almost never mentioned in reviews or reference works. For example, I have consulted three separate encycopedias / books of Australian Television series, none of which mention his roles in the various series listed.

Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments: This is overall a very well-written and informative article, one that I would gladly support when it reaches FAC not only for its overall quality but also for what it says about Indigenous Australians and their historical plight through Dodd's career. However, there are still a couple of points to be addressed.

Lead

• My main point of confusion here is that you state in the lead that Dodd was born in Alice Springs, yet in the body of the article you mention that the actual city of his birth is disputed. If the latter is the case, wouldn't it be better to state his birthplace in the lead as the Northwest territory, as you do in the body of the article?

• Lead changed. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• You mention in the lead that Dodd had a role in the film Galipoli but you do not mention the film in the body of the article. Likewise, Dodd's role in The Coca-Cola Kid, which was, like Galipoli, released internationally, is not mentioned except in the filmography. I realize these may have been minor roles, but these are roles in films which some international readers may recognize. Mentioning Dodd's role in these films might give those readers additional interest in the article.

• I have tried to do this without going too far (bearing in mind the minor nature of most roles). hamiltonstone (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

• Since I am an American, I am not familiar with the Rough Riders Association. Perhaps a few words of explanation would help international readers?

• This actually proved difficult as the association appears no longer active. I've done my best by giving some background from a journal article. I don't think I can do any more without a visit to Australia's national library. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Airlines of NSW"—NSW means New South Wales? Readers not so knowledgable about their geography may not make the connection.

• Fixed. And this led me to spend my day on an article about the Airline, instead of responding here! hamiltonstone (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• This section overall is very well done.

Early career

• Dodd's being "a pioneering actor" may be a statement of fact but feels slightly POV as phrased here, without attribution. Is there w way to attribute this statement or, if not, to say he was one of the first Indigenous actors in Australian theater and film?

• Actually, I think that probably was my POV. This is one of those things I'm pretty sure is true, but i can't get the sources that clearly justify the statement. I've revised the start of this section to omit the remark. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• You bring us up to 1971 for Dodd's film career, then bring us back to 1966 to include his early stage and television credits. A coupe of transion words would help—"On stage, in 1966 Dodd performed ..." "Dodd's first role on stage ..." or something along these lines. The same goes for Dodd's television roles mentioned later in the same paragraph—a couple of words such "On television ..." would help.

• Done. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Overall, this section feels very through in its coverage. It kept my interest and also made me more interested in reading about Chips Rafferty, about whom I had no knowledge before reading this article.

Later career

• I've mentioned this already in discussing the lead, but a mention of Dodd's roles in internationally-released films could potentially increase interest in the article with non-Australian readers.

• I think I've done this as best I can. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• • See below. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• This section is a good start. It does not feel as comprehensive as Early career as it mentions only those roles of Dodd's that are connected with issues facing Indigenous Australians. What other roles has Dodd played, or in what other films? I realize Dodd may have worked primarily in minor roles, but I would still like to read more about the range of roles he has played.

• Agreed, and I've now summarised his later career (esp. 1980s) in a new para. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• • With the new information, this section reads much better. Excellent work. Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• One point I didn't mention before: The first sentence begins with "Despite this typecasting", and the last paragraph before the block quote begins with "Despite these roles". Did you want to change one or both of these to remove the repetition? Jonyungk (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• You are quite right. I changed both. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Television roles

• I was slightly disconcerted by seeing early television roles mentioned a second time. I realize these are different roles than the ones mentioned in Early career, but perhaps bringing all of Dodd's television work in this section would sidestep any potential confusion.

• You were right to pick this up. I took a different approach to your suggestion however, instead moving all of the television role text into the two career sections, making the entire account essentially chronological. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

One other question: Is there any information on Dodd's peraonal life other than what is in Background? I realize such information may be scanty, but it would be nice to learn a little more about Dodd in this article, if that is possible.

• Information about Dodd is in fact extremely scarce. I feel I have squeezed all i can from every source i can find that so much as mentions his name. I don't think i have located any other information on his personal life. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for an enjoyable read. Hope these comments help. Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

{{|page=WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Siege of Jerusalem (637)|date=2009-12-28T10:40:01Z }}

---

Australian Open Final appearances

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential for FL. I have expanded the lead, added references and changed elements of the list. I just need some general feedback on further improvements before I nominate it for FL.

Thanks, 03md 23:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Make the players sortable by last name, rather than first name. You can use {{Sortname}} for this.

• Complete for men, just need to do the women. 03md 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• If you plan to take this to FLC, you need to add alt text to all the images.

• I know about alt text and will do it soon. 03md 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Information in first and second paragraphs need references. Don't leave anything unreferenced. After all, a featured list should conform to all of Wikipedia's core policies, and verifiability is one of the most important.
• Clarify what "high enough world rankings" are. Try to give specific details whenever possible rather than being vague.
• You may have to rename the article to List of Australian Open Final appearances, per WP:LISTNAME.

• Renamed the article. 03md 15:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers and good luck with it :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

M22 Locust

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through a Good Article review and a MILHIST A-Class Review, and I'd like to take it to FAC when this Peer Review is over. Main concerns are prose, which is never my strong point, and MoS compliance. I also welcome analysis of my sources, although I'm confident that I've exhausted all available WP: Reliable Sources.

Thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/M22 Locust/archive1.

---

Marisa Wegrzyn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Something I made recently, has been featured on DYK, and I've exhausted my sources. I wondering what this takes to get to GA, whether it be prose, content, more sources, whatever. I'm working on getting a free picture.

Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

• The article is very short (350 words), and you should be looking to expand it. I will make suggestions where I can.
• Biographical articles nearly always have infoboxes. I don't like them myself, but it seems to be the convention. In this case it might add some weight to the article to have one, even minus a picture.
• Lead:
  • There probably isn't much more to be said, but it could certainly be said more smoothly than it is with these four jerky sentences. **"Future" plays? I think you mean either "later" or "subsequent", not "future".
  • Also, "two more are being written" is only true for the time being. You need a more general way of referring to her future plans.
• Early life:
  • Do we know where she went to school?
  • Do we know when she went to Washington University?
  • Do we know what she studied there?
  • Do we know who put her in touch with the Steppenwolf?
  • A brief description of this institution and its work would be helpful.
• Career:
  • Do we know what Wegrzyn did between leaving Washington University in 2003 and the premiere of The Barber of Baraboo?
  • The critics and/or journals that gave the various reviews should be identified in the text.
• Wasserstein Prize
  • Phrasing: "Wergzyn won third annual the Wasserstein Prize..."
  • Do we have any more writing history for Hickorydickory than the year it was started?
  • "never-produced" is a clumsy and contrived adjective. Suggest you rephrase, indicating that the play had not been performed up to that time.
  • Explanation required for the Second Stage Theatre, e.g. what is it, where is it etc.

That's all I can come up with. I hope this helps. There needs to be a link to this PR page on the article's talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

---

RAJUK Uttara Model College

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has gone through a major make-over but it needs more . i want wikipedia contributors to have a look at this article and provide suggestions regarding prose and other problems that the article has and also about what can be done to improve the article. Thanks, Souvik.arko (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by mcorazao

Overall a good start. Don't have time for a thorough review at the moment but here are some initial comments:

Here are my comments:

• Notability
  • The article needs to do a little better job of establishing its notability. For some topics the notability is pretty obvious but for a topic like a high school an article should demonstrate why this high school is one of a small percentage of high schools in the world that is significant enough to merit an article.
  • Ideally this notability should be established in the first paragraph.
  • Since a typical reader might be dubious about the notability it is good to explicitly mention an authoritative source that has concretely stated the importance of topic (i.e. not just a reference). Even better a quote from the source put in lead is good to establish notability.
  • Apart from quoting a paritcular authoritative source I would recommend trying to give references to more than one source when establishing notability so that nobody questions whether this article should exist (this is debatable; Wikiproject Schools seems to be rather liberal about notability).
• Additional content that would be desirable:
  • Student demographics - Is there information available about what the student make-up is like: kinds of or distributions of family backgrounds, etc.
  • Extracurriculars - The extracurricular activies discussions should be expanded a lot. E.g. talk about the history of the school magazine, how many students work on it, etc. Is there anything special or surprising about what it covers (does it just cover mundane details of student life? Does it do profiles of notable students? Does it cover events in the community? etc.). Tell us more about sports. Does the school compete in a league with other schools? What kinds of tournaments are there? etc.
• Copyediting comments:
  • The article needs some general polishing on the writing (I don't know if this is a more an issue of non-native English speakers doing the writing or regional dialects of English creeping into the writing).
  • The Bengali name should also be transliterated in the Roman alphabet and in IPA.
  • <ref>s should be placed after the period at the end of a sentence.
  • Terms like "viva voce", "secondary school certificate", and "quirat" should be explained, at least briefly. Such terms are not necessarily common knowledge to everyone in the world.
  • Avoid using symbols like ampersands (&) in the text. Explicitly write out "and."
  • Lists are introduced with overly terse headers, e.g. "RUMC aims -". It is generally best to introduce lists with complete sentences, or at least a reasonbly detailed phrase. If a phrase is used terminate it with a colon (:), not a dash(-).
  • There are spaces missing before parentheses in a lot of places.
  • There should not be any spaces between <ref> tags and the text preceding them.
  • Be careful about words like "wonderful." Generally unless the article is explicitly describing opinions of some particular source such words make the article sound biased.
  • "football,basketball, cricket, handball etc competitions are ...": Should be rewritten as something like "football,basketball, cricket, handball, and other competitions are ..."
• Other comments:
  • There are some very short sections. Ideally a section should have at least 2 paragraphs and — say — 8 sentences. If you can't come up with even 4 sentences on a subject then the text should be merged into some other section.
  • There are several big tables. It might be good to make the tables collapsed by default and make them floating (see Help:Table and look for "Collapsible tables" and "Floating table"). This makes them less intrusive and doesn't force the reader to look at them if they are not interested in those details.
  • Some of the detail in certain areas may be excessive (this is subjective, though):
    • Aims and beliefs. As it is this section seems unnecessary. Most of the statements in these lists are similar to credos of a lot of schools and organizations. If there is something particularly unique about RUMC's beliefs or how it applies them compared to most schools then this should be discussed. In such a context listing these out might be appropriate (perhaps as a collapsible table to the side).
    • Listing out each of the positions in the Board of Governors.
    • Uniforms. I would say 1) don't discuss this as a list, 2) cut back slightly on the detail, 3) discuss a little more about the motivation and the culture surrounding the use of uniforms.
    • Rooms in the campus. Describing where every room is located is trivia that almost nobody but people associated with the school would care about.
  • Be careful about lists. Wikipedia tends to disdain lists in articles in favor of simply talking about what you need to in the prose. For example, in the School events and programs section it would be preferable to simply discuss the different activities in a series of paragraphs rather than have a list (it's not even clear what some of these in the list are).

You might want to use an article like Amador Valley High School as a model.

Hope this helps.

Mcorazao (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Theoren Fleury

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The latest in my (unofficial) quest to bring every article related to Calgary hockey to FA status. As always, prose quality is something I am looking for feedback on, as well as an outside opinion on whether I've given all aspects of Fleury's life and career fair treatment. It's a complicated article, dealing with not only a standout hockey career, but also sexual abuse, substance abuse, attempted suicide and redemption. As such, thoughts on how well I've balanced the human story and the hockey story would be appreciated.

Thanks, Resolute 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • What makes http://www.pointstreak.com/ a reliable source?
  • Alphabetize your general refs please

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Pointstreak is a company that is hired by many professional leagues, including the National Lacrosse League and American Hockey League to organize and host league statistics and standings. And general refs resorted, thanks! Resolute 17:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This interesting article is about ready for FAC. The mix of sports and autobiography seems about right; the article appears to be comprehensive, stable, neutral, and verifiable, and I think the images are sufficient. I made a fair number of small proofing changes, and I have other suggestions, mostly about prose and style.

Lead

• "a brawl that saw Canada and the Soviet Union disqualified from the 1987 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships" - Since brawls don't literally see, perhaps "a brawl that led to the disqualification of Canada and the Soviet Union..."?
• "He battled drug and alcohol addictions throughout his career, which ultimately forced him out of the NHL in 2003." - To get the modifier and thing modified together in this sentence, perhaps "Throughout his career he battled drug and alcohol addictions that ultimately forced..."?

Early life

• "Fleury was born on June 29, 1968, in Oxbow, Saskatchewan, Canada, the first of Wally and Donna Fleury's three sons." - I think it's generally better to juxtapose the modifier and the thing modified. I'd incline toward "Fleury, the first of Wally and Donna Fleury's three sons, was born on June 29, 1968, in Oxbow, Saskatchewan, Canada." Otherwise it reads as though Canada was the first of three sons.
• "He attended mass from age six to 12, serving as an altar boy until the church's priest died of a heart attack, depriving Fleury of one of his earliest positive influences." - Numbers smaller than 10 are usually written as words; however, WP:MOS#Numbers says in part, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty‑two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Since you've used "12" for the older age, I'd suggest using "6" rather than "six". It would be good to go through the whole article looking for similar situations.
• "who was working as a scout for the Winnipeg Warriors of the Western Hockey League" - Give the abbreviation (WHL) here too? I believe it's the first use.

Junior

• "In 1984–85 he moved onto the Moose Jaw Warriors" - Maybe just "to" rather than "onto"? Otherwise it sounds as if he climbed on top of the Warriors.
• "Despite scoring 129 points for the Warriors in 1986–87,[11] Fleury's small stature led many teams to doubt... ". - Since his small stature did not score 129 points, perhaps "Although he scored 129 points for the Warriors in 1986–87, his small stature led many teams... "?

Calgary Flames

• "He missed much of the pre-season with a stomach ailment, joined the team for the season opener." - Missing word? Perhaps "and joined the team"?
• "The Flames, who had been struggling financially and unable to sign Fleury to a new contract, chose to trade Fleury less than two weeks... " - Missing word? Perhaps "who had been struggling financially and were unable to sign"?

Autobiography

• "It is the second book about Fleury's life, following Fury, released in 1997, and which hid a lot of the problems he was facing at the time." - Delete "and"?

General

• Each book ref needs a place of publication.

Images

• Image:Theoren Fleury Vipers.JPG is licensed as "own work", but 39 kilobytes is awfully small for a self-made photograph. You might consider adding camera details or other information to the licensing page to explain the small size.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

---

University of California, Berkeley

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently served as the Universities Collaboration of the Month for almost a year while the moderator took a WikiBreak. Now that we've moved on to a new collaboration, I'd like some closure for the old one. Most importantly, what would it take to get this up to Good Article status?

Thanks, Mabeenot (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Technical comments by an odd name

• First, deal with the tags. In addition to the clearly bad cleanup and undue-weight tags, address the merge tag to make sure that the article is stable (see criterion 5).
• Check external links. I set the page to only show clearly dead links (ones colored red and orange) and there's a lot—it becomes hard to verify an article with so many. You might want to change the accreditation link to http://vpapf.chance.berkeley.edu/accreditation/index.html or one of its subpages; the rest are up to you. Try the Wayback Machine or WebCite to find archives of the dead web pages, and archive the working ones with WebCite to combat link rot. When you are done with those, check the boxes at the top of the page to verify the other links.
• Watch for dab links and links that "loop back" to the article. Replace instances of these links with more specific ones. You don't want to confuse readers who follow the links!
• Add alt text to the images—if your article's reviewer can't see them, you don't stand a chance.

Good luck. --an odd name 22:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments. Not all of these will need to be fixed for GA, but here are some thoughts:

• I'd cut the lead by a paragraph; Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says four is as long as a lead should usually get, and I don't see any special reason this needs to be longer. I think the paragraph on rankings can be trimmed and combined with another para -- the school's reputation is certainly important, but the particular ranking institutions you cite are not all of equal notability or longevity. I'm not even sure the rankings are worth including in the article, except perhaps in a footnote to support statements about reputation or status, but that's more a matter of opinion, whereas lead length is a MoS issue.
• History, first para: this makes it sounds as though no UCal classes were held till 1873, but that can't be right. Do you mean that 1873 was when classes were first held in Berkeley?
• A couple of words about what the University Farm was would be good -- this was part of UC Berkeley, after all, until it split. It's not at all clear from the title what it is -- a farm run to provide food for the university, perhaps? (I read the U Cal Davis article to find out, but I shouldn't have had to.)
• The "Radiation Laboratory" in the article isn't described when it is first mentioned; I presume this was a lab that was owned and operated by Berkeley prior to the Manhattan project. A parenthetical clause saying so would be helpful: e.g. "...following Glenn Seaborg's then-secret discovery of plutonium, Ernest Orlando Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory, which had been established in 1937 as part of the physics graduate program, began to contract with ..." or whatever -- I just made that factoid up as I don't know the date or circumstances.
• You usually use "Berkeley" or "UC Berkeley" within the article, but I saw at least one "Cal"; I think you should be consistent throughout, and use one of the other two names.
• I would suggest getting rid of the "citation needed" tags before going to GA.
• The aerial view of the campus is a nice picture, but at thumbnail size it's of little use. I would suggest setting a pixel size; it would also be useful to find a way to label it -- those unfamiliar with the campus will not be able to make much of the buildings without a key. You could put some identifying description in the image caption, or add a diagrammatic version of the picture showing what is where.
• The architecture paragraph is out of sequence chronologically; it jumps back to 1873 after the first paragraph, which is a bit dislocating.
• The natural features section makes me wish for a map again.
• "There is ongoing construction to retrofit the stadium" -- to make it earthquake-proof, I presume, but it should be clear to the reader.

That's all I've got time for tonight; I will look at this again if I have more time. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see improvements in the articles prose, with an intention of taking to FAC.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • Italicise newspaper titles in your references.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did the only one. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that the language needs work, and that there are some other issues that would be problematic at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, but I would find someone to copyedit this to get things in order before FAC. I also have to say that I know very little about cricket, despite a few attempts by others to explain it to me.

• The automated tips tool finds some contractions and {{fact}} tags that need to be fixed.
• The alt text tool also finds several images that lack alt text - see WP:ALT
• The link tool finds that four links have gone dead and need to be fixed
• I am not sure of the Cricket article conventions, but I found it odd that in the Infobox it was Australia on the left and Bangladesh on the right, but in all the tables except one (3rd ODI) it was the reverse. If there is some good reason for doing this, fine, but if not I would make them all consistent.
• Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example All-rounder is not linked in the lead, but such a link would help for those who do not know or understand the term. See WP:PCR
• Watch imprecise language The series marked the first time a Test match had been played outside an Australian state capital city;... makes it sound as if every Test match in world history had been played in an Australian state capital city until now.
• This sentence is out of place in the lead Former Australian batsman David Hookes, indicated that Australia could win either Test within a day and Bangladesh did not deserve Test status. First off the article makes it clear that he said this before the test matches began, but in the lead it is the last sentence, making it seem as if he said it afterwards. I also think that the Pakistani reaction to his statement, as well as that of other Australians, should be given. Comprehensiveness is an FAC criterion.
• I think it might help to add a few sentences on Test matches to the Background section to provide context.
• Is "spiner" correct in Australia defeated India in the final, despite losing leg-spiner Shane Warne. Should it be "spinner"?
• I realize if you undertand cricket, this probably makes perfect sense, but again adding wikilinks and trying to avoid jargon where possible would help a lot. On a slow and low drop-in pitch airlifted from Melbourne a month before the match, Australia won the toss and elected to field.[5] Bangladesh collapsed and were bowled out for 97 within three hours,... For example cricket pitch could linked
• Direct quotes need a ref at the end of the sentence per WP:MOSQUOTE, so this needs a ref: According to Wisden, " ... Rain had had left question marks about the quality of the pitch, which looked green and enticing for the Australian fast bowlers."
• Is there any sort of analysis or reaction to the matches? What did the press in both nations say about the matches / sweep?

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 _><>°^° 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Flag of Japan

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to send this article to FAC sometime in the future. The last time I sent this article there, it needed some copyediting. Now, with the ongoing Flag of Singapore FAC, the standards of FAC have changed. This includes the alt text, which is something I am working on. The image sourcing is being taken care of and I think all of the dates have been delinked. If you have anything else, just let me know.

Thanks, User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • http://www.mopedronin.com/kimigayo.html deadlinks. What makes it a reliable source also?
  • What makes http://japan-world.iza.ne.jp/images/user/20070102/35233.jpg a reliable source?
  • I remain uncomfortable with http://flagspot.net/flags/ being used. It does list some sources, but it strikes me as a worrisome site to use, because some of the sourcing seems to be just to individuals. At FAC, I would probably bring this up and leave it for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but lean unreliable myself.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by an odd name—just curious.

• No dabs or dead external links (after some small edits)—good.
• The alt text for File:Flag of JSDF.svg, however, is confusing, if not wrong. It says "A red sun with eight rays on a white background. On each side of the flag is an inverted golden triangle." Are you using "side" in the polygonal sense? Either way, the eight golden triangles I see on the flag don't seem inverted to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
• Ref dates are consistent ISO style, and most (if not all) text dates are Month Day, Year—good.

If featured, it would be only the third current FA on an Asian flag—fourth if counting Singapore. --an odd name 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And that will be two that are crafted from my hands. I will fix the alt text now for that image. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I believe an archiving mixup has occurred. I reviewed this article on December 5, 2009, but the review has been archived as WP:Peer_review/Flag_of_Japan/archive1. Possibly I posted my comments to the wrong place; I'm not sure. The bottom line is that perhaps you did not see this review. It should probably become part of Archive 3. Would you like me to move it here via copy and paste? Finetooth (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that a lot of the things you have suggested have been just completed now or I fixed at the suggestion of other users. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'm moving it now. I left it in Archive 1 as well because I'm reluctant to remove anything from an archive. This is a messy solution, but at least the review will not be lost. I don't always watch my peer reviews closely after I've finished them, and I often don't know if any particular bit of advice I've given has been taken or not. I don't keep score, in other words. I just hope my reviews are useful. Finetooth (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any little bit is useful. I managed to make all the changes last night, along with adding a few more citations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is quite interesting and generally well-written. It seems comprehensive, stable, neutral, verifiable, and it's well-illustrated. I made a few minor proofing changes, and I have suggestions related mainly to prose, Manual of Style, and technical issues.

• The alt viewer here finds several images that need alt text. It is meant to help readers who can't see the images, including the flags. WP:ALT has details.

• The link checker here finds six dead urls in the citations.

• Image:服喪の町並み.jpg has a problem on its licensing page. The clickable source link goes to the image itself rather than to a web site with information a fact-checker will need in order to verify the license.

Lead

• Unlink "flag" and "Sun" since they are well-known to most English speakers?

Before 1945

• "Nichiren gave a sun banner to the shogun to carry into battle... " - Wikilink shogun on first use?
• "The earliest recorded flags in Japan date from the unification period." - It might be helpful to say what years the unification period refers to.

Postwar period

• "The Hinomaru was the de facto albeit not de jure flag throughout World War II and the occupation period." - It might be helpful to link or briefly explain in parentheses the two Latin phrases.
• "Despite what has been claimed, however, this was never used as a national flag for Japan during this time period." - Needs a source. Who made this claim, and who denied it?
• Overlinking: World War II needs to be linked no more than twice (once in the lead and once on first use in this section).
• "At a Democratic Party of Japan rally on August 8... " - Abbreviate here as well as spell out; i.e,, "At a Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) rally on August 8". The abbreviation by itself is OK on subsequent use.
• "a photograph was taken of a banner that was hanging down from a ceiling" - Tighten by deleting "down"?
• "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party and party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, saying this act by the DPJ was not forgivable." - Suggestion: "This infuriated the governing party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the party president (and also prime minister) Taro Aso, who said that this act by the DPJ was not forgivable."

Design

• "the total size of the hoist length" - Explain or link "hoist length"?
• "The disc is decreed to be in the center, but is usually placed one-hundredth (1/100) of the flag width towards the hoist." - Why this very precise number? Is it significant in some way?
• "The overall ratio of the flag was changed to two units length by three units width (2:3)." - Earlier you use height and width but here length and width. It would be easier to compare them if you used the same words (probably height and width). From what you've said, the ratio changed from 7:10 to 2:3, if I'm understanding this correctly.

Present-day perception

• "In China and South Korea, both occupied by Japan during Empire of Japan, Japanese flags were burnt during protests against Japan's foreign policies or if a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo." - Verb-tense disagreement. Shouldn't it be "visited" rather than "visits"? Also, the sentence implies that the Chinese or Koreans burn the Japanese flag when a Japanese prime minister visits the Yasukuni Shrine, but in those cases aren't the flag-burners Japanese?

Use and customs

• "The flag is used as a good luck charm and also as a prayer to wish the soldier back safely from battle.　One term for this kind... " - Should the 　 be in parentheses" with a space afterwards? And again "the Kyushu Railway Company has displayed Japan's flag on 330 manned stations.[38]　" here?
• Image:Tokyu Bus 7707.jpg overlaps two sections. The Manual of Style recommends keeping images entirely inside of a single section.

Protocol

• "When flying the Japanese flag with that of another country, the Japanese flag takes the position of honor and the flag of the guest country flies to its right at the same height." - Misplaced modifier. The Japanese flag doesn't fly the Japanese flag. Perhaps "When people fly the Japanese flag... "?
• "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is preferred to burn the flag in private." - Suggestion: "When the flag becomes unsuitable to use, it is customarily burned in private."
• "It said that the sphere finial of the pole... " Wikilink or explain "sphere finial".
• "the black cloth that extends to the width of the fly of the flag... " - Wikilink or explain "the fly of the flag"?

Military

• "This is the only branch of service whose emblem does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard." - A branch of service is a "which" rather than a "who". Suggestion: "This is the only branch of service with an emblem that does not invoke the rayed Imperial Standard."
• "However, the branch does have an ensign to fly on bases and during parades." - Wikilink or explain "ensign"?
• "The ensign was created in 1972, which was the third used by the JASDF since their creation." - Since "its" creation?

Imperial

• "The standard of the Japanese emperor" - Wikilink or explain "standard" in the caption?
• Was there any particular reason for the choice of a chrysanthemum?

References

• Citation 64 should link to the source page rather than to a .jpg image by itself.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Giapo

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it needs to be cleaned up for wikipedia's standards.

Thanks, Lukejtharries (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Review by mcorazao

Theoretically an article is not supposed to eligible for review if there are deletion and notability banners on it but I'll offer a few comments:

• References:
  • A Youtube video in not a very good source. In this case it is both a self-published source and a primary source (primary sources are acceptable in limited cases but this one is plain bad).
  • I don't see anything in the MenuMania source except a listing of Giapo which says that 14 readers rated it well. That certainly does not back up its being "one of Auckland's Top Restaurants."
  • That leaves effectively just one source that has any real merit. Ideally it would be best to find hard sources (i.e. books). That's probably impossible since this is a new company so you should try to find more magazine and/or newspaper articles as sources.
• Notability:
  • The article really doesn't explain the notability.
  • The largest cone thing is really just trivia. The "top restaurants" thing is not supported by the references.
  • If it has achieved some sort iconic status what is the extent of that status and where is the evideence.
  • Is it notable because the customer base is particularly large (hard to believe)?
• In general the article is extremely low on content. What is the history of the company? What are the revenues. How many locations? etc., etc. etc. If there really isn't much to say then why is it notable?

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Qwest Field

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The writing needs improvement. Any feedback would be appreciated. It recieved decent support for promotion to FA but the writing was a dealbreaker.Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cptnono (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't realize that I need to wait 14 days. Apologies for not reading the intro closer. this needs to be closed.Cptnono (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:PR/V has people willing to do copyedits. I have closed this per your request - it would be OK to reopen this in 14 days - ask if you do not know how to do that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reopened the PR as requested. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Just to clarify, the primary goal of this PR is to get the writing up to the standards of FA. There has been another round of work done, but I don't want there to be any concerns upon its renomination. Any feedback is appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• DAB Links Fix this one

• Lead
• I'm unsure of the capitalisation of "Event Center" - Is this the name of the place or just a loose description of it? I say this because in the second paragraph it is uncapitalised and then capitalised again in the "Funding" section.
• "It has seating for 67,000 fans." - Is it necessarily "fans" or just "people"?
• I think "MLS" be written out in full the first time it's used.
• Funding
• 2%, 10% and 20% should be written out in full
• Construction and Layout
• "fans with disabilities" - Again with "fans"
• Surface
• "a 1 inch" - 1 -> one
• "The slope of the field towards the sidelines (called the "crown") was also reduced to prevent balls from running towards the sidelines" - repetition of "sidelines" also "crown" should be in italics rather than quote marks.
• Football
• "Qwest Field was again the site for their wild card game" - Term "wild card game" - Is it an actual term?
• "match up between the powerhouses of Sammamish" - "powerhouses" seems unencyclopedic

I hope these comments help. I'll temp watch this PR if you have any questions. CrimsonFox ^talk 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the help. The only thing not changed was [Wild card (sports)]].Cptnono (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Clarke Carlisle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe that it must be fairly close to Good Article standard, so just looking for any general comments and improvements that people might have to get it to GA.

Thanks, -- BigDom 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• One quick drive-by comment - "As of 2009, Carlisle lives in Ripponden with his wife, Gemma, and his two children" Stating "his children" as opposed to "their children" could be read as implying that they are his children but not his wife's (i.e. they are from another relationship). Can you confirm either way.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, changed to make it clearer. -- BigDom 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Pretty well done. Most of my points involve relatively small fixes. The main thing to watch is to be sure that the article makes good sense to readers who don't have a large knowledge of English football. Thus, be careful about using team nicknames, or too much association of clubs with their grounds. It is also necessary to have some clarity on the structure of English league football and the various name changes for the league divisions.

• alt text missing from second image
• Lead:

• General point: perhaps the lead is overdetailed. It needs to summarise Carlisle's career, but it isn't necessary, for example, to quote each transfer fee, the number of appearances for each club, etc. This information belongs in the body of the article rather than in the lead.

Taken out some details

• "He attained 10 A-grades at GCSE..." As the last person mentioned was the father, "He" needs to specified as "Carlisle"

Changed

• New paragraphs should always specify the subject rather than beginnin "He...", as do the second and third paragraphs. To achieve some variety of expression you could rephrase the opening of the third paragraph: "In August 2005 Carlisle signed for Football League Championship side Watford, for a sum of £100,000."

Done

• On the question of fees, does "before moving to Queens Park Rangers for a fee of £250,000" mean that Carlisle received £250,000 as his fee for moving? Similar query with regard to other fees mentioned in the text.

No, it means the new club paid his old club £250,000. I didn't really see the problem, do you have any ideas about how to make it clearer in the article?

• Football club nicknames ("Seasiders", "Hornets") are known only to the football fraternity and give a tone of sports journalism to what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article. I suggest that you don't use these nicknames or, if you do, initially identify the clubs which they are associated, and theresfter always use the more formal name ("Blackpool", "Watford" etc).

All chnaged to formal names

• "While at Loftus Road" requires a link to make sense and it is unnecessary detail in the lead. Why not begin the sentence: "Here, Carlisle won three caps..."

Changed it

• The number of games he missed for "the club" - would that be England under-21 or QPR?

Changed to Queens Park Rangers

• "thanks to an alcohol problem" is inappropriate. "because of an alcohol-related problem" would be OK

Changed

• Explain or link "free transfer"

Done

• Give dates for his first Watford season, presumably 2005-06

Done

• Personal life

• "From an early age, he was encouraged to follow Christianity by his parents" This sentence is not followed up anywhere else. Assuming he adopted these beliefs, are they in any way relevant to his football career?

Added a bit more

• "He is an ambassador for the Kick It Out scheme, which campaigns for inclusion and equality in football,[1] and he is currently on the Management Committee of the Professional Footballers' Association." These are interesting facts which indicate some personal breadth of character yet are only mentioned this one brief time, with no further details. There should be at least some indication of what his work for the PFA involves (and, indeed, an explanation of what the PFA is). I don't think that "Personal Life" is the appropriate section for this information.

Split an "Outside football" section into "Personal life" and "Other work"

• Youth career and Blackpool

• Explain what "Bloomfield Road" is, likewise "red card". Links should not generally be used as a substitute for basic prose identifications.

I think I've done this

(From this point I am saving time by doing minor fixes myself)

• Queens Park Rangers

• "The following season was riddled with personal problems for Carlisle, who had developed an alcohol problem, but continued to play for a number of months." Needs redrafting to avoid repetition (problems/problem) and better flow: "In the following season Carlisle developed personal problems, including an alcohol addiction, although he continued to play for a number of months."

Changed

• A footnote or similsr should explain the renaming of divisions in te Football League, or readers won't know what to make of Football League Championship.

Added a couple of footnotes

• Leeds United

• "...but was sent off..." Explain what this means – previously you referred to the red card.

Changed

• Elland Road: I emphasise that it is not a good idea to refer to football clubs by their grounds, as this information is only known to those knowledgeable about British football.

Changed it

• Watford and Luton

• "...did not book Carlisle during the match..." "book" needs explaining

Explained

• "but despite a man-of-the-match performance..." Needs clarifying if this is a formal award, and whether it refers to Carlisle,

Clarified it

• Burnley

• Why three citations to support his signing for Burnley?

Removed one

• Multi-clause sentence: "He stayed out of the team for the whole of February 2009, making his return to action on 3 March 2009, starting in the centre of defence in the 1–0 win over his old team, Blackpool, at Bloomfield Road." Needs splitting

Edited

• International career: Suggestion - there isn't really a "career" here. "International appearances" would be more apt.

Fair point, changed

I have done various minor copyedits which you can check out from the article history. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment (and anyway I'm away from 20th to 27th) but if you want to raise anything with me, raise it on my talk page. Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, very helpful. -- BigDom 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Peter Heywood

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Peter Heywood has been described as the third man of the Bounty mutiny – less well-known than Captain Bligh or Fletcher Christian, but with a fascinating story of his own that combines exotic islands, piracy on the high seas, shipwreck, capture, court martial, death sentence...and rehabilitation. His story throws some fascinating light, too, on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century. Comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Battle of Yarmouk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want to put it forward for the status of feature article. I did a mistake previously by directly putting it for tht status. I was given some suggestions to improve the article. They are all done now, so hows it look now ? any suggestion to improve it further ?

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You need more bibliographical details on the two Treadgold references, they should match the other references given.
  • Alphabetize your references
  • Note that for the Runciman ref, it was originally published earlier than 1991. You should note that the edition you're using is a reprint. Double check your other references to check this.
  • Your Elton ref is a review article of a book, this isn't the most high quality source available, suggest replacing it.
  • Your book references need publishers for all of them, at the very least.
  • Your ISBN for the Akram ref is incorrect. It's this work, correct? I'll note that this isn't exactly held by a lot of libraries, both editions only show one library holding each.
  • Using gibbon is not a good idea. We're talking a source that is over 200 years old, history has advanced quite a bit since then. Strongly suggest replacing.
  • You've got the wrong publisher with the Haldon isbn, it's Stroud, not Arcadia for that particular ISBN.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Done.
  

any thing else ?? الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• • You should wait for comments on the prose content. This may be a few days' coming. Brianboulton (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be waiting.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from doncram Just a quick comment: the lede is confusing to me. It includes "The battle consisted of a series of engagements that lasted for six days in August 636, ..... The Battle of Yarmouk is regarded as one of the most decisive battles in military history,[5][6] and it marked the first great wave of Islamic conquests after the death of Muhammad, heralding the rapid advance of Islam into the then Christian Levant. The last Roman-Persian Wars ended in 627, with Emperor Heraclius finally emerging victorious...." It seems like some reorganization is needed, or some transition. Why jump abruptly from talking about the battle in 636 to something happening in 627? Perhaps the stuff about 627 belongs in the separate "prelude" section. I believe there is a good guideline on ledes at wp:lede to help in the rewriting. Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

.

• thanks for ur comments, i hv removed it as it was already mentioned in detail in prelude section.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

.

• As I have stated on the discussion page Talk:Battle of Yarmouk. Why the total ignoring of John B. Glubb's THE GREAT ARAB CONQUEST? Before that book, hardly anyone outside the Islamic world, knew about Yarmouk much less carried about it? He was the first person who ever tried to make heads or tails out of that battle according to the rules of WP articles -- ie neutrality and unbiased. And this was back in 1963??? And their can be no claim that his chapters leading to the battle, the battle itself, or after the battle are not detailed enough. The chapter on the battle is 18 pages. And the type is small, unlike today's books. Just curious? I mean, historians have the right to disagree about the conclusions or facts of others. But they usually quote about the first book that gives in depth details about a battle and why they disagree with the author?--Jackehammond (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We didnt used it, is not becoz he isnt reliable, its because we havnt read it, the modern works tht we have read and used in the article must have taken their research through Glubbs's work.

So its fine any ways. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Mohammd, Glubb's book is 1963 and I believe is still a modern work. Most historians and authors of have used his research, but then basically plagiarized it to disagree with him. And those in the Muslim world who have done that (for example a Pakistani retired general) have done it -- in the opinion of many -- out of pride and envy and wounded dignity. They are upset that a non-Muslim did the best research on the first 60 years of Islamic battles and warfare. Similar to many historians today in the USA who are prideful and envious of the fact that UK authors can research and print better histories of the USA and its battles and wars. If you read the book, from a neutral and biased approach, I guarantee you that you will be astonished. I have re-read it two times, because it is the only detailed in depth book on that subject, even today. Glubb's map of the Plain of Mekka, at the time of Muhammd is one that many historians and TV producers have used without giving Glubb credit. Note, I have left more detailed information on the Yarmouk talk page. --Jackehammond (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

.

Dear Mr. Mohammand, I have read the whole article and looked at the maps on Battle of Yarmouk and it does a dis-service to the memory of Khalid ibn al Waleed. Khalid had by any shadow of doubt snatched victory from the jaws of defeat "twice" similar to the American Civil War commander Confederate General Stonewall Jackson. They Byzantines had the main Arab-Muslim forces "fixed" at Deraa on the Yarmouk River gorges and they came into the rear with another massive army to take what is now Beersheeba and then Aila and cut off Khalid and his forces, forcing them to fight with an army in their rear and in their front or flee east into the desert. Instead Khalid did a masterful counter march and defeated the main Byzantines army north of Beersheeba and then in another counter march back to the Yarmouk area before the Byzantines there could could do anything and then defeating that army. Sealing the Byzantines fate south of Taurus Mts. It was masterful. Not equal till Napoleon to some. And even superior to Napoleon and Jackson. But very little is known about the Battle of Yarmouk. It is like the Battle of the Red Cliffs in China. A brilliant battle, but little in the way of reliable records of the actual details of the battle. But instead of accepting that -- ie as Glubb did, while still praising Khalid as one of the greatest military commanders in history -- Muslim writers have decided to accept conjectures as facts. Similar as in the US where many writers, instead of accepting what happened at Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941, believe the Japanese success could only have been possible due to a massive conspiracy on the part of President Roosevelt and not the gross negligence and disobedience to orders, and writing different scenarios and conjectures as facts, claiming since there are no proof to prove that it did not happen the way they claim, then it is a fact -- challenging those that disagree to prove a negative. General Glubb gave glory and honor to Khalid, but stating the known fact, and what "possibly" could have happened at Yarmouk. Because along with Khalid's other military victories, he did not have to have conjectures to build his reputation. And sadly, in later decades, there will be historical researchers, who will come along, when political correctness and the desire to pander has cooled, and they will harm Khalid and his warriors reputation, by using the sources you and others are quoting to smear his reputation. Ignoring all other historians like General Glubb. Just as American Civil War historians, use "Gone With The Wind" as an example to smear some good American Civil War historians of the late 1800s. Finally, this will be my last message on this subject. I have seen other articles like these. And they seem to gain a momentum of their own that at the time are unstoppable. Anyway, I have some air to ground rockets, antitank missiles and an aircraft company I have to do some editing on that I have been requested to do. But I do pity the memory of one of the greatest generals in history: Khalid ibn al Waleed. --Jackehammond (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

.

---

Bizenghast

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it recently achieved B-class and I would like to know how it can be further improved. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

comments from Casliber

Intriguing title and subject...must go and read it...anyway, back to some notes:

• The name and plot outline suggest a strong influence of Gormenghast. Surely this has been mentioned in some source or other? The Development could be expanded if material is available and para 2 looks like it should be mentioned somewhere in para 1 (i.e. earlier in the page)

• When M. Alice LeGrow is mentioned, a few words about her nationality and occupation would be helpful.

• Multiple books based on Bizenghast have been released. - just state the number here, if known.

More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the article.

• I haven't seen Gormenghast listed as an influence so far, but it seems possible, especially since the titles are so similar. Not sure what to do with para 2 in Development, since Ms. LeGrow hasn't exactly decided what to do with the series after the 7th volume. Sadly.
• She's an American writer/mangaka (manga author)
• Done.

Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Lightning Bar

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take the poor pony to FAC at some point, but would like to make sure it's not full of horseperson's jargon or glaring ommissions that make it difficult to comprehend for the non-specialist. I'd also like feedback on any and all prose issues. Thanks!

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is interesting to this reader, who knows little about horses but is learning. To be considered comprehensive, the article might need a few more details about Pollard and Parker as well as quarter horses in general. The link to American Quarter Horse is helpful, but it might also be nice, for example, to learn without clicking that these horses excel at sprinting. I wondered if that quality (rapid acceleration and short bursts of high speed) makes them good at roping or whether Lightning Bar was simply unusually versatile. If you take this to FAC, the shortness of the article and its small number of references is sure to raise questions, and adding more sourced background for the general reader might be one way to address this.

Lead

• Should Lightning Bar's life span appear in parentheses in the first sentence?
  • Heh. I haven't on the other FAs on horses... think I should? See Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big issue, but it might be nice to include. I was thinking of human biographical articles, and I've seen the life-span pattern in horse bios like Twenty Grand (not an FA). Just a thought. Finetooth (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Bred and owned his entire life by Art Pollard, Lightning Bar's sire, or father, was a Thoroughbred, and his dam, or mother was originally from Louisiana." - The "Louisiana" part of this strikes me as a little odd because it's not parallel to "Thoroughbred". Would it make more sense to say "a daughter of a Thoroughbred stallion, Doc Horn"?
  • Clarified in the body and the lead that Louisiana was known for producing short distance racehorses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "he only sired eight crops of foals" - Wikilink foal?
  • done Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "American Quarter Horse Association's" - Add the abbreviation here on first use; i.e., "American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA)'s"?
  • done Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Early life

• "but injuries and bouts of illnesses kept him from racing past his two-year-old year" - Could this be altered to "past the age of two" or would this change the meaning? My thought is to avoid the repetition of "year".
  • Nope, it doesn't change the meaning and I've changed it.
• Would it be helpful to include a bit more information about Art Pollard and Dink Parker. Most readers will have no idea of who they were. I'm guessing that both owned ranches in Arizona and that both had significant experience with horse racing, breeding, and related matters.
  • It would if there was much available on them. They aren't in the HoF, so I don't really have much on them beyond that they owned ranches and raised horses. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "He was a sorrel colored horse." - I think this needs a hyphen; i.e., "sorrel-colored", or you might recast it as "His color was sorrel."
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Racing and show career

• "His total earnings on the track were $1,491 ($11,880 as of 2009).[4][2]" - The footnote order is usually ascending; i.e., [2][4]. Ditto for other instances in the article.
  • fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "His highest speed index, or compartive rating of his speed, was AAA." - Was AAA the top rating?
  • Clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "He did equal one track record for two-year-olds at Pomona Racetrack... ". - Perhaps include the location of the track; i.e., Pomona, California?
  • Did one better, mentioned that its during the county fair! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Breeding career

• "or the fee charged to breed a mare to him, was $250 ($1,982 as of 2009) but only nine mares were bred to him" - To avoid repetition, could other words be substituted for either "to breed a mare to him" or "nine mares were bred to him"?
  • I could say "but only nine mares were in his book." but that'd be jargony. Any suggestions that wouldn't be horse jargon? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a toughie. The best I can come up with is "only involved nine mares". Finetooth (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)'

I can't think of one either, and Roget was no help either. I think we're just going to have to have the repetition. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• "108 of his foals started races" - If you start a sentence with a number, it should be written out as words.
  • Changed to "Of his foals, 108 started races.." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "His offspring earned $1,163.32" - Rounding to the nearest whole dollar would be OK and would make this easier to read.
  • I'm loathe to, every penny counts in cutting, and it's expected to see the whole amount, out to cents. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• "Two stakes races were run in his memory" - I wasn't sure whether "his" meant Lightning Bar or Doc Bar.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Wikilink Los Alamitos Race Course and add "in California"?
  • Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Wikilink Ruidoso Downs?
  • Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

• Should the title be plural, "Notes", since there are two notes?
  • Fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations and References

• Citation 4 uses yyyy-mm-dd format for its date, but the first reference uses m-d-y. Pouncers will pounce at FAC and require one or the other but not both.
  • Template issue and it's known at FAC, so it won't get me problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "North Pomfret, VT" - I think the state names should be spelled out for foreign readers.
  • Hm. I usually use the official abbreviations, hasn't been an issue at FAC yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The image needs alt text.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Distemper" links to a disambiguation page.
  • fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • I've added a bit about roping needing sprinting speed in a footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

River Parrett

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been a fairly stable GA for nearly a year. It has recently been checked for broken & dab links & alt= tags added to images + had a thorough copyedit. I think it is nearly ready for an FA nomination but would appreciated any comments or guidance about what else might be needed. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. I wouldn't say that it's yet had a thorough copyedit, as I hadn't finished going through it, but no matter, I'll list my concerns here.

• The article variously claims that sluice gates are locally called "Clyse" (with a capital "C"), "Clyce", and "clyse".

• I have standardised these to clyce per OS maps.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The Drove bridge is the first and the newest road bridge to cross the river, and marks the end of the Port of Bridgwater." This stopped me in my tracks when I first came across it. How could it be the first and the newest? Then I realised that this is "first" starting from the river's mouth and moving upstream. I think that needs to be made clear right at the start of the Bridges and structures section.

• I've changed this to nearest the source.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a bit puzzled by the capitalisation of the bridge names. For instance, is the Drove bridge really just called "Drove"? Shouldn't it be "Drove Bridge"?

• Capitalised— Rod ^talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Response thanks for the comments - hopefully now addressed.— Rod ^talk 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• From the lead: "... it [the river] is prone to frequent flooding in winter and high tides." Perhaps being excessively picky here, but is it really the river that floods, as opposed to the land on its banks?

• I would have said the river floods and the floodwater then inundates the surrounding land - but I could be convinced otherwise.— Rod ^talk 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article, but I think it needs some work before it would pass FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are several FAs on rivers / streams, the two most recent are Columbia River and St. Johns River, both of which are somewhat larger than this, but still would make useful model articles.
• I notice this article does not have a Geology section, but I believe all other stream FAs have one. There are at least two places where geology is mentioned here, so that is a start, but I think the article needs more.

• Done

• Discharge is mentioned in the Geobox but not the article

• Done

• External link tool finds one dead link

• Replaced

• While this is generally nicely referenced, there are several places without refs that would probably need them for FAC. For example, the end of the first paragraph in Course, or much of the material in the Tidal Bore section, have no refs and need them. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

• Still working on this

• The lead seemed a bit sparse to me - my rule of thumb here is to include every header in the lead in some way

• Expanded

• I though the organization was a bit muddled - for example in the course section, there is a lot of history and floods. COuld this be in the history section instead?

• Some more moved to relevant sections

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, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your helpful comments which have helped to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 20:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  

---

2009 World Series

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on bringing it to featured quality and, with a month of winter break upcoming, I'd like to finish the job. The article has been modeled off of 2004 World Series and, to a lesser extent, 1926 World Series. I know the Aftermath section is in need of work, that's one big area for improvement. Beyond that, there was serious debate at the FAC for 2004 World Series (so much it was restarted) over the use of the fair use logo. What type of image would you use there?

Thanks, Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess what?... You're gonna get a review from me. It will take some time, and I'll go piece by piece, but as always, we work well together. Lol. Doing... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Series results that are written out are parenthetical and should be separated from the rest of the sentence by commas. Examples from the lead include: "The two franchises had previously met in the 1950 World Series in which the Yankees swept the Phillies, four games to none" and "The Yankees defeated the Phillies in 2009, four games to two, to win the franchise's 27th World Series championship".

• Done.

• I think it's unnecessary detail to have the Phillies' three previous opponents in the lead. The fact itself is notable, but the other teams aren't. I would move this to a footnote. Same with the Yankees.

• Done. Should I source this to the B-Ref pages for those WS in that note?

• B-Ref is always good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 4 does not verify the fact it's sourcing.

• Yeah, deleted. That was a left-over source about the "Turnpike Series" thing that you rightfully removed. As with above, should I source this with B-Ref pages?

• As per above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "and the series winning Game 6" - series-winning

• Done.

• "as a result of their 4–3 win" - since this refers to the American League, it should be singular, of its 4-3 win"

• Done.

• "only the third one ever"

• Done.

• "During the regular season, the Phillies led the National League East for most of the season" - I would say most of the year to avoid redundancy

• Done.

• The Phillies did not have the best regular-season record in the National League. They were the #2 seed, but faced the Rockies due to the rule disallowing first-round intradivisional matchups.

• Yeah... I have no idea where that sentence snuck in. This is the annoying thing about these large, constantly updated articles when you come in midstream. There are bits like this and the POV Game 1 summary that are just silly. Fixed.

• "The Phillies won that series ... They won that series by a dominoqq series score" - redundant, reword

• Done.

• "Carl Pavano[17]," - move ref

• Done.

• "Notable free agent acquisitions ... Another major acquisition" - redundant, re-word

• Done.

• "CC Sabathia had a strong season winning 19 games," - comma after season

• Done.

• "the Yankees all-time leader" - Yankees'

• Done.

• You use ALDS and ALCS without explicit definition. Same above with NLCS.

• Done. Left abbreviations even if they aren't reused for the infobox.

• Umpire should link to Umpire (baseball).

• Done.

• "The World Series crew had included at least one umpire who had never worked the World Series in 24 of the past 25 series, but following several mistakes by umpires in earlier rounds of the playoffs this crew did not" - there are some comma issues here, but adding commas in all the places they belong would turn this into a big run-on sentence, so I suggest the following: The World Series crew had included at least one umpire who had never worked the World Series in 24 of the past 25 series; however, following several mistakes by umpires in earlier rounds of the playoffs, this crew did not.

• Done.

• "Citizen's Bank Park" - no apostrophe

• Done.

• "1 p.m." - I think this needs to have a non-breaking space; it's broken on my monitor
• You have some times as above ("1 p.m.") and others like so ("7:00 p.m."). Consistent format.

• Done.

• "Prior to the game First Lady Michelle Obama" - comma after game

• Done. Also for the Jay Z and Mary J Blige events.

• "home-run" - no hyphen, and link

• Done.

• "and only three hits"

• Done.

• "seven Yankees' batters" - remove apostrophe, this isn't possessive

• Done, but that's not possessive? I guess being a member of a team isn't really being a possession, but they do own their contracts.

• "two homeruns" - home runs

• Done.

• "The stellar pitching" - POV unless it's referenced

• Done.

• "was quickly replaced"

• Done.

• "was relieved by David Robertson who walked Jayson Werth" - comma after Robertson

• Done.

• "The star of the game was Phillies starter Cliff Lee who, after giving up an unearned run in the ninth, finished with a complete game only allowing just the one run on six hits and striking out ten batters, not walking any of the hitters he faced, and making some notable fielding plays." - several issues:

• "star of the game" is POV unless sourced
• "giving up", which is used a lot, is a bit jargony
• "only allowing just the one run"
• "notable fielding plays" needs a ref.

• Fixed. I can't find any real sourcing on the fielding. He made that one impressive grab where he nonchalantly lobbed the ball to first, but that's the only thing I can even find a mention of.

• In the "Game 2" section, I've encountered the first of a lot of severe overlinking. I noticed this before during the series but nothing was done about it since that time. I'm not going to go through player by player and find them all; I'll leave that task to you. Suffice it to say, however, that players shouldn't be linked more than once in the "Series" section, and that, after their first mention, using last names is probably enough, since I don't think there are any players between the teams who have the same surname.

• Shouldn't they be linked once per game, not just once in the Series section overall? That's how I'd been trying to format it on purpose. That way the individual games are readable. Doesn't seem like overlinking to me.

• I don't think so. WP:LINK says "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including... where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." I don't believe that these are far enough apart, considering the length of the game summaries, to be considered "a long way from the first".

• I'm doing this per 2004 World Series. Jason Varitek, for example, is linked in multiple games. Heck Renteria is linked twice in Game 1. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no FAC reviewer; I'm just saying what I think. Feel free to implement my suggestions or not at your leisure. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hope you won't oppose at FAC over this in a few days! :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I stick to FLC... FAC scares me. I went through one attempted candidacy, and now I just stick to GAs. What does that tell you? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• "and a part of the two teams' long standing rivalry" - I don't think "rivalry" needs to be linked again.

• Done.

• "With Melky Cabrera at second base and Posada at first, Johnny Damon hit"

• Done.

• "first base umpire" - first-base is a compound adjective here, so it should be hyphenated

• Done.

• "Ultimately Rivera threw 39 pitches" - comma after "Ultimately"

• Done.

My review is complete through Game 2; I'll return for further issues later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Is aftermath the best title for the heading? Aftermath makes me think of a tragic event, which may be true in the eyes of the Phillies fans. Suggest a better title, perhaps follow up? I am not sure, not a big deal either way. Dincher (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Remarks from Nosleep

• Most images have alt text - the logo in the infobox lacks it, as does File:New York Yankees 2009 World Series Champions.jpg. I would suggest adding handedness (where obvious by the picture) and approximate ages of the individuals to the alt text.

• Added the alt text to those 2 images. The handedness I can try to add (certainly for pitchers throwing), but I dunno about approx age. Basically for everyone you'd say roughly 30 years old and be within 5 years, and getting any more precise would be a lie in trying to read those pics.

• Reference 80 (though it shows up as reference 75 on the checklinks tool) is dead.

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• the Philadelphia Phillies, champions of the National League (NL) and the defending world champions Suggest defending World Series champions as it's often a point of contention, major or minor, that the World Series really is the "world championship" of baseball, given that much of the world plays it and only two countries are eligible for representation in the World Series.

• Fair nuff. I would think the same kind of rules about color/colour for example would control here (from the viewpoint of the World Series and those involved it's a World Championship, even if the Japanese/Latin American leagues would disagree).

• Is it necessary to enumerate the teams' previous World Series opponents? Especially in the lead, which seems a bit bloated as is.

• That got trimmed down above. I think it's worth noting the hefty connection to each others respective divisions in recent past, and their immediately previous opponents just makes good sense IMO.

• They finished the season with a record of 93–69 (.574), six games above the second-place Florida Marlins. Presumably this is covered by an existing source, but my general rule of thumb is every statistic needs a conspicuous citation.

• Covered by the source right before, but I'll duplicate it.

• The Phillies won that series 3–1 and went on to play the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS This acronym is not used or spelled out previously.

• Fixed above.

• They won that series by a series score of 4–1 Score? Potentially confusing, as individual games obviously have scores, but does the series? I wouldn't say so.

• Further reworded.

• Is the whole of the third paragraph under heading 1.1 covered by citation 12?

• I hate that stupid sentence SO MUCH. It is such absolutely crufty, meaningless garbage. Deleting again.
• Also, added some sourcing for the rest of the other paragraph.

• position players Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira both had 30 or more home runs and 100 or more runs batted in (RBI). This sounds awkwardly inexact when dealing with only two people. Suggest more than 30 home runs (or over 30) and more than 100 runs batted in.

• The problem is ARod had exactly 30 home runs and 100 RBI. And that's notable because those are 2 pretty common cut-offs for a good season (20-25-30 HR, 100 runs, 100 RBI, etc are common benchmarks).

• Then how about the exact totals for both? position players Alex Rodriguez and Mark Teixeira had strong seasons offensively, Rodriguez with 30 home runs and 100 runs batted in (RBI) and Teixiera with 72 and 250. (since I don't know Teixiera's numbers offhand)

• 39 and 122 (quite good, though RBIs annoy me), and done.

• The Yankees defeated the Minnesota Twins in three games in the 2009 ALDS and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in six games in the 2009 ALCS Acronyms not used above

• Fixed above.

• The third paragraph in heading 1.2 lacks any citations.

• Added some

• The Phillies won the previous season's World Series against the Tampa Bay Rays, the franchise's second championship. The Yankees lost their last World Series appearance to the Florida Marlins in 2003 and had not won since 2000 against the New York Mets. The teams had previously met in the 1950 World Series, which the Yankees swept in four games. Uncited

• I'll cite the 1950 WS. But the rest has been moved to a footnote. I can cite this, as I said to KV5, with the individual series' if you think it's necessary.
• Nevermind, fixed.

• Joe West, Dana DeMuth, Gerry Davis, Brian Gorman, Jeff Nelson, and Mike Everitt served as umpires for the series. Umpire links to a glorified disambiguation page.

• Fixed above.

• Two different orthographies for "home run" in section 2.1 (two-out solo home-run by Chase Utley and he first left-handed hitter to hit two homeruns) which I'm pretty sure are both wrong.

• Both fixed above.

• The stellar pitching by Lee and Yankees starter CC Sabathia POV?

• Fixed above.

• The star of the game was Phillies starter Cliff Lee Lee has already been referred to earlier in the paragraph, plus "star" seems a bit POV.

• Fixed above.

• Why Pedro Martínez but Alex Rodriguez (the diacritic)?

• No reason, however that's the correct location of the ARod article. No diacritic.

• With Melky Cabrera at second base and Posada at first Johnny Damon hit a low line drive Cabrera is referred to in the previous sentence, no need to give his full name again.

• Fixed above.

• The Phillies scored first with Jayson Werth's lead-off solo homer followed by a bases-loaded walk and a sacrifice fly to make it 3–0 in the bottom of the second inning. Suggest solo home run, which was followed by for additional clarity.

• Fixed.

• He walked Johnny Damon who then stole second base. Needs a comma

• Fixed.

• Alex Rodriguez was hit by a pitch and Damon scored on a single by Jorge Posada. Rodriguez is already referred to in this section. Also suggest a transitional word, like was then hit by a pitch, which then needs a comma following it here.

• Fixed.

Will finish later. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually don't think I'm going to be able to get back to this. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 06:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks for all your work! I'll work on the Aftermath section and then start the FAC soon. I'll let you know! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Drug Discovery and Development: Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Agonists

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because we are a group of five pharmacy students who are working on this page as a project for a class called drug design. We would be glad to hear what other people think. We are from Iceland so English is not our first language.

Thanks, Hopur52009 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article and a good start, but there is room to make it better. So here are some suggestions for improvement. By the way, your English is much better than my Icelandic.

• 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 but the whole Structure-activity relationships section does not seem to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• WP:LEAD also suggests putting either an image or infobox in the top right corner of the lead - since this has many images, could one of them be moved up? Perhaps File:Acetylcholine nicotinic receptor binding.svg?
• WP:HEAD says that the article's section headers should not repeat the article title, and subheaders should not repeat the header above them (if at all possible). The best example of this is the "Structure-activity relationships" header, each of the three subheaders repeats this and should not (so the first subheader could just be "Muscle nAChR agonists"
• The article has many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded to improve flow
• Watch apparent contradictions and errors in the article - for example the lead says five drugs, but the article table in the Products of nicotinic agonist section lists six. More improtantly, this is just wrong It was first isolated in 1928 from the tobacco plant by German chemists, Posselt and Reimann.[6] - it was 1828 (100 years earlier) as the ref cited shows.
• Try to make captions more explanatory, so "Chemical structure of ABT-418" could be "Chemical structure of ABT-418, one of the first nAChR agonists" - many people look at the images first before reading the article
• Watch out for words like current as they can became outdated quickly - instead use things like "As of 2009" or "Since year"
• Refs are generally good - the article seems to be cited pretty much everywhere I would expect. However, the formatting of the refs needs to be improved - refs 34 to 38 are just URLs, 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
• Why is Epibatidine listed in the table when it is not a drug (or at least not used as one as of 2009)?
• There are lots of little grammar and other language errors that need to be cleaned up. WP:PR/V is one place to ask for copyediting help.
• The See also section is usually for links that have not already appeared in the article
• Article images need alt text for visually impaired readers per WP:ALT
• My guess is that this title was part of the class assignment - I doubt whether many people would type this in / look for it under this name. Could the title be simplified? Or have you made redirects from other likely titles to this 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 _><>°^° 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

---