Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2010

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.

---

Aspect weaver

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to pull the article to GA status and as-of-yet have been the only contributor to the article. I'm looking for comments on the overall style and presentation, especially with regards to WP:MOS. Primarily, I'm asking for a peer review to get a second look at the article before taking it to WP:GAC. While I think there might still be a little content left to add, the overwhelming majority of the topic has been covered so I think this is an appropriate time for a peer review.

One of the biggest things I want a comment on: I added a "sample aspect" in the middle of the page on the right side. Does this look acceptable? I felt it would be inappropriate to place the sample in-line with the text because it would interrupt the prose. However, I'm open to criticism on that view.

Thanks, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

* The alt text for the image is descriptive of the process and not the image itself. I was wrong in this case per Wikipedia:ALT#Diagrams

• DAB Links shows these three as problems.
• Link Ref 3 is broken
• This may be my inexperience talking but what are the little colon+number next to some of the reference tags?
• The word "Aspect" is repeated a lot in the lead, any way of reducing this? eg Does it always have to be called "aspect weaver" or can it be taken to just "weaver" some of the time
• thisJoinPoint and thisJoinPointStaticPart should be in italics not a different font I believe as you are mentioning the term.

Hope that helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 11:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. With regards to some of your comments:

• The colon+number indicates the page number in the reference at which the content is located. I used template {{rp}} which I found, though I'm not really sure if it's a good idea to use or not. I've heard comments from both sides.
  • {{Cite Journal}} has a variable for page numbers. I don't see having the page number next to the ref useful for the reader as they won't know what it's for before they check the references section anyway. It's effectively splitting the information up.
    • The reason I ended up using {{rp}} instead of {{cite journal}}'s page numbers is because the same journal is used in many places, but on different pages. However, if you think duplication of the reference is OK, I see no problem with ditching {{rp}}.
      • I think in this kind of case, where there isn't loads of separate page numbers it'd be okay, it'll only be adding 5 or 6 refs to the list. If it were more I would recommend a notes section with shortened footnotes
• With regards to thisJoinPoint and thisJoinPointStaticPart, these are keywords of the language. It is typical in publications that this formatting is used, and the article on keywords seems to agree, but that is by no means a high-quality article, so it's a bad example to point at. I'd be welcome to any second opinions on this.
  • Personally I think they come under Formatting and Technical Terms. Also, I'm not sure how useful they are in putting them in the article, they're very specific and I could almost see them being considered jargon if they aren't explained properly.
    • I agree with your assertion, now that I think about it, of the fact that this is jargon and needs to be addressed. However, on the topic of formatting, I still don't really know where to go. It almost seems as if there's a missing WP:MOS section about it. The articles Python (programming language) and Forth (programming language) are both GAs and seem to use the formatting I used (see Python's comments about if and Forth's comments about BLOCK). But again, "other stuff exists" is rarely a solid basis for anything. Honestly, I'm totally confused about this formatting now... I might propose a change to MOS because of this (and thanks a lot for bringing it up). In hopes of concluding this peer review without a massive amount of discussion akin to an RFC, I'll ignore the formatting issues and focus on addressing the fact that this is unexplained jargon, which is certainly an accurate analysis. Thank.
      • Yeah I understand the "other stuff exists" but that could equally be seen as working from example, and looking at better articles is always a good way to improve so I wouldn't say you're totally wrong in that respect. If you do propose a change, give me a heads up because I wouldn't mind seeing the result.

Thanks again, --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to comments and fixed my alt text comment, my bad. CrimsonFox ^talk 11:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to replies. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Also like to point out that not all the references that supply web links have a retrieval date on them, it's inconsistent. CrimsonFox ^talk 20:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Bristol Rovers F.C. players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on getting it up to Featured List standard, and I would be very grateful for and comments and suggestions that would help in this.

I've used the current featured list List of Gillingham F.C. players as a basic template, although I've only included players with over 100 League appearances, as opposed to the Gillingham list's 50. I'd be interested to hear from any WP:FOOTY members if they think this list should be expanded to include players with over 50 games played.

I am also aware that there should be no red links in featured lists, and although there are some in this list at the moment I am in the process of creating articles for all of them.

Many thanks, — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I'm not a football fan but have worked on a few featured lists, therefore I can only comment on style etc issues rather than content.

• There are only 2 references (Soccerbase & the Byrne book) & to get FL you would need to provide references for all players stats & for the information about seasons, grounds and records in the lead.

Ok, I didn't include this because the featured list I was basing it on didn't have them. I will do this though when I have a little bit more time.

List of Gillingham F.C. players was promoted to FL in 2007 - I doubt if it would pass now.— Rod ^talk 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The soccerbase references need to include details of the publisher (which appears to be the Racing Post).

Done, and converted to cite web templates instead of plain external links. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• The Byrne ref should be updated to the 13 digit format ISBN (which is 978-0752427171)

Done. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Grounds - why were they "forced to leave" Eastville? & 10 years "in exile" could be seen as being POV

Will look at re-wording or explaining these better

• Not sure if national flags should be included in the list - I thought this was discouraged, but not sure on that.

These are generally included in sporting lists, but I agree that they're not absolutely necessary. I'll wait for further comments before removing them though.

• The table is quite narrow (on my screen) & Apps. in the column titles could be written in full.

Done. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Should the last column be references rather than notes? & 5-16 put into a separate References section rather than notes?

Partially done – column renamed references. Will do a full overhaul of the referencing later on. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is unusual to see a link to a cat in the hatnote at the top

Removed. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Statistics are correct as of 26 December 2009" isn't this going to be a massive job to maintain for current players?

There are only six current players on the list so updating their stats isn't going to be a big deal. Players becoming eligible to be included doesn't happen all that often either, so I don't think this is a problem.

• There is lots of white space to the right of the table - could more photos (perhaps of the top 10 record holders) be included?

The problem here is the lack of photos available on a free licence. I will certainly have a search to find more pictures though.

Hope that is helpful - I think the biggest issue is the lack of references for the majority of the claims made.— Rod ^talk 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, it was very useful. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Just a few quick comments from my experiences at FLC:

• The lead needs inline references.
• The footnotes and references should not be all in the same section. See the way that notes and refs are separated here

I will overhaul the referencing later on, as explained above. Thanks for the pointers.

• Red links are allowed, as long as they are minimal.

OK, thank you.

• The alt text should help visually impaired users create a mental image of the picture so saying that it is a black and white picture of Dick Pudan might not be that helpful

Alt text is something I don't have much experience with, and I worry about making the description unnecessarily complicated. I've made the text of the Pudan photo a bit more descriptive now.

• Image captions aren't real sentences so the Pudan one doesn't need a full stop

Full stop removed.

Hope these help for now -- BigDom 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Al text comments:

Suggest for Dick Pudan image. A man wearing a football shirt with alternate light and dark stripes: his arms folded, standing in front of an indistinct background. He has short dark hair and a moustache. The alt text should only contain information that is in the image. The name, the club, etc. are irrelevant. See WP:Alt text for examples. Suggest for Geoff Bradford picture: A middle aged man wearing shirt, grey pullover and light grey anorak, holding a trophy cup. other people behind him, all standing on grass. Bottom right of picture cut off by a wall. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I've used your suggested text and also added another photo. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife I've started a very similar list at the moment for Watford, and just had a list promoted for the Seattle Sounders.

• Normally FLCs have one lead image, and any further pictures start in the section below it. See Premier League Manager of the Month as an example. I'd suggest having the one of Geoff Bradford as the lead image, and moving the other two a little further down so that they don't cut through the heading.

Done — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea to add the following to the top of the list:

{{for|a list of all Bristol Rovers F.C. players with a Wikipedia article|:Category:Bristol Rovers F.C. players}}

Funnily enough this was on there to start with, but I removed it following a comment above. I've put it back in now. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• MOS:BOLD suggests that we shouldn't use bold to highlight people in a table. Consider using a colour and symbol instead. See List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season for an example.

Highlighted instead of bolded — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Redlinks aren't a big problem. People will comment on them, but as long as you can justify why these players should have a wikipedia article in future it should be fine.
• There's no consensus about the cutoff at WP:FOOTY. It has come up in the past, but discussions usually end without agreement because nobody wants to change their list. I'm not sure how that would pan out at FLC.
• Might be worth wikilinking soccerbase when you link the racing post.

Soccerbase is just a redirect to Racing Post, so there's no point in adding the wikilink. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry that we didn't beat Bristol City the other week. A draw is as good as it gets for us away.

Hee hee. :-)

Hope (most of) that helps! WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Mary Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've been writing on this article since last summer and I'm looking to make this an FA soon. I haven't nominated anything since Vasa (ship), but I feel this should be my next one. I'm intensely close to the text so I'm not really aware of any glaring problems right now. I'd like to perhaps shorten the article somewhat, but it's difficult to know where to make the cuts. I hope I can get some useful suggestions for that and other things here, though.

Thanks in advance,

Peter ^Isotalo 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is an excellent article, and is very comprehensive and elegantly written. I particularly like the photos of the ship's remnants as they currently appear - my attempts to take photos of her when I visited in 2006 were frustrated by the windows of the viewing gallery being covered in the waxy liquid being used to preserve the hull! My suggestions for further improvements are:

Those are some very nice comments and they're greatly appreciated. And it's nice to hear that the pics are helpful. I've been fortunate both in finding works that others have found and in getting a generous donation from the Mary Rose Trust. And I shouldn't forget to mention that I've gotten a lot of help with copyedting from a whole bunch of helpful and experienced editors. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• There's a bit of repetition in some sections of the prose (eg, 'Constructing a warship of the size of the Mary Rose was a major construction project' - the second 'construction' could be omitted here)

   Done

• It should be noted that building the ship required skilled workers as well as high quality material. NAM Roger might have some material on the British shipbuilding industry of the period you can draw on if needed.
• "The average number of men on an armed mission" reads like the crew were on detached duty away from the ship; something like 'her wartime manning' might be more appropriate.

   Done

• "The English had around 80 ships with which to oppose the French, including the flagship Mary Rose, but were at a considerable disadvantage in the number of heavy galleys, the vessels who were at their best in sheltered waters like the Solent, and promptly retreated into Portsmouth harbour." is a bit awkward and unclear and might work better as two sentences.

   Done

• What 'scour pits' are might need to be explained

  Is "large underwater ditches" enough, you think? Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that "Henry Abbinett became the first person to actually see the Mary Rose in almost 300 years" in 1836 contradicts the earlier statement that she could be viewed from the surface at low tide up to about 1643.

   Done

• The 'Causes of sinking' section seems out of place - it would work better before the 'History as a shipwreck' section.

   Done

• The short para that begins with 'Finally, there was a vast collection of disparate' needs a citation
• The article should cover the display of Mary Rose and artifacts from her at Portsmouth. When I was there in 2006 the long-term plan was to have the hull set up so that visitors could walk next to it on a walkway while a replica of the ship as she originally looked was on the other side of the walkway - is this still the case? Her display next to HMS Victory also warrants mention.

  I almost hoped no one would notice that one. :-) You're right about the plans, though. There are articles on the Mary Rose Museum and Mary Rose Trust with some info on that, but I agree that there needs to be a bit more in this article as well. I'll need to revisit some refs no longer in my possession for that, though. Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Pea galaxy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm finished with all the text and pictures, so I'd like now to clear up punctuation, spelling etc and find out whether it's the required tone. I think it's a great article about something that is new to Science and has very little written about it. All the pictures ave permission (apart from one which is in the process. I'm happy with it, pretty much. Thanks, Richard Nowell (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is very interesting, and it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it, but it needs some more work to follow the Manual of style for Wikipedia. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• There are multiple cleanup banners at the top of the article that need to be addressed. Normally the cleanup banners would disqualify the article for peer review.
• The lead is too short for the length of the article - per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to four paragraphs. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article.
• Since it is a summary, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
• The first sentence of the lead has some issues: Pea galaxies, also referred to as Green Peas, are a rare type of low-mass, compact galaxy which is undergoing high rates of star formation. First off, since the name of the article is "Pea galaxy", should it start "Pea galaxy..." or should the article be moved to Pea galaxies? There is also a subject verb agreement problem here. Pea galaxies (subject) is plural, but "is undergoing" is singular. This could be fixed with something like Pea galaxies, also referred to as Green Peas, are a rare type of low-mass, compact galaxy which undergo high rates of star formation.
• Figures / images in Wikipedia are not usually numbered.
• I think it might be useful to start with the History of discovery section as it provides context for the reader.

OK, calling it a night - more in the next 24 hours or less Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Most of the points that you think might be addressed have been changed.

1) The History of Discovery was at the beginning, but then got moved to the end. 2) I agree with your remarks about the start. However this has been changed from what I originally wrote. 3) Style I will try to make more Wiki-orientated. 4) There are references and citations for every major, amd minor, point that needs it. Unless I am informed what exactly they want more referencing from, I am in the dark.

Thankyou for your review. I'm glad to say that all the pictures have permission and licenses granted, so that is one hurdle out of the way. There seems to be no-one to converse with.

And I agree with your grammar point. Richard Nowell (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You wrote Most of the points that you think might be addressed have been changed. But when I look at the article, the grammar problem in the first lead sentence has not been changed, the lead is still way too short, the history section has not been moved, and the figures are still numbered. What has been changed? If you are waiting for someone else to make the changes, please see WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

• Finishing my comments here. I have reread the article and think there are three major issues. The first is organization (already started addressing that above), the second is references (style used and relaibility of sources per WP:RS), and the third are some general Manual of Style issues.

Organization

• If the article had a complete lead section, then it would serve as a general introduction. I already mentioned above that I think it would make more sense to start with the history of the discovery. In fact I think I owuld start with a paragraph on the whole SDSS and Galaxy Zoo project, then go on to the discovery of the Green Peas themselves. I think the history section could end with the papers in scientific journals and then the rest ofthe article could be on the technical aspects.
• This quotation Dr. Kevin Schawinski, post-doctoral researcher at Yale University and co-founder of Galaxy Zoo, [noted? observed? said?] "This is a genuine citizen science project...It's a great example of how a new way of doing Science produced a result that wouldn't have been possible otherwise.".[2] needs a verb and could go into the Galaxy Zoo paragraph in the intro.
• I also note that the Schawinski and Cardamone quotes say much the same thing and both of them are probably not needed. In general there seems to be an over-relaince on extended direct quotations in the article - several of them could be paraphrased or partly paraphrased with smaller portions of the quote used. Quotations are copyrighted and so fall under WP:NFCC, especially 3a Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
• The article needs to be better about giving years - in the History section it would be useful to note when the SDSS and Galaxy Zoo started, when the first green pea was noted, etc.
• Another issue with organization is needless repetition. For example the abbreviation E.L.G's is given twice but only needs to be stated once after the first usage. Or spot the repetition here The Milky Way is an average [1][2][citation needed] spiral galaxy and has a solar mass of 5.8 × 1011. One solar mass (sol.mas.) is how much mass our Sun has and the Milky Way has around 580,000 million sol.mas.. ;-)
• Wikipedia's style convention is to not use periods after most abbreviations, so I think it should be "ELG" or "ELGs". The article on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey uses SDSS, as does the official SDSS web page and the Galaxy Zoo forum, so change the examples that use S.D.S.S.

References

• There are two major issues with references in the article: style (how the refs are done) and reliability (whether or not some of the sources used are considered reliable and thus OK to use on Wikipedia). Just like any science journal, Wikipedia has its own house style and articles and their references are supposed to follow it.
• Currently the article uses a mix of reference styles. Some are inline refs using the <ref>Insert non-formatted text here</ref> tags, while others are just external links. The external links should be converted into actual references - see WP:CITE.
• I see the article already uses {{cite web}} in places and that and things like {{cite journal}} could be used throughout. Please note that there should be as much information as possible given - so current ref three lacks a publisher (physorg.com) and ref 1 needs to somehow indicate there are more than just three authors (et al. works or listing them all) and needs an access date. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• Several of the links are to blogs and forums associated with Galaxy Zoo. I doubt these are considered reliable sources under WP:RS. For example, what makes this a reliable source? See WP:RS
• I would ask on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy talk page about relaibility of the sources, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• References usually go directly after punctuation, without a space.
• I also notice the article has some trouble with logical quotation - basically unless an entire sentence is being quoted, the period goes outside the quote marks.

Style issues

• A model article is useufl for ideas and examples to follow. There are many Astronomy Featured articles at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy that may be useful models. Galaxy itself is also a FA.
• The tone of the article is uneven - places are written very simplistically (explictly dividing by 4) where other places are at a very technical level. The article also uses you or your and we or our - generally Wikipedia is written in the third person.
• Problem sentence An average starburst Pea has a redshift of z=0.258, a mass of around 3,160 million solar masses, a star formation rate of 13 solar masses a year and an OIII Equivalent Width of 694å Starburst is a disambiguation (dab) link and needs to be fixed - the tool box in the upper right corner finds 5 more of these. ALso, I think the last symbol should Å (angstrom).
• I have run out of time - this should be enough to get started on some major cleanup work. I enjoyed the article and learned a lot about something I knew very little about - thanks and 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. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

>>>>Thanks for your comments. I haven't read them all yet, but I appreciate your effort. Unfortunately, I cannot use the History of Discovery section as almost all of it were referenced from the GZ forum or blog. These are unreliable sources as they can be changed easily. You can read the argument through the link below, although I am a bit strained. If people know that bit of the article is from those sources...Anyway, not for me to tell Wiki what to do and how to do it! Regards, Rick. Richard Nowell (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Pea_Galaxy_Flags

Later... Have changed some things as per your recommendations. As the History of Discovery has been jettisoned due to it being dependent on unreliable sources, some of what you have written sadly becomes extraneous. Have put in verbs where you wrote they should be. All but four external links now remain in the article. Kevin and Carolin are friends and have given me permission to use quotes from a press release. Trying to address repetition. Have tried to take out 'we' and put in the third person. Not sure what to do with the introduction to be honest... Richard Nowell (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I will make some more comments in a few days. Here are a few things that struck me on a quick look just now.
• The article still needs to have the lead expanded. Please read WP:LEAD for information on this. My rule of them is include every section in the article in the lead somehow.
• Quote marks should be " (double quotes) not ' (single quotes)
• Do not have external links in the article - convert these to references please.

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Walter de Coutances

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, as usual, I'm thinking of taking a bishop to FAC. Looking for wonky prose, spots that make no sense, and any missing context that needs explanation to the non-medievalist.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1 Generally excellent. Very clear and easy to follow. It seems very thorough and explains most of his life very clearly. However, some sections are a little too dense which makes them hard to follow. (I would count myself as a general reader but studied medieval history some time ago so I have a reasonable background knowledge.)

• "King Philip II of France demanded that Geoffrey's daughters be placed in the French king's custody, as well as the duchy of Brittany, which Geoffrey had ruled in right of his wife, be surrendered into French royal custody": is "in right of" the correct phrasing here; it doesn't quite sound right.
• "to arbitrate the dispute between King Henry II of England and his son, Richard, who was supported by King Philip II of France..." - what dispute? This section does not make it clear what the dispute was, only what the potential resolutions were. Is it connected with the dispute over the death of Geoffrey in the same paragraph. The whole paragraph is a little hard to follow. Why did Philip want the land and Geoffrey's daughters?
• "Henry rejected these terms, and neither Philip nor Richard would negotiate, even under the threat of an interdict" Who was threatening an interdict?
• "During the last 10 years of Henry's reign, only Ranulf de Glanville witnessed more royal charters, and only Wiliam de Humez, the constable, equaled the 16 charters that Coutances witnessed.": This does not seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, what is its relevance?
• "managed to secure a compromise between the parties": what was it?
• "At the council, Longchamp was deposed and exiled, largely on the strength of a royal document ordering the magnates to obey Coutances' if the archbishop's advice was resisted by Longchamp."; How did the documents lead to his deposition and exile? This section is a little hard to follow.
• "Most of his efforts ... under Coutances' successor Hubert Walter." This section is hard to understand. Not sure about the relevance of justices here - there undoubtedly is one, but it is not clear from the article. It is also hard to see the importance of this in terms of Coutances' life. Could it be spelt out a little more.
• "dealt with problems of administration and defense" In this article, should the spelling be "defence" given its connection with England?
• "Both the English and the French kings had required clergymen ... archbishop's punishment was valid." Again, this section is hard to understand and could be spelt out a little more. What does it mean that he was to be surety? Why did the king seize the lands? Why was this condition put into the treaty?
• What is the connection between Argentan and the dispute over the Bishopric of Sees?
• Also, why was Coutances so popular with so many kings? Why did Henry use him so much to begin with and why did he rise to prominence? It also seems that he fell out with Richard after the ransom; is this the case, and if so, why? And his relationship with John and Philip seems to have been variable. Could his relationships with these kings be spelt out a little more explicitly or commented on?
• He was obviously a very important man. How did this compare to other, similar, men, such as other archbishops or Hubert Walter?

Hope this helps! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with most of these (excellent suggestions thanks!) but the last two bullet points are pretty much unanswerable at the moment. There is no full-length biography of him, just a PhD thesis that I've not been able to get my hands on, and which would probably be iffy to use anyway. So some things about him just aren't covered in the secondary sources yet, unforatunatly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

---

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hoping to submit this page for GA status. Would appreciate any comments, edits or suggestions.

Thanks, Historical Perspective (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This seems pretty close to GA to me, so here are some suggestions for improvement, some with an eye to a possible later run at FAC.

• The lead might benefit from naming some of the battles they were involved in - I think more readers would be familiar with the names of the battles than particular campaigns.

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The dab finder tool (upper right corner) finds two disambiguation links that need to be fixed

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure headers follow WP:HEAD so capitalization of "Organization and Early Duty" should be "Organization and early duty" instead

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• It might be useful to give a few sentences on the outbreak of the Civil War and the call for volunteers at the start of the Organization and Early Duty section - see WP:PCR

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• These two need references His assumption of command, as well as the issue of new Enfield rifled muskets, improved the morale of the regiment. and the following paragraph The 21st, about 900 strong, boarded the steamer Northerner on January 6, 1862. The fleet transporting Burnside's North Carolina Expedition encountered harsh weather off the coast of Cape Hatteras. Prolonged poor weather and the shallowness of Hatteras Inlet resulted in weeks of delay as the fleet struggled to enter Pamlico Sound. Finally, just as most of the vessels began to run low on potable water, the fleet entered the sound and made for Roanoke Island on February 5, 1862.

Done, Historical Perspective (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs like current ref 50 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, sort of. I couldn't find any authorship attributed on the web page but did add the name of the homepage, i.e. the name of the "work" to the citation. Historical Perspective (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I also note the lead says they went from 1,000 to less than 100, but this is the first mention of the regiment's size and it is only 900.
• Battle of Roanoke Island section - there are a few things here that come up repeatedly.
  • First off the section never really says that they won the battle / took the island and its fort - it just goes from According to the regimental historian, the 21st Massachusetts was the first regiment to mount the earthworks of the fort, however the honor was also claimed by the 9th New York.[14] then the next thing we know The 21st took up camp in the former Confederate fort, remaining there for nearly a month. Make sure the outcome of each battle is made clear.

Done, added some explanation. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Second is there any more information on casualties - I note the Battle of Roanoke Island article lists the dead, wounded, and missing for the Union (if nothing else is known for the regiment, this could be cited). Try to make sure the casualties are quantified for each battle (this is done in some places like The 21st suffered 35% casualties during the Battle of Chantilly.[32] (WP:MOS says to spell out "percent")

Done. I'm glad you brought this up. Originally, I was tempted to list casualty data for each battle, but I wasn't sure if that would be information overkill. On your suggestion, I've added casualty data relating to each major battle mentioned in the article. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure if this will be a problem or not, but most of the sources are from the late 1800s. I am guessing there are more modern sources on many of the battles - a quick look at the title of this article on Amazon finds books published since 2000 on Chantilly and Burnside's Bridge, for example.

Somewhat addressed. I've added a couple citations from Bruce Catton, a more recent source. I can add more if this seems to be a problem. Historical Perspective (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC) ....Just consulted several more recent sources and added references. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (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 _><>°^° 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! A tremendous help. Historical Perspective (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of named waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We've listed this article for peer review because it is part of our continuing series of articles on Pennsylvania state parks. The original goal was to submit this to WP:FLC - it now has so much additional material that it might be a candidate for WP:FAC (so please weigh in on FAC vs FLC if you have an opinion). There are still a few things left to do for the article: alt text is needed on most images (would "a waterfall in a scenic wild setting" work for all?), the image map needs a few more links, and there are some duplicate refs that need to be combined. Other than that we have done about as much as we can here and would like some other editors' imput on the article. Thanks to all who helped pick the images used, and thanks in advance for any feedback, Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"a waterfall in a scenic wild setting" works for me. Dincher (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Much as I love the idea, the problem is that these are checked in FAC or FLC. Sigh. I have started working on the alt text. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Short comment: Wow, is this lavish or what? The shade of Cecil B. De Mille is green with envy. As it stands this could not be accepted as a List - far too much text. But—and this is a serious suggestion—had you thought of creating both a featured article and a featured list from this magnificent material? I'm sure it could be done. Please think about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. We are planning on getting Ricketts Glen State Park up to FA and much of this info would be used there. Dincher (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too - it is an amazing park and there is a fair amount of material that is not included here - for just one example, there are two more rock formations in the park (to the north of the waterfalls) that will be added to the Geology section in the main park article. We tried to keep the focus here on the waterfalls, but there is a 13,050 acre park around them. The problem is that I am not sure how to split the article. I can see the list, but what would the other article (FA) look like? Just on the waterfalls? Then a second main article on the whole park? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Terrific list, comprehensive, beautifully illustrated, filled with interesting detail. I like the addition of the film clip, and I'm thinking about how I might try something like that in a future article. The detail about the name origin of each waterfall is a nice touch. I made some minor proofing changes but encountered no serious problems with the prose. I think the Y-shaped nature of Kitchen Creek and the Falls Trail could be made more clear (or maybe I'm just missing something that's right there in front of me), and I think the map would be more useful to readers if it were at the top rather the bottom, although moving it might cause a layout nightmare. Not sure. Here are my thoughts in more detail:

Thanks, I moved the map to the lead and put the video clip first in Geology - looks OK to me, but would like to know what others think. The Falls Trail is a triangle-shaped loop (it includes the connector trail in the north, the Highland Trail) plus the 1.8 mile stretch between Waters Meet and Route 118. Will try to make this clearer, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the map at the top of the article. It is an excellent resource and it makes more sense to have it at the top. Dincher (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Geology

• "The headwaters of Kitchen Creek are on the dissected plateau, and it drops approximately 1,000 feet (300 m) in 2.25 miles (3.62 km) as it flows down the steep escarpment of the Allegheny Front." - The "it" in the second clause seems slightly ambiguous, although "flows" adds clarity later in the sentence, but perhaps re-casting would make the meaning even more clear. Suggestion: "The headwaters of Kitchen Creek are on the dissected plateau, from which the stream drops approximately 1,000 feet (300 m) in 2.25 miles (3.62 km) as it flows down the steep escarpment of the Allegheny Front."

Made the change, thanks for the suggestion. Dincher (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be helpful to add the end point of the drop? Is it the mouth?

I don't know where the end point is, but it's a good suggestion. We should define this. Dincher (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC

It is based on this sentence on page 6 here "The elevation drop within the Glens area is approximately 1,000 feet in a distance of 2.25 miles." I checked on USGS GNIS and both Lake Leigh and Lake Rose are at about 2200 feet, so the drop from them to Adams Falls (1214 ft) is essentially 1000 feet. The distance from Lake Leigh to PA 118 / Adams via the trail is about 3 miles though, and 3.2 miles for Lake Rose to 118 / Adams. Most of this is above Waters Meet - the steeper glen is the drop from Lake Leigh to Wyandot, which is about 600 feet in about 1 mile. I will try and make this clearer. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I checked the direct distance using latitude and longitude and it is 2.94 miles from Lake Leih to Adams Falls. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added a note with cahnges in elevation overall and within the glens. Also trying to remove the last vetiges of list-y-ness. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The rocks exposed in the park were formed between 340 and 370 million years ago... " - Geologists often seem to use the reverse of normal order for "million years ago" expressions. I'm not sure they always do or that it's necessary, but would "between 370 and 340 million years ago" be better?

made the switch to 370-340 Dincher (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "was fairly stable for its flow when it had a much smaller drainage basin, like Phillips Creek still does" - Would "as" be better than "like"?

as is better. Dincher (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Formations and falls

• "Wedding cake falls descend in a series of small steps... " - Perhaps "Wedding-cake falls" when the phrase is being used as an adjective?

Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I also hyphenated bridal-veil as an adjective. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

History

• "Ricketts also named the tallest waterfall and the glen it is in Ganoga." - This sentence reads strangely because "the glen it is in Ganoga" looks like an independent clause. Suggestion: "Ricketts also used the name Ganoga for the tallest waterfall and the glen it flows through."

Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "In 1889 Ricketts hired Matt Hirlinger and five other men to build the trails along the waterfalls." - Perhaps "build trails along the streams"?

Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "with three park employees carrying materials in on foot to stabilize the trail, fix steps, cut down on erosion" - Tighten slightly by replacing "cut down on" with "reduce"?

Made the change. Dincher (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Overview

• "Kitchen Creek flows through three glens in the park, which the lists are organized by:" - The clause beginning with "which" seems to modify "park". Maybe "Kitchen Creek flows through the park's three glens, which the lists are organized by:" would be slightly better.

Changed. Dincher (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "This is also the order that the falls would be encountered in for each glen while hiking north along the creek on the Falls Trail." - Suggestion: "This is also the order in which a hiker would encounter the falls while traveling north along the creek on the Falls Trail."

and changed. Dincher (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Glen Leigh

• " The Falls Trail by both of these northernmost waterfalls had be rebuilt in the early 2000's." - "Were" rather than "had be"?

"had be" is a typo, should be "had been" had been seems better than were to me. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a typo, but I think "had to be" was meant and sounds better to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Had to be it shall be. Dincher (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Huron Falls has a 90 degree turn as it slides down sandstone from the Huntley Mountain Formation." - Hyphen in 90-degree?

added the hypen Dincher (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• In the "Height" column in all three lists, "feet" is abbreviated as "ft", and in the "Elevation" column it is spelled out as "feet". I wasn't sure whether this was deliberate (for layout reasons) or accidental.

changed all of them from ft. to feet. Dincher (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

• This is a terrific map. As I worked my way through the article, I yearned for a map and was pleased, but a little surprised, to find it at the bottom of the article. I think it would be more helpful if it appeared at the top rather than the bottom. It makes a lot of relationships clear at a single glance.
• Shingle Cabin Brook does not seem to have a working link. Ganoga Lake and Kitchen Creek are redlinks.
  • Thanks, I need to write a Ganoga Lake article, and one on Kitchen Creek too. I think Shingle Cabin Brook could be a subsection of the Kitchen Creek article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

References

• Instead of "no author" as in citation 21, would "Staff" be better?

I know that for years and years the Sun-Gazette never included the name of the writer in the newspaper. I don't know why. They didn't make the change until sometime in the 1990s. I think leaving it blank would be better than including staff. I won't make any change at this point. Dincher (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed it, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Works cited

• In the Donehoo listing, maybe delete "Dr." and "ed." since Wikipedia generally doesn't include academic titles and since "ed." repeats "Edition"?

made suggested changes. Dincher (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

General

• I don't think the text makes clear where the Falls Trail begins and ends. Confusion might arise because of the fork in the trail above Waters Meet. Would it be helpful to explain that the Falls Trail is Y-shaped, like the three glens, if that is the case? A Y-shaped trail is unusual, I think; so is naming two forks and the mainstem of a stream the same thing, Kitchen Creek, although I ran into a somewhat similar complication with the "headwaters complex" of Tryon Creek. Would it be helpful to identify the two forks of Kitchen Creek by adding descriptors; i.e., the Ganoga Glen fork and the Glen Leigh fork? This clarification might appear in the "Overview" section and be echoed in the lead.
  • I like that. The Ganoga Glen fork was once known as the Pond Branch (as it came from Long Pond, now Ganoga Lake). The Glen Leigh fork was once known as the East Branch or the Sickler Branch of Kitchen Creek. The problem is I can't find these as official names on USGS GNIS or the PA Gazetteer of Streams. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They are most helpful - thanks very much. We will work on your points next, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much. I should be able to address them today. Dincher (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes that I felt comfortable changing. Dincher (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Splitting this article?

Our original intent was to submit this to WP:FLC. Brianboulton pointed out that there was too much text for it to go to FLC above, so I asked The Rambling Man (who has been one of the FLC directors to take a look). He agreed splitting it would help in passing FLC. On the off chance that it might be so text-y that it could pass WP:FAC with some imbedded lists, I asked SandyGeorgia to take a look, but have not yet heard back. Anyway, unless I am mistaken / surprised (and it can go as is to FAC), it seems we need to think about splitting it up. There are two possibilities that occur to me. The first and easiest is to make some sort of Waterfalls at Ricketts Glen State Park article out of the top part (History and Geology) and leave brief summaries of that material in the list. The second would be to make this into three article, one on the history of the park, one on the Geology, and one the list. This would then be useful with the main park article. My chief concern with this approach is that the Geology would be too dependent on one source. What do others think? I wish we did not have to split it at all, sigh. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait to hear from Sandy first. If she says "not likely" for FAC, I'd lean toward the simplest and easiest split. Another alternative might be to use all of the History and Geology in the park article and to drop the idea of three articles. I haven't read the park article yet, so I don't really know if the merge option is truly feasible or desirable. Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One problem is that the park article is still in need of a lot of work, but I know that Geology there would need to be expanded considerably (there are two more rock formations within the park on the Allegheny Plateau to discuss, plus a lookout to the west of the falls which poked out of the glacier 20,000 years ago). This History does not mention the lumber ghost town of Ricketts, or the ice industry on Bowman Creek (east of the falls) or the railroads or much on the lumber industry or the North Mountain Fishing Club or the new park HQ in the 2000s. This article focuses mostly on the waterfalls and some of the level of detail is probably too much for the general park article. I will wait on Sandy. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Waiting to hear from Sandy is what we're going to need to do for now. I don't like the idea of making three articles. I think working with this list to make it FL and the state park article to make it an FA is the best bet. Some information might need to be trimmed from here for FL purposes. That info can always be merged into Ricketts Glen State Park. My hope is that this particular piece will be judged as a Featured Article. Dincher (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy was not sure what to do beyond submit it to FAC or FLC and see what happens - see here. Here is the link to my question to the Rambling Man. Should I ask at talk FAC? Would it make sense to ask Brian if he has any more specific ideas on the split? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would make sense to ask Brian. Dincher (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked at the FAC talk page, here. See what happens. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) WT:FAC was all in favor of submitting it there (FAC) and renaming it so I moved it to Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park and did a quick check of all uses of the word "list" in the article to fix the obvious changes. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their help with this, I am closing the PR to take this to FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Tillson Harrison

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would someday like to take the article to FA. However, I realise the article has a long way to go yet, so I would appreciate all suggestions.

Thanks, JulieSpaulding (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a well-done article about an interesting person. I made a few minor proofing changes, and I have a few other suggestions for improvement.

Lead

• "Dr. Tillson Lever Harrison (January 7, 1881–January 10, 1947) was a Canadian physician... " - Wikipedia generally does not use academic titles like "Dr." in front of names but prefers a descriptive phrase after the name. Since you've got "physician" here, you could just delete the "Dr."
• "Enlisting in the United States Army at an early age, Harrison attended the University of Toronto... ". - This is startling because it's not clear how a Canadian attending school in Toronto can join the U.S. Army. I think you need to say something like "Moving to New York and enlisting in the United States Army at an early age, Harrison later returned to Canada to attend the University of Toronto... ".
• "such as the Chief of Medical Staff to Pancho Villa and the doctor for the Chinese Labour Corps" - Link Chinese Labour Corps on first use?
• I'd suggest dividing in two the long first paragraph after "Lod, Israel", and making this a three-paragraph lead just for readability.
• "Harrison was deported to Canada, but managed to jump ship in Morocco... ". - Since you link most of the countries mentioned in the article, I'd suggest linking Canada and Morocco here on first use. Generally, I'd suggest linking relatively familiar terms like the names of countries, World War I, and X-ray only once per article and doing that on first use, unlinking any that are linked on second or later use.
• "he travelled through no fewer than fifteen different countries and dependencies performing medical duties" - "No fewer than" is a bit of a weasel phrase. Is the exact number known?
• "he assisted in the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in China, saving many lives." - Since you use the abbreviation UNRRA later in the article, it would be good to add it here; i.e., United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). After that, UNRRA makes sense by itself.
• "By the end of his life, Tillson Harrison could speak no fewer than six different languages... " - Same weasel, "no fewer than".
• "had participated in seven different wars" - Delete "different"?

Early life

• "a town named for his ancestor George" - Even though we find out later that George was his great-grandfather, it should probably appear here instead of the more vague "ancestor".
• "became a local newspaper sensation after his attempt to 'ride the rails' to Cuba was discovered" - Two things. Wikipedia uses double quotes rather than single except in cases of nested quotes. More importantly, it's not possible to literally ride the rails from Canada to Cuba. It might be better to say "his attempt to travel to Cuba". Or, it might be even better to list his actual travel modes, if known; i.e., foot, bicycle, automobile, train, horse, sailboat, and dugout canoe. (I'm just making these up, thinking of Indiana Jones.)
• "At age 14, Harrison ran away to join the 22nd Oxford Rifles militia... " - Where did he run to? Where was militia headquarters?
• "to join the United States Army Engineers and serve as part of the peacekeeping force present in the Philippines after the defeat of Spain in 1898, and for a brief period to help put down the Boxer Rebellion in China" - Unlink United States Army since linked in the lead but link Philippines, Spain, and China since not yet linked in the article?
• "Harrison contracted cholera and returned home to Canada" - Tighten by deleting "home"?
• ". In 1909, Harrison fathered a daughter, but due to his restless nature... " - Perhaps give her name here on first mention: i.e., "fathered a daughter, Rosalind, but due to... "?

North American conflict and World War I

• "and was stationed at a French hospital, where he tended to the needs of the Chinese Labour Corps" - Where was the hospital?

Interwar period

• "The recently thrice-married physician's quick thinking prevented his new wife's broken leg from developing into gangrene." - Since the quick thinking wasn't thrice married, it might be better to flip this to say, "The quick thinking of the recently thrice-married physician prevented his new wife's broken leg from developing into gangrene."
• "but was captured and tried for breach of conduct" - "Breach of conduct" is unfamiliar to me, although I see what it means from context. Should it be "breach of acceptable conduct"? Or "wrongful conduct"? Could it be linked to an explanation? Does the phrase have a specific legal meaning?
• "Harrison posed as a Catholic " - Link Catholic?
• "After he was discovered, he quickly crossed to Wales... " - Link Wales?
• "Harrison worked in no fewer than fifteen countries and dependencies across Latin America and the Middle East... " - Same weasel, "no fewer than".

World War II and beyond

• "On December 4, 1946, Harrison set out from Shanghai with approximately fifty tonnes of supplies." - Would it be good to specify the final destination here and perhaps the total distance? Would it also be useful to include at least some of the sub-distances such as the distance between Kaifeng and Zhangqiu?
• "sent a letter to the Chinese ambassador with Harrison as the subject to mark the centenary of his birth" - Wikilink centenary?
• "his burial site is home to the Dr. Tillson Harrison Memorial School" - In what city?
• "In 1988, Harrison's remains were re-interred in a large tomb in a public ceremony, which many Canadians were invited to attend." - Re-interred in what city? Perhaps re-cast as "re-interred in a large tomb in X during a public ceremony that many Canadians were invited to attend."
• "became the inspiration for the highly successful Indiana Jones series" - Perhaps clarify by saying "film series"?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Finetooth. I will definitely take a look at the PR backlog. Thanks again for your fine suggestions! JulieSpaulding 11:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

The Avery Coonley School

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to continue to improve it and potentially nominate it for GA review if it has enough potential.

Thanks, Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written, stable, generally verifiable, nicely illustrated, and seems comprehensive. I enjoyed reading about this fascinating school. I think the article is nearly ready for GAN and has a bright future. The main problems that I detect are a tendency to stress the honorific a bit too much and a tendency to use educational jargon here and there; those tendencies roughly correlate with the internal or self-published Avery Coonley School documents. (Many of User:LonelyBeacon's comments on the article's talk page express similar concerns.) I did a bit of minor copyediting (such as adding hyphens to compound adjectives) as I went along; please revert anything you thing was an error on my part. Here are some other comments and suggestions:

• Unless "The" is part of the formal name of the school, "Avery Coonley School" would be a better title for the article. One of the guidelines for article title formatting says, "Avoid definite and indefinite articles: Do not place definite or indefinite articles (the, a and an) at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name (e.g. The Old Man and the Sea) or otherwise change the meaning (e.g. The Crown)." Since you refer to the school as "The Avery Coonley School" and "the Avery Coonley School" in the text, I wasn't sure which was the formal name.

Y The formal name is "The Avery Coonley School". The article is always used.

• The images need alt text for readers who can't see the images. Alt text should not simply duplicate the captions. If you imagine an audience of people who rely on a machine to read the alt text aloud, you will see how to write these. WP:ALT has details. The alt text checker at the top of this review page shows the alt text and the captions, and the pink boxes indicate that alt text is missing. I eventually noticed that you had written alt text but that the computer syntax was slightly off; it has to be alt= rather than alt = or it doesn't work. (This tripped me up too a month or so ago; that's how I learned to recognize the problem.) I fixed two of these and left the rest for you.

Y Done. Thanks. I would have never figured that out.

• The link checker tool at the top of this review page finds a dead url in one of the citations.

Y Fixed.

Founding and Cottage School (1906–1915)

• "Mrs. Coonley sought to enroll her four year old daughter in the Riverside School... " - Generally Wikipedia avoids "Mr.", "Miss", and "Mrs." WP:SURNAME has details. It uses full name on first use and last-name-only on subsequent uses unless it's necessary to use the full name to distinguish between people with the same last name. In this case, it makes sense to use Queene Ferry Coonley on the second use in "industrialist and publisher Avery Coonley. Queene Ferry Coonley had become interested... ", but after that "Coonley" would be preferred to Mrs. Coonley.

Y Done.

Junior Elementary School

• "Demolished in 1944, the land was sold and later donated to create what would become Fishel Park." - The land wasn't demolished. Suggestion: "The building was demolished in 1944, and the land was sold and later donated to create what would become Fishel Park."

Y Done.

Gifted education

• "The kindergarten reading program and was the first step in Avery Coonley's transition to a new focus on the education of the gifted." - Delete "and"? Or possibly a whole phrase is missing?
• "At the same time, the school began adapting the curriculum to the address the special challenges and abilities of gifted learners." - Delete "the" from "to the address"?

Y Deleted extra "and" and "the."

1929 building

• Wikilink ecosystem and Great Horned Owl and octahedron?

Y Done

• Academic program
• The capital letters in the Building Block paragraph seem overdone. I'd incline towards "building block", "appreciation of the individual" and so on, treating them as common nouns. Ditto for "drama program" in the paragraph above.\

Y Done

Technology

• Wikilink tablet computer and other technical terms like intranet in this section?

Y Done.

References

• Citation 12 should include the publisher, Avery Coonley School. Since the document cited is essentially self-published by the subject of the article, its reliability might be questioned at GAN per WP:RS. It's not certain that a document published by any school (or other entity) about itself will be neutral; university public-relations departments, for example, typically stress the positive and play down the negative. One possible way to head off non-RS objections would be to substitute RS sources for non-RS if you can.

Y Done. The book itself is well referenced to reliable sources. I will try to substitute some of the original sources as I obtain them.

• Citations such as citation 29 to books should include date and place of publication, the edition number (if multiple editions exist), and either the ISBN or OCLC numbers. You can find missing information via WorldCat.

Y Done. I had the impression this was optional. Is that not correct?

Date of publication is too important to omit; place of publication is probably less so. Depending on the reviewer, mention of multiple editions might not be noticed. At GAN, a missing ISBN will likely be noticed, though the OCLC question might not arise. If you ever take this to FAC, you can expect the scrutiny to be more thorough. I think it's wise (and helpful to readers) to routinely include all these little details even in stub-class articles. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is not clear from WP:CITE (and especially WP:CITEHOW) what is expected. But it is just as easy to do it as not. I will make it a practice in the future.Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Other

• Has the school ever been criticized as elitist? Too white? Too rich? If so, this should be included in the article.

YNot in any of the reliable sources I researched.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the very through and detailed review, and the careful copyedit, as well. Your comments were very helpful and have helped me better understand some of the nuances of editing good articles here. I certainly appreciate the time you put into it. I will ponder on how to address the "honorific" tone and come back to that later. I have strived to maintain NPOV, but it must not entirely read that way.

I feel the article should be ready for GAN at this point and have listed it for review. I hope a reviewer comes along someday soon. The backlog in Education articles is something like two months now.

Thanks again for your kind attention.Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Alertsite

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to ensure the information contained within contains notable sources and thus is worthy of having an article created for it.

Thanks, WebWonderGal (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AlertSite provides Web Performance Management products to help organizations monitor and troubleshoot its Web-based services and applications.

I am closing this PR as the article has been deleted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Jenny Morris (musician)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to propose this article for GA status. The article has recently undergone a major revamp in an attempt to bring it up to a decent standard and quality. As I know I'm not perfect I would appreciate it if other editors could list any potential problems with the article (format, grammar, spelling, etc) so when I nominate it for GA status there are no glaring errors/mistakes that need to be addressed.

Thanks, Dan arndt (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• Ref 69 is broken
  • Deleted.
• If you can find an image that'll always help
  • Yeah, usuable ones are difficult to obtain.
• I would group headings 1-5 under a "Life and Music Career" heading. Not really essential but I think it keeps it tidy and seems to be the norm for musician articles
  • Done.
• Lead needs expansion so it covers the main points of the article in summary.
  • Some expansion has occurred here but more may be needed (in last two paragraphs).
• There shouldn't be any refs in the lead unless they're backing up a very controversial statement.
  • I prefer to ref anything I can, even in the Lead.
    • Apart from ref 1, all the others in the lead are redundant for lead use. They're use multiple times in the articles body, not to mention 2 is used multiple times in the lead. WP:Lead

    I'm looking at the specific WP:LEADCITE section. Consider The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. [...] Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time Our discussion should arrive at such a consensus.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• • How does one determine which are contentious or "very controversial statements" for living people? I have seen article Leads challenged/changed for having someone named Jenny instead of Jennifer, or New Zealand vs New Zealand-born Australian vs Australian–even with a reliable source supplied. Your phrase "redundant for lead use" implies you're happy about all claims made in the Lead provided they are referenced later in the body of the work–what about casual readers? Not all go on to read the rest of the article, since the Lead has to be a stand-alone introduction–to me it should have its own in-line references. Does your view on WP:LEADCITE mean we trim back to just one ref for the whole Lead? I can go with that—it seems less reliable to me—if its the prevailing consensus.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    • • I can definitely see your point and I think it might be best if we had a second opinion on this. I'm not exactly having references in the leads it's just the information is pretty much repeated in the article, but then your point of casual readers kinda changes it. Though I would definitely say there's not use in repeating ref 2 twice in the first paragraph, having it at the end would be sufficient. Also the three at the end of the third paragraph seems overkill, try and pick one sufficient reliable source. CrimsonFox ^talk 23:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

      I've put the McF ref at end of 1st para. With the charting in 3rd para, I've split the New Zealand ref to the end of an additional sentence. It both expands the Lead and improves NPOV.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• ARIA should be spelt out for it's first use with the abbreviation in brackets, then abbreviated after that
  • Done.
• The number 5 in the lead should be spelt out "five"
  • OK.
• All occurrences of "No. x" should really be written in full. eg "number five".
  • I have assumed numbers more than ten can be left as number 24 and not number twenty four.
    • Yes I believe that is fine.
• "her influences include Aretha Franklin and Dusty Springfield" - This part seems a little disjointed on to the end of the sentence, try and connect them better.
  • Separated the sentence into two and reffed each with same ref.
• Quote at the end of Early Years needs quote marks around it
  • Done.
• Solo success - "melded funk rhythms with an infectious pop hook" - Doesn't sound very encyclopedic, mainly the last few words
  • Talk to McFarlane, his exact words are "highlighted Morris's growing confidence by fusing funk rhythms with pop hooks." So I'll delete 'infectious' and put a ref at end of sentence.
• "an emotion charged lamentation of the 'haves' and 'have nots' of the world," - This isn't explained very well and sounds unencyclopedic
  • Deleted this phrase, McFarlane uses a similar expression with: "Morris crafted a cohesive, dynamic and emotion-charged third solo album," but similarity is not sufficient for this description.

• Later Years - "it was produced Andrew Farriss[29] and Moffatt," -> produced by ?
  • Done.
• Quote needs quote marks
  • Done
• Personal Life - Possible issues with tenses here. If someone were to read it in the future "they have two children"
  • have > have had
• "Shanley Del is an ARIA Award winning country music artist in 1998" - Needs rewording
  • Try: "Morris' younger sister, Shanley Del has also won an ARIA Award but as a country music artist in 1998."
• "he is also a singer-songwriter with his group Tracky Dax." -> Possible change to "he joined his group Tracky Dax as a singer-songwriter"
  • This implies he joined them later/after co-writing the song: I'm not sure of the time-line so... I went for: "he is also in the group Tracky Dax as a singer-songwriter."
• Some statements I believe are over referenced. eg "Morris began her solo career with the single, "Puberty Blues" in December 1981 on Mushroom Records" has got four references for it. One or possible two reliable references is enough. From what I've seen, 3-4 is bordering on enough/too many refs for a single statement.
  • Trimmed "Puberty Blues" refs to two. I couldn't find any other four refs. Some three refs remain, generally they support different parts of an overall claim—where possible I tried to avoid splitting these—and placed in-line refs at end of sentence.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• "(born 29 September 1956, Tokoroa, New Zealand) is a New Zealand " - Some repetition here. I would take out birth location from the brackets and include the location somewhere else.
  • Deleted Tokoroa, New Zealand from brackets, location already included in infobox and first sentence of Early years and The Crocodiles subsection.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps, I'll put this review on temp watch until it's done. CrimsonFox ^talk 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on a couple of points and added an extra two at the bottom. CrimsonFox ^talk 09:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I made the earlier comments but forgot to sign (sorry). I've made some more comments on the Lead.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New information on her citizenship has been added to Lead and personal life with a reliable source cited.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 01:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comment: User:Crimsonfox asked me to render a second opinion the question of references in the lead. I believe the guidelines allow some leeway, and whether or not to add a supporting citation to a reliable source depends on the nature of the claim. A random check of featured music articles at WP:FA#Music shows that some music FAs have no citations in the lead while others have quite a few.

Although under-sourcing is a bigger problem over the whole encyclopedia than over-sourcing, it's possible to over-source. Readers may find repetitive or unnecessary citations distracting. Readers who read only the lead are unlikely, I think, to bother checking the citations. On the other hand, readers who read the whole article are more likely to want to know more. If something is sourced in the main text sections, that should usually be sufficient for those readers who want to know more. My personal rule of thumb is to provide a source for direct quotations in the lead and anything else that is so controversial that it seems bound to be challenged. This normally means that my leads for long articles have very few citations and often none.

Looking at the Jenny Morris (musician) lead, I see no reason for citation 1, which seems merely to support the claim that Jenny Morris is a real person and a musician. None of the claims in the lead is a direct quotation, and none seems highly controversial. Since the lead is to be a summary of the main text sections, all of the claims made in the lead are or should appear elsewhere and can be supported there with citations. My rule of thumb for claims made in the main text sections is to include citations for direct quotations, statistics, and anything that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and to support each paragraph with at least one citation.

I don't think it's necessary to support a claim such as "She began working as a Home Economics teacher for two years at a high school near Wellington" with more than one source. This is a claim that is not common knowledge and thus needs a citation to a reliable source, but it's not a claim that is likely to be challenged. In cases like this, I would suggest choosing what seems to be the most reliable source for the claim and simply using it rather than two or three. WP:RS has details about what kinds of sources are likely to be reliable, more reliable, less reliable, or unreliable.

In many places in this article, one citation could cover more than one clause or one sentence, especially when several clauses or sentences in a sequence all depend on the same source. For example, "In 1979 they released the track, "Some Day" for the compilation album, Home Grown Volume One.[17] "Some Day" was cowritten with Tony Backhouse, guitarist of fellow Wellington band, The Spats, which also had a track, "Young Ladies in Hot Cars", on the compilation.[17]" This set of claims doesn't need two citation 17s. One would be plenty. On the whole, I find this article to be over-sourced. (This is separate from the question of whether or not the sources are reliable.) I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, essentially you're saying less is more when it comes to the Lead and to numbers of refs per claim provided the refs are good sources. I can go along with this but I would like further clarification:

Citation 1 in the Lead, gives her full name and is not currently cited any where else in the article.

Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, it shouldn't include important information that does not appear in the main text sections. If you think her full name is important and not well-known or likely to be challenged, it should appear in one of the main text sections and could be sourced there. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You've given examples of over reffing in the body text (thanks by the way) but I may need further help in identifying other instances where the number of refs per claim can be reduced. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Actually one of my comments not Finetooth's.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope my general suggestions will be enough. You know far more about the content than I and are in a better position to make a judgment about whether each reference is truly necessary or not. There is no universal rule that can replace that kind of judgment. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example of "She began working as a Home Economics teacher for two years at a high school near Wellington" is problematic. Ref 4 states "Jenny Morris began her career as a schoolteacher in Wellington", ref 14 has "former New Zealand home economics teacher Jenny Morris" while ref 12 (a 28 minute audio source) has Morris herself saying she taught (subject not specified) for two years in a school near Wellington and impressed her students by saying she was in an all-girl group (amongst other statements). The single sentence in the article is a summary of all this information—no one source covers it all. There are other sentences with three refs where similar coalescence of information has occurred.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a writing problem that occurs in all articles. There's no universal rule for what needs to be included and what needs to be left out or exactly how to arrange and source the elements. Sometimes it's necessary to make complex claims within a single paragraph or even within a single sentence and to cite multiple sources. However, with something like the teacher claim above, I'd look for a way to reduce the complications. It's a matter of judgment. Do readers need to know that the subject was home economics? Is it important that she taught in a high school rather than an elementary school? Does it matter whether she taught for two years or three or some other number? Are any of these claims controversial? The answers to questions like this depend to a degree on the essence of the rest of the article. Although the article's claims need to be verifiable, they might in at least some cases be selected and structured in a way that reduces the number of required citations. Finetooth (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to CrimsonFox and Finetooth for the comments above. I am going to attempt to remove all refs from the Lead.

As best as possible I will also trim multiple refs where only one or two would cover available claims.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done?shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 08:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotations I removed the quote marks from the block quotes, sorry about that, I was wrong. CrimsonFox ^talk 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Coldplay

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because My main goal is to get this article to FA status. If you all can mention anything tht may present a problem in any future FA that would be great.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is clear and complete, or nearly so, and well-written. I have a few suggestions for further improvement.

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. Alt text, required for FA, is not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details, and you can see examples of recent alt text at WP:FAC.

Lead

• Spell out New Musical Express (NME) on first use?
  • I've spelled it out. Thanks.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, list it as NME, given that's the publictation's common name (in fact, that's where the article is located). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• The lead is meant to be a summary of the whole article and should not include anything important that is not covered in the main text sections. Johnny Cash, Kate Bush, and others are mentioned in the lead but not in the text. Could they be worked into the main text somehow?

Formation and first years

• "To this day, Coldplay consider Harvey to be the fifth member of the group." - Phrases like "to this day", which would be fine in a dated news story, are not so good in an encyclopedia because, undated, they are ambiguous. Something like "Coldplay accepted Harvey as the fifth member of the group" would probably be better.
  • Fixed the wording.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A Rush of Blood to the Head (2001–04)

• The "citation needed" tag should be addressed.
• "The artwork from the album will be shown on the British stamp starting in January 2010." - I'm not sure what this refers to. What stamp?
  • Has been removed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

X&Y (2004–06)

• "actually causing EMI's stock to drop" - Is this the first mention of EMI? They signed early on with Fierce Panda and Parlophone, but when did they sign with EMI? Should EMI be linked? When did Columbia enter the picture?

Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends (2006–09)

• "Some songs, such as "Violet Hill", contain distorted guitar riffs..." - Wikilink riff?
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical style

• "They also acknowledge the Scottish alternative rock band, Travis, as a major influence on their earlier material." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the one above it. You might have to change "they also" to "Coldplay acknowledge" for this to work.
  • Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The band revealed the album seemed to be shaping up with Hispanic influences, after having recorded in churches and other areas in Latin America and Spain during their tour." - A bit roundabout. Suggestion: "After recording in churches and other venues in Latin America and Spain during their tour, the band said the album would likely reflect Hispanic influence."
  • Done--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Other

• I don't get a sense from the article of what the band sings about. There's a little bit in "Musical style" about lyrics, but I think more would be helpful. Do they have any favorite themes? Do they sing about love, friendship, work, food, travel? Are they political? Perhaps a sample or two in the text would sort this out.

• Do any other bands imitate Coldplay? Have they been an influence on other parts of the music world? If so, this might be added to, perhaps, the "Musical style" section.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2010 (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 19 is lacking a titled link, which it should have. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • http://www.ukula.com/TorontoArticle.aspx?SectionID=2&ObjectID=1455&CityID=3
    • http://iomusic.com/Bands_and_Artists/C/Coldplay/
      • Replaced.
    • http://www.gigwise.com/news/50675/Coldplay-'Recording-New-Rave-Album
      • Replaced. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • http://www.clashmusic.com/news/chris-martin-shows-obama-support
      • Clash is a notable magazine from the UK. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Current refs 79 and 80 are just links, lacking publishers, accessdates, authors, etc.
    • Fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (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.) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments—

• I suggest rewriting the lead entirely, taking cues from the FAs The Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Joy Division and U2. In particular, remove the list of artists that have inspired them (except maybe the most obvious, i.e. Radiohead) as well as the far too long list of charities. These details can come in the appropriate sub-sections in article's body.
  • Would removing the list of charities and keeping ---> "The group have also performed at various charity projects" help? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overall I find the article is far too favourable of Coldplay. No mention has been made of the common criticisms levelled at the band—their blandness, that they are a watered-down Radiohead (A fact acknowledged by Chris Martin: "I don't think we'd be anywhere if Radiohead didn't exist. I think we're like why Diet Coke was big. Because some people couldn't handle Coke. That's how I see Coldplay.")
• Cut down on touring information, which is fairly routine and repetitive, and concentrate on what is unique to the band. For example: Sentences like "During an interview with Zane Lowe for BBC Radio 1 in October, Martin suggested that the band were trying to book Knebworth House in Hertfordshire for a concert in 2009." and "Beginning with a show in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, the band then embarked on a US club tour in early 2001, along with appearances on: Saturday Night Live, Late Night with Conan O'Brien, and The Late Show with David Letterman" is too trivial to have any interest for the general reader. Instead concentrate on critical reception, musical style and evolution etc. Try to follow those model band FAs I listed above in this regard as well.—indopug (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences that you mentioned.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments R.E.M. is the article template you want to try and follow (although you probably won't require a "Legacy" section). For example, compare how that article deals with each album with how the Coldplay page does. It'll also give you a good idea of how to approach and expand the "musical style" section. Aside from that, avoid details like "On 1 October 2009, Coldplay announced another "Latin America Tour" . . ." Wikipedia is not a news site. We're not here to report announcements. Either something happened and it's relevant, or it has yet to happen. And avoid specific day-month-year dates unless absolutely necessary; usually year or month and year are sufficient. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Genelia D'Souza

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

Thanks, Goodfilmfan2 (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: A nice article, here are some suggestions for improvement with an eye to the WP:GAN process.

• The language could be tightened or polished in several places - here are examples from the first paragraph of the lead:
  • She has appeared in Telugu[,] and Hindi language films, as well as Tamil and Kannada language films.
  • She first hit the limelight in a Parker Pen commercial with Amitabh Bachchan. "hit the limelight" does not seem very encyclopedic, perhaps something like "made her debut" would be better. I would also add the year here to provide context to the reader
  • She made her acting debut in the Hindi movie Tujhe Meri Kasam in 2003, which failed to propel her career in Bollywood, but soon achieved recognition in the Tamil film Boys the same year. "failed to propel her career" seems awkward too, perhaps something like In 2003, she made her acting debut in the Hindi movie Tujhe Meri Kasam; although it owuld be five years until her next Bollywood film, she achieved recognition in the Tamil film Boys later the same year.
  • She subsequently acted in many Telugu movies during 2003–2005, which earned her recognition in the Telugu film industry. could be tightened to something like She earned recognition acting in Telugu films during 2003–2005.
• I would not include "etc." in the infobox.
• Spell out abbreviations like MNC on first use (so, assuming it is "Multinational corporation (MNC)...)
• Make sure to be clear on who is meant, who is they in the following? When D'Souza was offered a role in Tujhe Meri Kasam, initially she turned it down, .... But they insisted and kept contacting her for two months...
• The fair use images do not seem to meet WP:NFCC, please read this and WP:FAIR USE
• What is there seems good - I think I would add a "Critical reception" section, many articles on movies and actors have one.
• References seem OK, nicely formatted and the few I checked seemed like reliable sources

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 _><>°^° 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

German–Japanese relations

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I substantially contributed to it during the past weeks and would love to see it being featured one day. Now, it not only presents a gapless evolution of German-Japanese relations, but is also well-organised and appropriately illustrated.

Thanks, Gliese876 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcorazao comments:

Don't have time for a full review at the moment but here are some observations:

• References:
  • Referencing is not bad but more is needed.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Each paragraph should have at least one citation.

Done (With the exception of one or two paragraphs. I think it's not necessary to explicitly reference the German date of surrender for instance) --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • A lot of citations reference entire books. Page numbers have to be specified (otherwise other editors cannot practically verify what is being said).
  • Inline citations (<ref>) should go after the periods, not before.
  • Also, if the books are available on Google Books it is valuable to provide a link.
• The lead section is too short. WP:LEAD says that it should summarize the entire article.
• Images:
  • Lots of good images. Good staggering of the images left and right.
  • Some images do not have enough information to verify that they are being legally used (e.g. OshimaHiroshi.jpg).

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • In general do not put images on the left when there is indented text (e.g. lists). The formatting doesn't look right.
  • Try not to let images cross from one section to the next. The formatting looks ugly. Reorganize the images so the image is entirely in one section.
  • The images are lacking alt text.
• Quotes:
  • Avoid {{cquote}} unless you are actually doing a "pull" quote. The right template to use is {{quote}}.
  • In general block quotes (quotes that are separated from the prose and indented) should only be used for longer quotes (the usual guidelines is a quote of 4 lines or longer). Some of the block quotes in the article are only a single line and are better just kept with the rest of the prose.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Use double quotes ("), not single quotes (') unless you have quotes inside quotes.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Book titles should be in italics, not in quotes. E.g. "Nippon, Archiv zur Beschreibung von Japan"
• Prose:
  • Some sentences here and there are rather long making them a little tedious to parse. Some general copy-editing, perhaps from a third party, would be good too.

Done (That is... as far as I was able to on my own) --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Despite pre-dating cultural contacts, official German-Japanese relations started in 1871 with both the modern German and Japanese states being founded – through the foundation of the German Empire under the leadership of Prussia and the "abolition of domains and foundation of prefectures" ordinance in Japan." A bit long and awkwardly phrased. Also "Despite pre-dating cultural contacts" This can be interpreted different ways (is pre-dating a gerund or a participle?). I think you are trying to say, "Despite the fact that there were cultural contacts before this time".

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Japan and Germany state the second and fourth largest economies" What does "state" mean here? Are you saying that they claim to have the 2nd and 4th largest economies (the word respectively should be included)? Preferably this should simply say they have the 2nd and 4th and ideally say "according to ...".

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "not taken in the strict sense of the modern nation state" Be careful about adding too many qualifiers to your statements. It makes things harder to read. If you are having to qualify too much it probably means you need to rewrite a little. Perhaps the "not taken in the strict sense" qualification should be made as a separate sentence.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "was active in supplying weapons to the force favourable to the Shogunate." This phrasing is unclear. Does this mean he supplied the armies loyal to the Shogun? Also, this is an example of a sentence which appears a little out of context. There is no transition between this statement and the previous one.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "infamous 'unequal treaties' Japan was forced into"
    • Use double quotes for "unequal treaties".

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • The way this is stated it does not exactly sound like NPOV. For one there is not even an explanation of how they were "forced". Regardless, it is better to quote or paraphrase a notable historian or some other expert when trying to present these kinds of judgements.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Knackfuss painting" An example of a case where the prose alludes to something without explaining it.

Done (Removed the reference on the Knackfuss painting and included the respective image in the article Yellow peril) --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "With Hitler fearing a stalemate with Great Britain, commencing to seriously plan for an invasion of the Soviet Union and Germany facing a shortage in raw materials and food[19], Berlin was also interested in a stronger alliance with Japan." Example of a long, awkward sentence.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some of the sections are a bit short. In general if a section has only one paragraph it probably should be merged.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some cases of non-English style creeping in. E.g. "700.000" instead of "700,000". Also "+15.4% to the previous year" is better phrased "15.4% more than 2005" or something similar.

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure the dates follow WP:dates. E.g. "27 September, 1940" should be either "27 September 1940" or "September 27, 1940".

Done --Gliese876 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments! I'll try to address those issues over the coming weeks. I'd be happy to have a native-speaker rechecking my contributions here and independently correcting any errors or odd sounding bits. No matter how well one claims to speak English, it's quite difficult from time to time to ascertain whether a phrase sounds "awkward" or not. After all, I'm German - and we love excessively long sentences ;p --Gliese876 (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Urusei Yatsura

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have recently rewritten the article from scratch to fix all the issues. The article is currently B class, and I am ultimately aiming for GA at this time. I am seeking feedback on the current state of the article to help me develop it further.

I'm still working on the soundtrack section. Also as a note on references, Furinkan.com/Rumic World is used for many of the citations. The site was judged to be a reliable source in This discussion

Thanks, Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Extremepro (talk · contribs)

• The parameters other_publishers and other_networks should be removed in place of referenced prose in the body of the article.

Removed. Not mentioned in the article currently due to a current lack of source

• All images need alternate text.

Done

Other than that, the article is well written and well sourced. 211.30.12.191 (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC) as User:Extremepro

Comments by Malkinann (talk · contribs)

Second image needs a decent caption - this supports the WP:NFCC criterion of having some commentary about the image in the article. I believe that tankobon is too jargonistic, and should be avoided. Needs a decent copyedit - there are lots of typos throughout the article and titles of series aren't in italics, weird use of capital letters and there is a constant use of the word 'constant'. Why is information about the demographics of the readership in 'production'? Surely this information would be better in reception?? Hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree regarding tankōbon, it's used frequently in GA and higher articles. The typos and such have been fixed, as have the italics, and I've fixed the "constant" issue. Fixed the misplaced reception info. I've replaced the second image with a photo of one of the LP's from my personal collection.

Comments from Arsonal (talk · contribs)

• There is a broken ref and a link that needs disambiguating. Also check the automated review on the right.

Done

General

• Be careful of overlinking locations such as North America and overly general concepts such as Japanese culture.

Done, although I've left japanese Culture as I believe it's a useful link.

• Titles of print publications such as Animerica, Weekly Shōnen Sunday, Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation, etc. should be italicized. Also for Sabrina the Teenage Witch, etc.

Done. Unless I missed some...

• "English" should be capitalized throughout the article.

Done

• "Tv" and "Ova" should be fully capitalized.

Done

• There are places where space is missing between the end of a reference and the start of a new sentence.

Done, I think...

Infobox

• I may be able to help you getting an appropriate image and a more detailed manga release info. My university library apparently has the complete original volumes. I'll check it out when I get back from vacation.

I meant to do this before listing for peer review, clearly forgot :p Now using the first wideban cover until something else is found

• Instead of linking the numbers of episodes of the anime, use | episode_list = List of Urusei Yatsura episodes. Do the same for OVAs.

Fixed

Production

• Any reason why this is before Plot? The Manual of Style usually puts this later in the article.
• "Urusei Yatsuradid" needs a dividing space.

Both Fixed.

Media

• I believe all released need to use {{Nihongo}}.

I've tackled some of these points, I will have to address the others at another time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the issues have been fixed, although one or two I've taken a editorial view of. Unless there are further complaints, I believe this article may now meet the GA criteria. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the daughter article Urusei Yatsura (film series) have a mergeto template, but Urusei Yatsura has no corresponding mergefrom? Merging and splitting articles needs to be taken care of for the stability criterion of GA. Is it "John Thompson" writing for MTCG, or is it Jason Thompson? I think the English variant needs to be standardised too at some point, (uses -ise but with American dates) although this may not be an actual GA criterion, but more something somewhere else in the MOS. --Malkinann (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The film article has been restored by User:Nihonjoe, a decision which I'm not disagreeing with (especially as he has the best access to additional sources). I don't think stability is going to be an issue, the relevant content has been copied. I can't be of help regarding the "english variant" and consistency, that's one reason I'm not good at copyediting, I don't use either American English or British English, I use a mix of both ;) I've fixed John to Jason. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Lead - OVA should be spelled out the first time it is used. If a sentence starts with a number, I believe the number is supposed to be spelled out (i.e. 11 OVAs... -> Eleven original video animations (OVAs) and six theatrical movies followed...". Also agree, tankōbon volumes is perfectly acceptable, and is used in FA articles. "Extremely popular" seems overly enthusiastic without sourcing for that phrasing. Better to just note that it has received positive reception, without claims of popularity unless this can be supported by the article. The "dropped" note is unnecessary in the infobox, the prose should note this. Flagicons shouldn't be used in the infobox. Use <small>North America</small> or the like after each licensor instead. The episodes each director did should be left to the prose rather than the infobox, since each did a substantial number.

Plot - the series appears to be complete. Does the plot section accurately cover its major plot points, and the ending?

Media - there does not appear to be a separate manga chapter list, but there also is not a list in this article? It may be helpful for this particular series to a short explanation on the differences between the wideban, bunkoban, "My First Big" edition, and shinsoban editions, beyond volume count, would be useful. The Furinkan reference seems to discuss this fairly well. If sourcing is available, information on why this was done would also be good, particularly as there appears there was only a single "My First Big" volume? The prose should also mention any sourcable foreign language editions, briefly. (i.e. "Was/Is licensed for regional language releases in X....") How is "After completing the final episode, the staff began working on another Takahashi show, Maison Ikkoku which took over the same timeslot that Urusei Yatsura had occupied" relevant? As the film series have their own articles, the kanji/romaji should not be included in this article for the films, just use the English titles. Ditto the OVA releases.

Overall - Could use a quick copyedit to correct a few minor prose issues. For example, the opening (the multiple editions should be noted later, but not in the first two sentences):

Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら) is a manga series by Rumiko Takahashi that was published in Weekly Shōnen Sunday from 1978 to 1987 across 374 chapters. The chapters were then collected into tankōbon volumes, with multiple editions released.

->

Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら) is a manga series written and illustrated by Rumiko Takahashi that premiered in Weekly Shōnen Sunday in 1978 and ran until its conclusion in 1987. Its 374 individual chapters were collected and published in 34 tankōbon volumes.

References should be in numerical order. (i.e. [2][7] instead of [7][2]). All foreign language references need to have the language noted using the language= param, and a translated title provided with the trans_title param. For book sources, they should be properly capitalized. Such as Watching anime, reading manga: 25 years of essays and reviews -> Watching Anime, Reading Manga: 25 Years of Essays and Reviews. Also, that source is missing basic information - publisher, ISBN, etc. Several of the Furikon and other web sources are missing their authors, though they are included on the websites. #4 for example, was written by K.J. "Keiji" Karvonen. It is also missing the year (1994) it was done.

Hope that helps :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Very helpful, but I'm absolutely shattered so these may take a few days for me to get to look at properly. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking up the issue on the manga list(s). I've managed to obtain information on and ISBNs of the original 34 tankōbon releases. I will attempt to find the rest. Arsonal (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jinnai (talk · contribs)

Overall it seems decent. Some things of note.

1. Combine the game and soundtrack sections into a "other media" type section - 1 paragraph sections are generally disliked unless their is nowhere else to reasonably combine it with.
2. Also I think several of those games should have famitsu scores. I would be shocked if none of them did. They may even have some additional info on their release (reception would be asking too much probably).
3. The last paragraph isn't really "reception" - its impact/legacy. On its own it might be a small paragraph, but combined with...
4. ...the lack of any of the impact & controversy on the "Beautiful Dreamer" I think that it could be put in its own section.陣内_Jinnai 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on a combination of comments regarding extra content, and there being plenty of other sources out there, I will keep working on the article over the next few months rather then rush it through to GA now. I'll work on the remaining tweaks and such as I go along. If anyone comes along any potential sources, be sure to let me know :) Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that File:Urusei Yatsura volume 1 tankobon cover.jpg is now in the top right hand corner of the article, how is the fair use case for File:Urusei Yatsura cover.jpg? Is the latter really needed now? --Malkinann (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Its no longer needed.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. :) --Malkinann (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice it had been moved to the body of the article.Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Intro seems to put too much emphasis on publication details. We're told about multiple tankobon editions before we know stuff like it being, say, a romantic comedy? Massive misplacement of effort and material. For a lede, quotidian details like volume bibliographies is inappropriate; the impact and what it is are far more deserving of space.
• 'who provided extensive notes on the series to allow people to understand the many cultural references and jokes in the series that would normally be impenetrable for non-Japanese.' <-- graceless.
• 'The television series is credited with introducing the format of using pop songs as opening and ending themes in anime. ' This is very interesting! Expand on that; or alternately, this might be controversial and needs refs.

Which is fully referenced in the reception section, and isn't that controversial that it should also need to be referenced in the lead (which is a sumamary).

Gwern, this is also partially my fault - there was a listing of all the songs used by UY in this article, but it gave me reader fatigue and I moved it to the list of episodes, summarising it in this article as a simple count of how many opening and closing songs there were. --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'The chosen human player is Ataru Moroboshi, a lecherous High school student ' A bizarre and unexplained choice.

It may be, but thats the way it is, it's exactly that.

It needs explanation, if only to say there is no explanation. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Despite the misunderstanding, Lum falls in love with Ataru and moves into his house.' What, she falls in love on the spot? Also, you use 'despite' way too much. Once suffices.

Pretty much, and yes, I don't claim to be a copy editor.

Easy enough to say something like 'Ataru touches her horns, and takes the occasion to propose to whomever; Lum instantly falls in love with him and insists on moving in'. As it is, the causality is unclear. 'falls in love' could be a very gradual process. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Ataru's flirtatious nature persists despite Lum's constant attention and she attempts to stop him flirting, which result in Ataru receiving electric shock attacks from Lum as punishment.' Description of this as a running gag would not be amiss.

It's a plot summary, not an analysis of the content. It may be beneficial to talk about running gags, but not in that section

There is no difference. And it's a moot point anyway since you don't have an analysis section. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'The series began sporadic serialisation in 1978 in the manga anthology Shonen Sunday, and ended in 1987 after publishing 374 chapters.' Did it continue to 'began sporadic serialization' (inelegant prose aside) the entire run? Was Takahashi working on something else?

This is for further research. Takahashi has a habit of working on many things at once

• Also, what were the financial arrangements for Takahashi - surely UY laid the foundation of her famous wealth?

• For that matter, the plot section is very sketchy. One expects to at least see a mention of the ending.

There are two reasons for this. Firstly, it's very episodic, theres no long running plot thread outside of the basic concept (see: Lupin III) Secondly, the anime has no ending, and while I don't think it has a proper ending, the end of the manga at least brings a degree of conclusion. However, I'm yet to fully read the manga so will address this later.

• Would be nice to fix the redlink Kazuo Yamazaki (director).

It would, got any info?

• What is the Rumic World exhibition? Sounds vaguely like a set-piece of exhibition like the Ghibli museum.

I believe it travelled Japan, but yes that sort of concept. This is possibly something that should be covered on Takahashi's page

• "The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917, " seriously abbreviate that. Book names shouldn't take half a line, and mentioning both authors by full name is likewise a misuse of space.

It's the full title, and incidentally the article title. And mentioning both authors is sensible.

Short names are perfectly acceptable. One says Hamlet, not The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke.. This is another example of the excessive space devoted to bibliographic information readers don't care about. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

• 'Helen McCarthy viewed the series as "a Japanese Simpsons for its useage of domestic humour and make note of AnimEigo's attention to providing notes for those unfamiliar with Japanese culture' - dropped a quotation mark there?
• "absolutely deserves it's fan favourite status". - did they really' make that mistake?

You'll need to explain this

Ah, I see, wrong its. --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes.

• 'Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation,' as before.

see above

• 'highlighting their harmonious resolution to the chaos in comparison to Urusei Yatsura's "out of control" ending to each episode.' UY's what? Maybe I missed the explanation in the article, but having never seen UY, I have no independent way of knowing what the heck Napier is talking about here.

In Jeannie and Bewitched, Samantha and Jeannie succeed in pulling the wool over their SO's boss, and all returns to normal, thanks to magic. I suppose in UY, (never seen it) episodes end with Lum chasing Ataru, who's chasing his ex-gf, in the kind of 'normal chaos' mayhem I've seen in Ranma? :/ --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's alot crazier then Ranma :) But it's a quote, I'm not really sure how to address it, aside from adding other sources discussing that point.

This would go well in the plot section, along with your comments about the episodic-ness. --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

The plot section is for plot, not discussion of it, that goes in other sections

• 'Fred Patten writing in Watching anime, reading manga: 25 years of essays and reviews credits the series with being the first program to inspire translations from fans.' Ditto ditto. Also, I am skeptical - American fans translated nothing before 1981? I know the early '80s were the birth of fansubbing, but '81 for the first one seems a bit late.

Unless you happen to have an expert source contradicting this, theres no reason to doubt it.

• Article is light on images. The cover art of the first volume is fine, but the only other pic is a LP album cover? The reader is left with no visual gestalt of UY. (Pardon me for saying, but both images are of pretty crappy artistic value; surely there's some later, higher-quality, group shots.) My rule of thumb is, if a reader can't come away recognizing allusions & parodies of the series in question, the article has a long way to go. The reader of this article will recognize only the electrical shocks and the bikini/horns; I'm sure there's more than just that.

The article should be light on images, and both are relevant. The cover and album both show the UY artstyle, and a group shot should be saved for the character article. although theres room to change the album image to something anime style

• In general, the article is very heavy on quotidian publishing details. Save that tripe for a bibliography. Are readers really informed by, or care about, that the first 5 movies were licensed & released by X, and #6 by Y?

Well yes actually. Publishing details are considered important information for an article talking about the series. Are you actually suggesting leaving this info out is beneficial? There was a trim of excessive info, but noting who released what where is relevant information. Of course it's informative

No, they are not important. Certainly not so important as to use up half of the lede; with their references, they use something like 1/3 the space! A reader will come out knowing all sorts of dates and ISBNs and kanji - and precious little about the actual series. To quote Feynman, "You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird...I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something & knowing something." --Gwern (contribs) 19:50 2 February 2010 (GMT)

Of course publishing details are important, the article requires such details to be broad in it's coverage and that includes who published what and when. I suggest familiarising yourself with our GA's and most recent FA (Tokyo Mew Mew, as well as both our FAC's. The simple fact is that such details are relevant and important. If the reader wants to know them doesn't factor into it, others will and are entitled to be informed. The fact that the franchise is large and with multiple publication details only mean it needs to be covered more, not less. As for taking up half the lead, thats not a reason to reduce the content given that the lead is a summary. While your comments are appreciated, I suggest taking this publication details discussion elsewhere if you feel strongly about it. But don't expect much luck, especially as it's in WP:MOS-AM Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A review like this - http://timmaughanbooks.com/2010/02/01/guest-post-hypercrazy-triptastic-mindfcuk-oshiis-beautiful-dreamer-1984/ - gives, in 2 or 3 paragraphs, a better understanding of UY than this entire article.

I don't think that is something to be proud of. --Gwern (contribs) 23:06 2 February 2010 (GMT)

Yes, a review. Wikipedia is not a review site, and not here to provide in depth analyses. Your comparison is completely meaningless. It might make for some nice quotes in the reception section but it is not an example of how to write a wikipedia page, nor should it be. Not covering the details is not covering the franchise, and you are suggesting we turn this article into another badly written one rather then improve it. I suggest you don't contribute to peer review if you are going to make comments like "I don't think that is something to be proud of", you really aren't acting in good faith with comments like that. It's obvious that you are the only one who thinks this is a problem , and you haven't provided a compelling argument to disrupt consensus, and I suggest you don't bother wasting your time. You are going to need a project wide discussion to change this, and as noted the article only follows what our recognised content does and is required to do. Either take it to WT:Anime and challenge it in general, or don't. But don't clog up peer review with disagreements over how we write articles in general, this isn't the place. I'm not wasting any more time discussing this point here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Finally, do you make use of the 1993 Animerica interview with Takahashi? Skimming over my copy, looks like it could help. Email me if you want it. --Gwern (contribs) 15:13 30 January 2010 (GMT)

Added some quick comments. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the promised 'critical commentary' for File:Urusei Yatsura Music Capsule.jpg? How does it help the reader understand UY in a way that the first tankobon image doesn't? I feel it would be better to reinstate the OVA cover with an appropriate caption than to have the CD cover. --Malkinann (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the ova cover help? If you wish to illustrate the anime, another image would be more suitable then that random ova cover. Such as one of the movies. I don't recall a request for critical commentary, much less a promise. Alt text on the other hand... Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no critical commentary about the "music capsule's" cover in the same way that there is for All Nippon Air Line's cover, which is for identification and critical commentary. When you upload something and put in the fair use rationale 'this has critical commentary', then you are effectively promising that there is a RS commenting on that particular image, and that it's used or will be used shortly in the article. As we must sadly strive for minimal usage, I'm not sure that the music capsule image can be justified as the art style is manga-based, and there's no critical commentary presented. An OVA cover or another anime-sourced picture would at least show the anime art style and assist in identifying the subject of the article for people who haven't seen the UY manga art style before. --Malkinann (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I can agree that an anime image would be more suitable in this case, but I don't think the previous image is it. That said I don't currently have a replacement. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodo, might be something to think about before GAN. :) I'm a little surprised that excessive fair use images aren't a quickfail, but that's probably because GA is not just for fiction articles. ;) --Malkinann (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA is going to be a way off I think, even when the copyediting type stuff is done, sources keep appearing :) Not the worst thing that ever happened to an article! Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am closing this peer review, as due to several requests plus initial research, it's clear that the article can be expanded in several areas, which will require another copyedit session even after all the raised points are addressed. With several points yet to be addressed due to time, it makes sense to develop the article further and have a proper copyedit done on it once that has been achieved. Once the article is ready, I will start a new PR. Any other suggestions, links or such can be posted on either the article talk page or my own user page at your discretion. Thank you for your comments.Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Nothing to My Name

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I'm thinking of taking this article to FAC—I thought it was a little short, but I've noticed some other music articles of similar length or less. Mainly I just want general input and feedback, but I'm also wondering if the external links are appropriate and if the information on release is sufficient. The article doesn't quite fit the normal template for song articles, partly because much of the typical information (sales and charts) doesn't seem to be available for Chinese songs even today, much less in the 1980s.

Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am doing a copy-edit and will post comments here. --JN466 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• The sentence "These factors contributed to the successful reception of "Nothing To My Name" among Chinese youth in the 1980s." is unsourced. Is there a source backing it up? --JN466 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• I would think the ELs fall foul of WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. (Pity that, as I enjoyed the video; but I guess I might have searched youtube anyway if the link had not been there.) --JN466 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• It might be worth checking through youtube to see if there is an "official" video up: [1]. (Youtube is okay to link to if the video has been placed there by the copyright holder.) --JN466 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the copyedits, they're definitely an improvement. I checked YouTube per your suggestion and I don't see anything "official"-looking, so I'll go ahead and remove the external links. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As for that other sentence, there should be a source or two that would be appropriate to cite there (I think that sentence was pretty much just my impression after reading a bunch of sources). I'll snoop around in them a bit and see what I can find. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Another little thing: The Harvard ref for Zhou 2008 does not jump to the correct book, because the citation template uses author=Zhou Xuelin rather than last=Zhou and first=Xuelin (assuming Zhou and Xuelin correspond to surname and forename respectively). --JN466 04:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've standardised all the harvards to harvnb so we have a consistent format throughout; they all work correctly now when clicked on, except for Zhou.

The following sentence needs checking: "The song was released as a single that year, and it was included on Cui's 1989 album Rock and Roll on the New Long March (新长征路上的摇滚), the overseas version of which was titled Nothing to My Name." At the moment, this says that the overseas version of the album was called "Nothing to My Name". I think what we mean is that the overseas version of the single was called "Nothing to My Name". --JN466 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good catch with the Zhou ref. I wrote the |author= parameter that way because with Chinese names I don't like having a comma (since last-first is the natural order anyway) but I guess here it would make sense to do |last= |first= to get the link working.
• As for the sentence in the Background section, I couldn't find a ref that says that precisely, so I just reworded it a bit to make it more vanilla.
• As for the album title, actually it was the album that had a different title overseas (the overseas release didn't include "Rock and Roll on the New Long March", which was the title track in the mainland). But that's a pretty inconsequential detail, so if it's confusing I can just remove it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  

---

List of UK hit singles by footballers

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Other than creating articles on all the singles which don't currently have them, please let me know what else I need to do to get this to potential FL status.....

Thanks, ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An interesting bit of sporting/pop culture research. Among sportsmen why is it, seemingly, only footballers who do these things? Or have others tried, less successfully?

Added a mention of the small number of hits for active competitors from sports other than football to the lead, let me know if you think it's too "off-topic". Trying to come up with anything about why the releasing of records is/was a big deal in football but never in any other sport would probably require too much OR........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, here are some comments on the prose and on the table formats:-

• First line: A bit verbose and with a repeat of "released". Suggest: "British football teams have released records at least since the 1930s, when Arsenal issued a now-collectible disc."
  • Done
• 17 rather than seventeen, per MoS
  • Done
• "...reached number one on the chart dated 16 May." Why not simplify to "reached number one on the 16 May."? And is "number one" (lower case) in accordance with convention? I'm sure I've seen Number One, Number 1 and No.1 in hit song articles, but I can't recall seeing "number one". Same query with "number twelve" later.
  • The published charts only have a "week ending" date. I don't know on which day of the week the chart was actually published in 1970 (it has changed repeatedly down the years), so I can't say for definite on which day it actually reached number one, hence the wording I have used. Does that make sense..........?
• Likewise, shouldn't it be Top Ten or Top 10, not "top ten"?
  • Done
• Italicise "en masse"
  • Done
• Table format: Hits recorded by teams:-
  • Column widths look untidy - some too wide, some too narrow. The "Peak position" and "Weeks" columns are far too wide, the "Teams" column looks cramped. Suggest you readjust all widths, using "!width= "
  • Dashes should be centered
    • Done - should the names in column 2 be centred too? It looks a bit silly with them on the left......
  • For clarity, Notes (A) and (B) should be placed under this table, not the next.
    • Done
• Similar format comments apply to the second table.

That's really all. As I said, most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, will get to the table stuff tomorrow, a bit technical for now considering how half asleep I'm feeling :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Franco-Prussian War

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have an intrest in nominateing this article for a GA sometime in the future and any and all comments regarding it would be welcome.…

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by RJHall – It is a well-developed article with some good content. Here's a few comments:

• Parts of the article are badly in need of inline citations. I'd expect to see at least one citation per paragraph.
• "It is thought that..." may be considered weasel words. See WP:AWW. That sentence should also be cited, especially since it expresses a key opinion from the Prussian ruler.
• "...400,000 regular soldiers, some veterans of previous..." This sentence is a little ambiguous since it is unclear whether the 400,000 includes the veterans or if those are in addition.
• Unique terms like "mitrailleuse" and "batteries" should be wikilinked.
• "The army was still equipped..." the 'still' is unnecessary here since the comparison follows later in the sentence.
• While expressive, I'm not sure that some of the wording may be encyclopedic. For example, "...and blistering rate of fire...", "...two blundering battles...", "...proved its worth...", "...bloody little battle...", "...a never ending attack...", "...now steamrolling...". These could be worded so as to make it clear what is meant without using colloquialisms.
• "The vast German and French armies...": I'd remove the 'vast' here, since it is an opinionated term and the total numbers have already been described.
• "...defenses of Metz indefinitely." The use of 'indefinitely' here seems odd. Perhaps it means until the end of hostilities?
• For more enjoyable reading, please split the first, massive paragraph of the "Summary of military events" section into two or more paragraphs. There are also a number of words and names in here that are not linked, but may be linked later. The first occurrence should be linked instead. Examples include Saarbrücken, Metz and Léon Gambetta.
• The "French and Prussian naval activities" section appears incidental to the main topic. I'm surprised it is located so early in the article. It seems a distraction.
• "The Austro-Hungarians, still smarting after their defeat by Prussia..." What defeat?
• "...under immense domestic pressure..." Immense here seems like non-encyclopedic language. If there is a quote you could use, that would work instead. Otherwise I'd remove 'immense' since it is vague and a little hyperbolic.
• "...one railway there led to the German hinterland which could be easily defended by a single force..." Easily defend the railroad or the hinterland? Please disambiguate.
• "...spread 20 miles (32 km) apart in depth..." I think the "in depth" needs clarification here. Is this saying they were spread out within a 20 mile diameter?
• "...forcing each division to seek out basic provisions along with the representatives of the army supply arm that was supposed to aid them." Please disambiguate this statement.
• "Douay himself was..." Unnecessary "himself". "The fighting within the town itself..." Unnecessary "itself". "The two armies clashed again only two days later..." Unnecessary "only".
• "were not in vain- Frossard" Please use an em-dash here.

... at this point I think this article needs a copy edit. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Gone for Goode

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to pursue a FAC for it, and would like to see if there are any prose problems or any other possible FAC concerns. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps full review coming, but "Levinson and Fontana also humor to be incorporated into the show" seems to be missing a word. Mm40 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I added "allowed". Whoops! :) — Hunter Kahn 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note to Hunter Kahn: Hi there. The rules of Peer Review, given on the WP:PR page, allow one nomination per editor per day. This is your second nom for 4 January, following Three Men and Adena. The rule is designed to prevent overcrowding at PR, where we are somewhat short of regular reviewers. Can you bear this rule in mind for the future, please. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was honestly unaware of the rule. Should I remove some of the other nominations? — Hunter Kahn 03:49, 9 January 2010 (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.) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is certainly broad in coverage and probably comprehensive; it's neutral, stable, and seems well-sourced. I found and fixed quite a few small errors in the prose, and here is a list of other suggestions.

• The images need alt text. WP:ALT has details.

• "Steve Harris" links to a disambiguation page.

Images

• The lead image is of such low quality, it might not survive scrutiny at FAC. It's impossible to see clearly the features of the man on the left. Would it be possible to replace it with a better screen shot?

Lead"

• "The episode interconnects several subplots involving the detectives of a Baltimore Police Department homicide unit... " - "Connects" rather than "interconnects"?

Plot"

• "They investigate the body of a man dead in a basement, and much to Baldwin's bewilderment, Felton solves the case easily." - Something amiss here. Baldwin is the actor who plays Felton.
• "The owner of the house, Jerry Jempson (Jim Grollman), literally calls Felton at the house while she is investigating... " - Isn't Felton a "he"?
• "but he is guilted by his partner Bolander (Ned Beatty)" - "Guilted" is not a word. Perhaps "made to feel guilty by"?

Development and writing

• "The first episode was noted at the time for interweaving four separate storylines into a single episode... " - "Weaving" instead of "interweaving"?
• "Additionally, despite a heavily hyped advertising campaign for the Homicide premiere..." - I don't think the advertising campaign was heavily hyped. Suggestion: "Additionally, despite intense advance promotion of the Homicide premiere... ".
• The second paragraph is quite repetitive. For example, it uses "inspired" or some other variation on "inspire" at least five times. Could some of the sentences be merged or recast to reduce the repetition?
• "Levinson specifically asked the body by Howard and Felton be badly decomposing and attracting flies because he felt other police dramas did not portray corpses in a realistic way." - Word or words missing?

Editing and photography style

• "jump cuts" - Wikilink jump cuts?
• "While filming the episode, Levinson said he would simply allow the actors to perform and switch back and forth between them with the hand-held camera, rather than filming individual scenes from multiple angles and carefully planned shots." Awkward. Suggestion: "While filming the episode, Levinson said he would simply allow the actors to perform while he switched back and forth between them with the hand-held camera instead of filming carefully planned shots and individual scenes from multiple angles."
• "This camera style has largely persisted throughout the duration of the series." - This sentence implies that the series has continued through 2010. Should this say, "This camera style largely persisted through the end of the series in XXXX"?

Filming

• "were used as props in the episode, only about two of the cars were actually drivable" - "Only about two"?
• "Levinson said Belzer was a "lousy actor" when first read lines from the script for "Gone for Goode" during his audition." - Missing word or words?
• "played an uncooperative perp who repeatedly lies" - Wikilink perp?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

This peer review discussion has been closed.

A Christmas Carol

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is being prepared for GA as a "broad overview" of the novel. However, I would appreciate some careful review by experienced editors for tips on how to bring it to that status. Thanks, LOC2010DC (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has undergone some comprehensive edits and the quality has definitely improved.

Thanks, The lorax (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll run through a few thing I noticed with the article.

• The lead need expanding. It's meant to be an overview of the whole article, currently it only really covers the story.
• Is there any information around regarding the cast or the casting process? It would be nice to flesh that out if possible so it's not just a list
• Art Institute of Chicago section seems to be pretty much made up of quotes
• Music heading would be better off as a subheading of Production rather than it's own main heading
• Reception and Cultural Impact should all go under a "Release" Heading. DVD releases + TV series I think should be merged into an Beyond Theatrical release subhead of the new Release heading
• The critique section seems a little quote heavy as well. Try to pick out defining sections of reviews and compare them with others.
• All images need descriptive alt text

Hope that helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

His Band and the Street Choir

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to see if anything needs adding to the article, needs correcting or general improvements before its GA review.

Thanks, Kitchen roll (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by A Stop at Willoughby This is a thorough article, but some work needs to be done before it's nominated at WP:GAN. My first impression of the "Composition" section is that it is need of a copy-edit, and that it's somewhat disorganized. I don't have much time right now, but I'll add to this review tomorrow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by I.M.S. - A nice looking article on one of my favorite albums. Here's my review:

Dab links:

• Disambiguate Moonlight Mile to Moonlight Mile (film) [I imagine]
• No other dead or dab links

Lead

• Rework to conform with WP:LEAD. Three paragraphs is probably too much for an article of this size - consider merging them into two.

Recording

• Perhaps elaborate on what the "Street Choir" is early on, or in the lead.
• Drummer Dahaud Shaar was a survivor [change to "veteran", perhaps] from the Moondance tour, but he did not play on the album itself. - I don't think he deserves mention, then. If the only reason he's mentioned in the main text is because he appears in the photo, then I'd move this bit to the caption.
• I don't think there's a need to link to "wife"
• As I mentioned earlier, I think explanation of the Street Choir is required early on. When you mention personnel, also elaborate on the Choir at the same moment, explaining who was in it, etc. immediately after the band. It takes a while to understand who the Choir really are. I would also remove quotation marks from the group's name.
• It was originally a concept to do an a cappella album,...Street Choir was going to be an a capella group. I wanted these guys to form an a cappella group so that I could cut a lot of songs with just maybe one guitar. But it didn't turn out." - are all those "an a"s typographical errors or parts of the original text? You might want to make it clear that you are referring to "a cappella" - perhaps explain to the casual reader what an a cappella is. Also, the ellipses ,... --> ... with a space on each side (See WP:MOS)

Composition

• It seems these are profiles of each song. I would recommend moving chart info to the sales section, recording info to the recording section, and rearrange this section so that it chronologically details Morrison's writing of the songs.
• The song "is sweet and mournful, with Van wringing real need out of the simple words." (Hinton) --> Hinton described the song as...

For the rest, consider restructuring as follows:

• ==Release and aftermath==
• ===Packaging===
• ===Critical response===
• ===Influence===

--Hope this helps. Great job on the article, Kitchen Roll! Although it looks nice, I do second the points raised above by Willoughby-a little more effort, and the article should pass through GAN fine. I might be back later with a few more comments. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also - I would expand the FUR of this file, and reduce its size. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feadback and points for improvement! I was just wondering about the "an a cappella" quote - its a little confuzing - as "a cappella" is a vocal group without musical backing, should I make this clear in the article so the reader doesn't misunderstand all the an's and a's? Also how do you reduce the size of image files? Thanks again Kitchen roll (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes - you might want to make it clear that "a cappella" is meant (I didn't phrase myself correctly in my review), and not an a "cappela". as for the image - I'll reduce it for you (usually there's a "change image size" feature in photo editors like Photoshop and Image Suite). - I.M.S. (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the image size for you. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the changes you suggested for the article. Is there anything else that needs doing? Kitchen roll (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Good idea - it makes it more clear definately. What do you think of the "composition" section now I've moved some of the material? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the wait—I think your recent additions look fine. The article should do well at GA. I would, however, suggest looking at the list of copyeditors, and ask someone to look over the page (and perhaps copyedit it) to give you more a thorough ironing of the article.

That's alright. Thanks for the tips and link. Kitchen roll (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Joey Hamilton

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has gone through FAC twice with two peer reviews prior to each FAC. However, both times the article has not been promoted. Obviously, I'd like to make sure the 3rd one is a success so any comments are appreciated.

Thanks, Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

General

• I would say the prose is in pretty good shape. However, see below; it requires expansion to be comprehensive.
• The article is essentially an amalgamation of stats, injuries, and trades; as such, it's not engaging. I can go to a stats web site and read as much, in a convenient list format. You'll need to do more research and get information on his style of play, strengths and weaknesses, and so on. You don't even mention in the prose that he is right-handed; there shouldn't be anything in the infobox that the reader can't get in the prose. No information on types of pitches, specializations, and so on. I'd say it's quite a ways away from being comprehensive. Time to hit the library!

Lead

• "Following high school, Hamilton attended Georgia Southern University, spending three years there." For simplicity, why not: "Following high school, Hamilton attended Georgia Southern University for three years."
• "He started his professional career" Perhaps better: "His professional career started"
• Careful with the name repetition in the lead. You don't talk about anyone else but Hamilton, so there is little need to repeat his name in consecutive sentences.
• "In March 2005, two days after signing with the New York Mets, they released him." You might at least hint at why here in the lead. Readers will immediately wonder; why force them to read all the way down to find out?
• The last sentence seems odd, since no one would be expecting such a player to be considered for the Hall of Fame. It's not interesting or notable that he was only "eligible" for the Hall of Fame, as I'm assuming almost everyone is at some time or another.

Early years and college

• "It was soon discovered that Hamilton was suffering from an elbow injury,[4] which forced him to have surgery in 1992.[4]" Why the repeated citations? One after the sentence is sufficient.
• "eventually signed him for $415,000" For how many years? And why do we need three citations for that?

Professional career

• "saying that he feared he may lose the ability to throw 100 miles per hour" Imagine you know nothing about baseball and you are reading this; why is that significant?

After baseball

• Again, the Hall of Fame thing is probably not worth mentioning. It would be if anyone actually voted for him, but no one did. You could lump the retirement bit in with the previous heading.

I hope you found my comments useful. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of W.I.T.C.H. characters

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review to find out what portion is needed to improve it. Note that mergeing with List of W.I.T.C.H. characters (TV show) and Cast of W.I.T.C.H. (TV series) is under way. I can't do the task that you suggested by myself alone. So I need someone's help.

Thanks, JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 07:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (Edited 15:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC) )

Note: The rules of WP:PR specify one nomination per editor per day. This is your second for 2 January (with another following on 3 January). There is a substantial backlog of articles waiting for peer review, so please observe this rule in future. Brianboulton (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Normally having all the cleanup banners at the top disqualifies the article from peer review, but here are some suggestions for improvement.

• This seems to be largely copied from other websites, which is a violation of copyright. I first noticed that the writing is not enyclopedic in tone - then I checked something at random with a Google search and found that the Cornelia Hale material is very close to this fan fiction web page.
  • this article: With long blonde hair and blue eyes, she might seem to be a stereotypical girl of that kind whose interest is seeming worthy of both love and envy. However, her character develops much in other directions.
  • website has: With long blonde hair and sapphire blue eyes, she might seem to be a stereotypical girl of that kind whose interest is seeming worthy of both love and envy. However, her character develops much in other directions.
• Or then I checked at random this material for Matt Wilson, one of the boys, and found it very close to the Wikia page on him:
  • this article: He sings and plays guitar for his band "Cobalt Blue". He works part-time at his grandfather's pet store along with Will and shares the same interest in animals as she does.
  • Wikia article: Matt sings and plays guitar for his band "Cobalt Blue". Also, he works part-time at his grandfather's pet store along with Will and shares the same interest in animals as she does.
• This raises several issues, the most important of which is WP:COPYVIO, so I have removed most of the article.
• Second biggest problem was that the article has no (zero) references, which are a must. See WP:V. Without them there is no way to verify waht is here, to check that is not a copyvio or original research.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• One they are added, per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE
• The current lead is one secntence, which is way too little. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD

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 _><>°^° 20:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

List of W.I.T.C.H. characters was created on 6 February 2009 by splitting "Characters" section from the W.I.T.C.H. article. and those descriptions dates back to 6 August 2005 and 23 September 2005. The fan fiction page was initially published on 08-03-09 and updated on 08-30-09. And Matt Olsen's Wikia page was created on April 4, 2009. So it looks like those external pages copied descriptions from Wikipedia. -- JSH-alive ^{talk • cont • mail} 03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking those - please undo my deletions in that case. The article still needs citations (has none now) an expanded lead, etc. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Pakistan

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was a former feature article and i am planing to make it one, again. I will put alt text on images shortly, beside this all suggestions on improvement for this article are welcome.

Thanks, الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an important article and I am glad you are working on improving it. In its current state, I do not think it would even meet the WP:GAN requirements. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• It has been a week and there is still no alt text ;-) I also note that the dab finder finds three disambiguation links and the external links tool finds five deadl inks and several possibly problematic ones. All of these will need to be fixed.
• As long as we are talking about references, the article still needs them in several places. For example the fifth paragraph of the History section and the first paragraph of Military each have no refs, and there are many sentences and other places without refs (if a ref is partway through a pragraph, then the sentences that follow are unreferenced unless another ref is used for them). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The references that are used often do not give sufficient information. 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
• Some books used as refs also lack enough information - current ref 8 is just "Pakistan: a global studies handbook By Yasmeen Niaz Mohiuddin" and lacks publisher, date, and since it is linked via Google Books, it also needs an access date.
• I am also not sure that the references used all meet WP:RS - what makes about.com a reliable source? Or why use Encyclopedia Brittanica when there are lots of better sources on Pakistan?
• Randomly checking some refs I tried current ref 9 "Pakistan "Pakistan". InfoPlease. 2009-12-16. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4032997.stm Pakistan. Retrieved 2009-02-22." and it is not from InfoPlease and is instead a BBC report - "Profile: Asif Ali Zardari".
• In contrast the lead seems to have too many refs - why are seven refs needed here - wouldn't one do? It is also the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]
• WP:MOSIMAGES says to avoid sandwiching text between two images, but this is done in five places - Jinnah and the 1970 map, and in the Geography and climate, Education, Culture, and Sports sections. The images are lovely for the most part, but sometimes less is more.
• Avoid short (one or two sentence) paragraphs as the break up the flow of the article - combine them with others or perhaps expand them - as an example see Most of the languages belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. The exceptions are Burushaski, which is a language isolate; Balti, which is Sino-TIbetan; and Brahui, which is Dravidian. (which needs a ref)
• Make sure to provide context to the reader - for example in the Etymology section, there is an explanation of how the name is a Portmanteau (is it really or is it an acronym?) and but there is little explanation of how it can also have a meaning (Paak means pure).
• Language is OK in spots, could use work in others, but there are so many other issues that they should be addressed first, then work on language.

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 _><>°^° 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are great, i will work on the given suggestions on weekend.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ok Done, any other suggestions ?الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More from Ruhrfisch

• There is still one dab and several of the images lack alt text. The ones that do have alt text do not really follow the guidelines at WP:ALT - alt text is not a repeat of the caption, it is a description of the image for someone who cannot see. I have fixed one alt text as an example.
• There are still several places that need refs - for example this paragraph The modern state of Pakistan was established on 14 August 1947 (27 Ramadan 1366 in the Islamic Calendar) .... leading to the First Kashmir War in 1948. See above please
• Refs usually go after punctuation
• I looked again at some of the sources used. Current ref 29 is "US Country Studies article on the Bangladesh War". U.S. Library of Congress. http://countrystudies.us/bangladesh/17.htm. Retrieved 2009-03-16. but the link is to a mirror site, not the actual Library of Congress website: http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/bdtoc.html
• Article could still use a copyedit - language is rough in spots.
• Images still sandwich text in places - see above

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver

This peer review discussion has been closed.
It's been the required two weeks since this article failed to pass at FAC. Most of the problems voiced at the time seemed to relate to prose issues. I've done some cleaning up myself, but I wanted to bring it forward for a peer review before I went back to FAC. Comments on any prose issues, and/or anything else that you feel might come up at a FAC review, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• The allegeds are a bit silly; like passive voice but for epistemology.
• 'where they mistakenly believed Obama was staying (in fact, Obama was staying at another Denver hotel)' - redundant.
• 'Federal authorities began an investigation into the trio after they made alleged racist threats against Obama while taking methamphetamine in the hotel room.' Do the Feds routinely hang out in methhead bull sessions?
• What day was this anyway?
• 'Gartrell was driving to buy cigarettes when he was arrested at about 1:30 a.m. on August 24.' Why was he arrested then? Where are we in time from the meth?
• 'what appeared to be methamphetamine' - surely we know by now?
• 'The truck contained enough drug-making equipment for the vehicle to be considered "a mobile lab".' This some sort of legal definition or finding?
• 'However, Johnson also told the reporter he came to the conclusion that there was assassination plot only after'; I accidentally the whole article.
• 'massive arsenal'? My parents own more guns than are listed in the Arrests section!
• May be worth mentioning Dr. Boone is of a black university; I rather disagree with his assessment and was not surprised to see what kind of university he was from.
• May want to sectionize Histories - that in effect 2 small bios.
• 'Comparison' could benefit from identifying who was suggesting the conspiracy theories.
• 'snet' --Gwern (contribs) 22:49 22 January 2010 (GMT)
  

---

Albert A. Murphree

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article status.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• Lead: this says who Murphree was and mentions the offices he held, but needs to be expanded into a summary of the whole article, per WP:LEAD. In particular the notable fact that he became a college president at 27 while still studying for his master's degree should be in the first paragraph of the lead (provided this information can be cited to a reliable source)..
• Early life
  • Suggest "Confederate" linked to Confederate States Army

 Done Good idea. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • What is the significance of putting "college" in quotes? This suggests that it wasn't a college in the generallly accepted sense of the term, so what was the nature of this institution?

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • MOS would prefer"twenty-seven" to be "27"

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Murphree married Jennie Henderson, the daughter of one of the seminary's trustees." Hmmm, are you by any chance hinting at nepotism here? The placing of this information immediately after reporting his youthful appointment tends to suggest that you are; can you clarify?
  • Citation needed for the final sentence.
• Professor and university president
  • General point: this section has too many paragraphs, some of which are short single sentences. For better flow, try to merge the prose into perhaps three or four substantial paragraphs
  • The first paragraph properly belongs to the lead, rather than here.

 DoneI agree. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Suggestion: the second paragraph would read better if the two main blocks of information in it were reversed. It could then be merged with the following paragraph, thus (with a little copyediting):-

Murphree continued to serve as the president of Florida State College, which became the all-female Florida Female College after the 1905 enactment of the Buckman Act. From 1905 to 1909, Murphree emphasized greater academic expectations for his female students, while upgrading and expanding the school's curriculum to meet modern university standards.[11] In 1909, Murphree convinced the legislature to change the name of the college to the Florida State College for Women. While he was still president of Florida State College, several prominent political backers advanced Murphree's name to be the first president of the University of the State of Florida, the newly consolidated men's university and land-grant college created by the Buckman Act in 1905. Instead, the Florida Board of Control selected Andrew Sledd, then the president of the University of Florida in Lake City, to be the first president of the new men's university. When Sledd was not re-appointed for the 1909–1910 school year because of a conflict over what some political figures believed were inflexible admissions standards that were impeding the growth of the university, Murphree's name was once again advanced as a replacement.[12] This time, the Board of Control voted unanimously to approve his appointment.[13] Murphree assumed his new duties during the summer of 1909, and worked diligently with his predecessor to ensure a smooth transition that capitalized on previous successes.[14] In a surprise to some of his previous political supporters, Murphree endorsed Sledd's admissions standards, and thereafter actually tightened the requirements for entry again in 1912.[15]

• • In the above paragraph it would be better to replace "While he was still president of Florida State College..." with an actual year.

 Done Inserted 1905. Sentence rewritten to clarify. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "Murphree was an organizer and a builder." If this is your own characterisation of Murphee it should be withdrawn (POV). If it can be sourced, put it in quotes.

 Done *Deleted unsourced "editorial comment." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Searching for appropriate citation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • "reported", not "purported"

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Presidential nomination: does this deserve to be a separate section. So far as I see, Murphree was not nominated and had no interest in being nominated. Also, no one—not even Bryan—can "announce his intention to be elected..."; perhaps "announced his intention to seek election", or even just "sought election".

 Done Sentence rewritten to eliminate wordy construction. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Legacy
  • Two mentions of "unexpected" death

 Done Deleted 2nd instance. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • At the time of his unexpected death in December 1927, Murphree was widely hailed on the editorial pages of newspapers..." Does this mean after his death? Perhaps "praised" would be a better word than "hailed".

 Done "After" and "praised" substituted. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The auditorium image is disproportionate in size to the other images, and tends to crowd the text. 350px would be adequate.

 Done Photo reduced in size. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• General point. A feature of this article is the number of long or very long footnotes. For example, [10] is at least 150 words long. I think you should review these notes, to see whether some of this text ought to be in the article, rather than relying on the chance that readers might click on to these footnotes. At the very least, they should be separated from the reference footnotes and listed separately, using the footnotes template.

I have reviewed the content of the explanatory footnotes carefully. The reason for including the footnote information was that it is interesting and related to the subject, but possibly disrupting to the flow of the main text. After review, I think it's placement in the footnotes is appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

All in all, an interesting read that with some further work ought to make it at GA. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your thoughtful review, Brian. I have made the easy changes you recommended, and I am now contemplating the best way to make the structural changes you have suggested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Dark Cloud

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm not getting much activity from the VG project Peer Review so I thought I'd place a request normally. I've been working on this article and I want some pointers in which direction to take it and what needs improving the most. I've left the reference and cleanup tags at the top as although I feel I've fixed them mostly, I'd rather have someone else verify it. I'd ideally like the development section to be a little more filled out but there are very few sources from what I can find. Thanks, CrimsonFox ^talk 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by DragonZero

• Gameplay needs to be rewritten so that it's generic and does not sound like a game guide. Especially the parts about the secret dungeon - that should be removed. The gameplay section should focus on the game engine and has to be referenced, usually through the manual.

I have done some rewriting of the gameplay section, but I do not think it is my strong point; if anyone wants to look over it or feel they can word it better, feel free. CrimsonFox ^talk 10:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gameplay looks good now, but it still sounds like a game guide in some parts. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 08:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ex.

"Completing additional villagers' requests gives the player new items. Upon reaching 100% completion, the player's characters are granted a special reward such as a unique weapon or a powerful battle move."

"A fishing minigame is also available in each area where the player can earn points for catching fish. These points can be traded in for prizes."

"Once it is full, the weapon can be levelled up. Weapons can be combined once they reach a certain level, granting the player a single weapon with the combined attributes of the two."

• Georama mode might need to be merged to gameplay.

I've gone through the gameplay section and tweaked it. I tried to make information less specific and in-unverse. I think it still might need another go over though. References to come. CrimsonFox ^talk 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Setting and characters need to be referenced.

• Reception needs an expansion if possible.

I have added some detail in about plot and visuals and tweaked it a little. It's not quite as enough as I want it but I feel some of the review references are being overused. Is that an issue? CrimsonFox ^talk 10:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Dates should be in Month Day Year.

 Done It took me ages to realize. I presumed you meant in the refs; I was frantically looking through the article. CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I mean it should be like "December 14, 2000".

If you mean in the article I can't find any that aren't like that. I thought references were allowed to be in the shorter format? CrimsonFox ^talk 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Alternate texts need to be added on.

 Done

The Alternate text should be more generic as if explaining the scene to a blind person. Ex, the blind do not know what a "Dark Genie" looks like.

Made them more descriptive CrimsonFox ^talk 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's better, but you should describe the boy in front of the picture instead of calling him the main character. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fix link to Inventory.

There's not an actual page for inventory, games-wise, but it is explained on the disambiguation page. What's the case with that? De-link it, link to general inventory term or leave as is? CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it unlinked.

• Needs sources in many locations.

• Is RPGclassic a reliable source?

Removed CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Needs Audio Soundtrack picture.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this... Like an image of the soundtrack? CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Yeah, usually it's the image of the CD cover for the game. There's one here. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Alhough I wouldn't mind if someone looked over the rationale, I think I've done it right. CrimsonFox ^talk 01:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should add a {{clear}} template under reception so that the box doesn't interfere with the reception section.

 Done CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's all I've got for now. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Added onto original comments. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; replied accordingly above. I'll work on the others. CrimsonFox ^talk 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to points 1 and 4. I'm still looking for an answer for the Inventory query. CrimsonFox ^talk 10:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Ernest Hemingway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've added sources to unsourced sections, and rewritten accordingly. The article is quite lengthy and in my view should be split into subarticles. Would like some feedback as how to proceed to work toward restoring Ernest Hemingway to a GA and ultimately FA.

Thanks in advance to reviewers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

• The first paragraph of the lead should give some idea of Hemingway's importance as a writer. Currently, it is too much of a list of the types of works he wrote.

• Done

• The second and third paragraphs of the lead have a repetitive structure to them (he marries, he publishes a novel, he goes to a foreign land). Even if Hemingway's life was repetitive, the writing of it shouldn't sound so repetitive.

• It is odd to list just one example of Hemingway's influence on American literature in the lead. Either explain his influence in more depth or take out the one example.

*I'm not sure I understand. More than one novel is mentioned in the lead. Are you referring to The Sun Also Rises? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm talking about the last paragraph of the lead, which mentions only one of Hemingway's literary descendants - Salinger. Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. I didn't write that section. It is a bit odd. Will delete. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The material on Hemingway's wives is a bit thin - could this be expanded, particularly since his relationships with them were tempestuous?

• Have been giving this some thought. In general the idea that his marriages were tempestuous is a bit of a Hemingway myth. It seems that he simply went off to war and returned with a new wife in two cases. His marriage to and separation from Hadley was fairly civil. Later in his life there may have been problems with Mary, but so much is attributed to ill-health, etc., and much of the evidence is in the letters (which I do have!) I've purposely not used his letters for obvious reasons. Want to spend more time thinking about this as I work on other sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think dispelling that myth might be important. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

*Working on this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think there's an opportunity to write a book about Hemingway's wives! Hard to glean the facts from the shadow of the man himself from what I have available. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ordered a book called The Hemingway Women, which hopefully will be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Developed more and will expand the articles about his wives. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that the structure of "Notable works" and "Posthumous" is successful. With a writer like Hemingway, who wrote so much, I would suggest sections like "Novels", "Short stories", etc. (see Mary Shelley for an example of what I mean). Also, the section repeats information from the "Life" section and contains irrelevant details, such as film adaptations.

• I agree the sections don't work. I've moved the text into the individual articles (many of which are in need of work). I like what you've done with Mary Shelley, and may attempt to replace the deleted material. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me know if you need help accessing sources. Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Will do once the clean-up is done. I've have a Hemingway sandbox. If you happen to come across any sources, feel free to dump them in if you have time, but not to worry if you don't. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to look for sources. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I understand completely! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• The section on Hemingway's "Writing style" is too short. Again, I would suggest weaving this through a discussion of the different genres he published in.

• Expanded the "Writing style" section, but think there's an entire article to be had out of this as well! As for your comment above, do you mean to weave the writing style (or bits about the writing style) directly into the biographical sections. Or better to add to each specific article (i.e. The Sun Also Rises and so on...)?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I know - it's impossible to write a mere few paragraphs on the writing style of someone like Hemingway. It's almost torture. :) See Balzac for an example. I think the writing style can be approached in several different ways. Obviously, each subarticle (e.g. The Sun Also Rises) will have a discussion of the style of that particular book. When it comes to Hemingway's style in general, though, you could weave a discussion into the biography (e.g. Sarah Trimmer) or separate it out (e.g. Mary Shelley). If you want to see a whole set of articles on an author, see this featured topic on Mary Wollstonecraft that I wrote. You can see how I covered each work in relation to the larger article, etc. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• What do you think about a section on "Themes"? I've been working on a separate article on Styles and themes of Jane Austen that I plan to summarize in Jane Austen. There should be more material like this in the article. (You might also think about such a subarticle for Hemingway.)

• Added a themes section. (Will most likely expand into an article as you suggest, but am getting very busy IRL). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Understood. Whenever time permits, though, you should return - you're doing great work here. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you make a family tree instead of including a section made to look like a family tree. See this Austen family tree, for example.

• Did you put in a request at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for this? It's very nice, and would be perfect. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Mike Christie made it - isn't it great? I'm sure he'd be willing to help you, too. He's a great guy. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Finally requested

• And done. Thanks for the suggestion! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• The "Tributes and honors" section is a long list - these need to be culled for truly important honors.

• I'd like to see it completely gone, or moved to a new page. Is that too radical? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not in my book. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kept some that were easy to cite and converted to text. Eliminated as a separate section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The bulk of the article is sourced to the Meyers biography. Considering there are many Hemingway biographies, I would suggest using a wider variety of sources to make sure that all viewpoints are represented.

:*Working on this. There are four well-respected biographers: Baker, Meyers, Mellow and Reynolds. I've used Meyers and Mellow. I have to get my hands on a copy of Bruccoli. Am in the process of adding Baker. It's a bit disconcerting looking at the notes: too many Ms that blend together. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Only four? How lucky you are! Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

:*Actually that is an important point! I believe the family had Baker as the official biographer for many years. This might be worth adding, but need to dig for sources. (If I were doing 19th century Am. lit and specifically Wharton I'd be in comfortable territory! Oh well, I'm learning a lot about an author I like). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

American lit is a weakness of mine - I'm British all the way. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The sections on Hemingway's writings need to be sourced to literary scholarship, which is written by the experts. I would suggest searching the MLA database, which is the primary place to find literary scholarship. There are 4390 results for "Hemingway". To help you sort through what is important, I would suggest beginning with something like The Cambridge Companion to Hemingway, which has excellent introductory essays and a helpful guide to further research. For an article like this, on such a major figure, I would recommend spending a lot of time selecting the appropriate sources and then taking notes on them. (For Jane Austen, we did this online. It has been most helpful.

:*This is now moot, but will be necessary in the individual articles. I don't have access to MLA but will figure out how to access the necessary scholarship.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is not really moot, as the Hemingway article itself needs to have some mention of his writings. The question is how best to present the material. Without a doubt, you will need to access the MLA database - do you have a good public library near you? Or perhaps a state university research library? Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

*Sorry, I mean moot as far the now non-existent section. Not moot to the article in general. I live in a small town with a small library, but will see what I can do. Gave up my MLA membership years ago when the discounted graduate student rate no longer applied and I left the discipline. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Let me know if I can access anything for you. I have access to MLA, JSTOR, etc. I'm at an excellent university library (and have decided to remain in this punishing discipline). Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Made some headway and added more references (i.e. scholarly sources). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• For Austen, we wrote a subarticle on Reception history of Jane Austen. You might think about something like this for Hemingway - perhaps something that focuses on his literary influence, which is much more important for Hemingway than Austen.

• Yes, the "Influences and legacies" section is really impossible for the scope of the biography article. What do you think of having a simple "skeleton" type section, and linking to a main article (which at some point I would research and write)? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Finished. It needs to be expanded into a separate article, with a smallish section in this article, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed - you could also create a draft subarticle in userspace. We've done that for Austen articles. For example, see our in-progress Family of Jane Austen article. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Once the general structure of the article is established and all of the research, I would be happy to review the prose.

I hope this was helpful and I apologize for the delay. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC) :You've found all the weaknesses in the article that I see. I intended to make only a couple of edits and had the Meyers book on my shelf. That one edit, obviously spiraled out of control. My main questions are whether to split out the "Tributes and honors" section which was in the article before I began this journey; and whether to also split out the "Notable works" and "Posthumous" sections. Once those decisions are made, the necessary scholarly sources obviously should be added to the relevant sections (where ever they end living). Anyway, this popped up as I'm logging off. Thanks for your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of control is sometimes good! Let me know how else I can help. Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

---

===List of Slipknot concert tours===

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because it will help it get to FLC. CrowzRSA ^{23:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)}

Archiving as already at FLC Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

2009 Duel in the Pool

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to determine what steps could be taken to move this article towards GA status. There are no other swimming competition/championship articles with this assessment, so bringing this article up to the standard will allow editors of existing and future championship articles to get a feel for the kind of content and prose discussion that is required alongside the typical results section. At this time I'd particularly welcome comments on the quantity of the prose discussion and any areas of interest that are not mentioned.

Thanks, Yboy83 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While it is clear a lot of work has gone into this interesting article, it needs a fair amount of work before it can pass WP:GAN. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is often useful for ideas and suggestions to follow - there are many FAs on sports at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation, although
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and as such needs to be expanded here. 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
• In the Background section there are two problems, one is that the article does not identify whose idea this was - who organized the meet? The other is the language - this happened in the past, but the language is future tense This event will include the first competitive performance by Michael Phelps in Britain.[2]
• The team lists do not seem to have references and there are several other places without refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• The Venue section has no refs either, 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
• Who were the teams' coaches? Who selected the team members for the US and European teams?
• There is no mention that there is a whole Duel in the Pool series until the Format section, about halfway through the article. This should be in the Background section I would think.
• I think there needs to be some brief descriptions of the events, not just the tables
• There is no alt text for images - see WP:ALT
• Language is really rough in spots In the United Kingdom the event was be broadcast live on the BBC's channels and via it's website. Friday's session was be on BBC Three, and Saturday's on BBC One.[16]

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 _><>°^° 03:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Voyage of the Karluk

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article, expanded from a stub with much help from User:Dankarl, tells the story of a tragic and largely forgotten Arctic voyage of nearly a century ago. The story is eerily similar to that of of Shackleton's Endurance voyage in the Antarctic a couple of years later, though without the happy ending – with the Karluk eleven (out of 25) died. Both stories begin with a ship trapped in ice, unable to reach destination. Then, in each case: long drift trapped in pack ice; ship crushed and sunk; crew camps on ice, then struggle to reach remote uninhabited island; leader goes off on a dangerous journey to get help; long delay and frustration before rescue. I hope to take this article to FAC and, if it is promoted, nominate it for TFA on an appropriate anniversary. NB: the inadequate voyage map is being replaced with a more legible version. Comments welcome on all aspects. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

• On first glance, it looks very good; references appear solid, images are all pre-1923 with documentation and sources (although given the sizes of some of the images, did they come from a website? It would be good to have those sources in addition.)

They mainly come from Bartlett's book, which is available on Internet Archive. I will add the links to the image descriptions. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The lead sentence is somewhat of a mouthful, trying to cram "voyage of the Karluk" into it. Perhaps you can break it up into two sentences? Per WP:MOSBEGIN, you don't really have to include the title verbatim.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have split the opening sentence, and made other prose tweaks in the first paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Clevelander96

• Overall, this is a very finely written and organized entry. In many ways, it is more clearly and forcefully written than the books it uses as its sources. My comments are mostly very minor
• 1st section: The article reads "Conditions on the ice were hostile" -- it's a minor point, but I would generally steer away from assigning motives to the ice; people can be hostile, but ice conditions are better described as "unfavorable," "poor," or else their condition described (e.g. "the ice was very hummocky and broken up with scores of pressure ridges."

• Changed to "difficult and dangerous"

• In the section "In the Ice" -- the statement "It became clear that Stefansson's party would not be able to find their way back to the ship" cites only Niven as a source. I'm not sure that this is a statement that others would agree with -- or, if so, why would there be any controversy over Stefansson's leaving the vessel? I think this should be rephrased either along the lines of "the ship's drift made it increasingly unlikely that Stefansson would be able to reach the vessel" -- or, if kept in its present form, rephrased as a POV attributed claim, e.g. "Some historians believe that the ship's drift was so rapid and unpredictable that there was no longer any was that Stefansson's party could return to it."

• I think that all historians and commentators are agreed that after Karluk started moving rapidly westward on 23 September, it became difficult, and then impossible, for Stefansson's party to return. The controversy is over Stefansson's intentions in leaving the ship in the first place, a matter dealt with quite thoroughly in the article using multiple sources. I think it's probably OK to use Niven as a source for the uncontentious statement above, though I will add another, for safety's sake.

• In general, I think statements such as this sourced only by Niven's book should, if there is any question of POV, be given an additional source. Niven is a popular writer, not a trained historian.

• Bearing in mind Niven's status as a non-historian, although she is frequently cited (her account is far more detailed - and readable - than most others), these citations generally relate to factual, non-contentious issues, Sometimes, when in doubt, I have added second citations. I will go through again to see if anything else needs to be reinforced by a second citation.

• Aside from these (relatively minor) issues, I think this is an enormously well-done entry, and very close to FA quality.Clevelander96 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments and for your kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Usual great job, as requested here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement. I have to say reading this made me appreciate Shackleton and Nansen and what they accomplished even more.

• This is just awkward, but I am not sure how to fix it - I think part of the problem is the antecedent of "another" is unclear and Kataktovik is clearly not an Inuit family. Perhaps adding "Inuit" after "another": At Cape Smythe the expedition was also joined by an Inuit family of four—Keraluk, his wife Keruk and their two young children Helen and Mugpi—and another, 19-year-old Claude Kataktovik; Keraluk and Kataktovik had been hired as hunters.[39]

• I have reworded the sentence so it now reads: "At Cape Smyth two more Inuit hunters, Keraluk and Kataktovik, joined the expedition, together with Keraluk's family—wife Keruk and their two young children Helen and Mugpi." Better? Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Much better - would it make sense to call them daughters, since Mugpi's gender is not clear from her name to non-Inuit readers? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• There are many people mentioned in the article and some of them have similar names (two Andersons and two Jennesses, for example). I think there are places where identifying them by their role in the expedition might be helpful.
  • For example, would it help to add "Zoologist" at the front of this sentence Rudolph Anderson threatened to quit over the leader's claim to the publication rights of all private expedition journals.[11][12]?

• • I've made this "Southern Party leader Rudolph Anderson..." Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Or here everyone is identified but Jenness: He would take with him the two Inuit "Jimmy" and "Jerry", the expedition secretary Burt McConnell, the photographer George Wilkins, and [anthropologist] Jenness.[45]

• • I have done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Is the historian Jenness related to the expedition member? Also would it help to identify who McKinlay was here (the Scot school teacher): According to expedition historian S.E. Jenness, McKinlay expresses the belief in his unpublished expedition journal, and in later correspondence, that Stefansson's departure amounted to abandoning the ship to its fate.

• • I have reminded the reader of McKinlay's role. I think Stuart E. Jenness is Diamond Jenness's son, but I'm not sure. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • He is; mentioned in preface to Arctic Odyssey and in the author blurb for Making of an Explorer Dankarl (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The familial relation is probably worth a mention in the article then. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was not clear to me how many people were in Anderson's party or who they were.

• I have named them all now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure about the note as the only mention of the Anderson party's ultimate fate - should there be some mention of their fate in the article itself? The first time through, I also did not read the note until I got to the end of the article, at which point I was not sure which missing party this was.

• I have now briefly noted their fate (see end of Shipwreck camp section), and have transferred the details into the Aftermath section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would link nephritis

• Now linked. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if the note on Anderson's party would work in the Aftermath section?

  As remarked above, it's now in the Aftermath section. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lovely map - I would add a black border on the left hand side.

Thanks for the kind words. You are my main map mentor, and your recent mention of counting pixels was the information I needed for doing my first-ever map scale. Good catch on the missing east west border. The old one disappeared when I cropped the original too-wide map, and I have now restored it. Finetooth (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for these very helpful comments. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome - glad to help and please let me know when this is at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an excellent article—well-written, well-illustrated, and a pleasure to read— about which it's hard to find much to suggest in the way of improvement. I list a few things below, but they are mostly quibbles.

Background

• "The American sponsors agreed to withdraw, subject to an NGS condition that the Society could reclaim its rights to the expedition if Stefansson failed to depart by June 1913—a narrow deadline which led to the preparations for the journey north being hurried... ". - Perhaps tighten one clause here to "a narrow deadline which led to hurried preparations for the journey north"?

Organisation and personnel

• "Stefansson had wanted American whaling skipper Christian Theodore Pedersen to captain Karluk, the ship designated for the Northern party." - Uppercase P on Party to match Southern Party elsewhere in the article?

Ships

• "The ship, a 29-year-old brigantine, was 129 ft (39 m) in length with a beam of 23 ft (7.0 m)." - Spell out primary units (feet)?
• "Thus anthropologists Henri Beuchat and Diamond Jenness, both designated for the Southern party... " - Big P?

Towards Herschel Island

• "nor give further details of his plans for the Northern party" - Big P?
• "Despite their alarm and dissatisfaction, none of the scientists resigned." - Another tiny quibble. Since "their" is plural and "none" is singular, would this be better: "Despite the scientists' alarm and dissatisfaction, none resigned."
• "On 2 August, about 25 miles from Point Barrow, Karluk thrust her way into the ice... " - Convert to metric?

Drifting west

• "after Point Barrow itself was sighted on 3 October just five miles (8 km) distant... " - "5 miles" for consistency within the sentence?
  • I understood that this form was OK, but please say if you think I'm wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Later: I've just looked at WP:MOSNUM and you are undoubtedly right, so I'll alter. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• "the captain ordered supplies and equipment to be transferred on to the ice... " - "onto" rather than "on to"?
  • We BritEng pedants dislike "onto", though either form is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinking

• "Bartlett went immediately to the engine room and observed water pouring in through a gash 10 ft (3.0 m) long." - Spell out primary unit (feet)?
• "in pitch darkness and driving snow, to carry additional rations and equipment on to the ice to add to the quantity previously stashed there" - "Onto" rather than "on to"?
  • See comment above - but I've solved the problem by reworking the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

March to Wrangel Island

• "On 28 February all the parties came together in front of the first of a series of high ridges, from 25 to 100 ft (7.6 to 30 m) in height" - Spell out "feet"?
• "Chafe's group came to within two miles of Herald Island before being stopped by open water." - Metric conversion?
• "the path forward had been advanced by only three miles, but the worst of the ridges had been overcome" - Metric conversion?

Bartlett's journey

• '"though still weak from his journey and from an attack of tonsilitis" - I'd link Tonsillitis and spell it with a double ll.

On Wrangel Island

• "Later in the month the party's spirits improved when Kuraluk caught a 600lb walrus... " - Hyphenate, spell out primary unit, and convert to metric; i.e., 600-pound (270 kg)?

Aftermath

• "its poor initial organisation, and his handling of the Southern Party which, under Dr Rudolph Anderson" - Delete "Dr"?
• "Hadley and McConnell wrote up accounts of their experiences for Stefansson, who incorporated them in The Friendly Arctic." - Delete "up"?

Notes and references

• "while US registration records show Benicia, CA" - I'd either use the standard abbreviation (Calif.) or spell out California rather than using the post office abbreviation (CA).

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Please let me know when this goes to FAC. Finetooth (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review (on top of the map!). Except as mentioned above, I have incorporated your suggestions into the text, though Dankarl beat me to a couple. Brianboulton (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Noticed it. I'll give it a whirl. One Canada and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Awadewit

Images

• File:Karluk in the Ice Bartlett.PNG, File:Karluk crew making soundings.PNG, File:RodgersHarbourCampWrangel.jpg, - Since these images are also hosted on Commons, they need to have a tag explaining why they are PD in Canada.

• File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg - "No known restrictions" is not quite the same thing as PD. Wikipedia has stronger requirements than the LOC - we have to demonstrate why an image is in the PD. Please add the appropriate information to this image, explaining why it is in the PD.

• File:Karluk party.jpg, File:Karkuk whaler.jpg,File:KarkukDeparture.jpg, File:ShipwreckCamp1914.jpg, File:ArcticIceOffWrangelIsland1914.jpg, File:Karluk survivors.jpg, File:Mugpi (Karluk survivor).jpg - It would be nice to transfer these to Commons. Do you have the requisite information regardings its PD status in Canada so that we can do that?

I thought I'd start with the easy stuff. :) Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since all the photographs were taken before 1 January 1949 they are PD in Canada. I will add the PD-Canada templates. As to File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg, I raised the question of its use with User:Jappalang; his reply is here. If I add this to the image page, will that suffice? Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• You need something establishing the date of the image. Currently, there is nothing that suggests that image was published in or before 1922 (as Jappalang's reasoning requires). Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang might be able to establish the provenance of the photo, but he's on a break. So what I'll do for the moment is replace this with my Stefansson Mark II image. If the earlier proves OK to use, I'll revert to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The date "9/17/15" is written on the negative; see the Library of Congress copy. There is no plausible scenario whereby File:Vilhjalmur Stefansson.jpg would still be under copyright; among other things, it was published without a copyright notice when it was given to the Library of Congress in 1948 (please see When does copyright expire? for details). Eubulides (talk) 08:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will, however, wait for Awadewit's comment before restoring. Thank you also for finding and adding an excellent image to the Herschel Island section. However, the article is very well provided with images, and adding another into a relatively short section gives an appearance of clutter. As I prefer yours to the "soundings" picture, which is rather less clear, I have left your in place and deleted the other. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(Later) Pending further discussion I have for the time being removed this additional image. See article talkpage for reasons etc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(and later still) Your image is restored after a further reshuffle. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the date on the negative. My only concern is what that date is supposed to signify - the LOC itself doesn't date the photo. Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• Do you have access to JSTOR? I looked up the expedition there and I saw some more articles about it. However, you may have already seen these and discarded them. Awadewit (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  I don't have direct access to JSTOR, though I can usually arrange to obtain articles if needed. In this case I didn't see anything likely to provide more information than was obtainable from the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Performing due diligence here. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Prose

Very little to comment on here - as usual, you tell a gripping narrative. I found a number of missing words as I was reading. You might want to read the article aloud before FAC just to make sure there aren't any more.

• ended with the ship's sinking and the subsequent loss of nearly half its complement - "ended with the ship sinking" or "ended with the sinking of the ship"? The meaning is slightly different, I think. The second sounds more like the ship was sunk during a battle. What do you think?

This first line has been bothering e for a while, mainly because Karluk's sinking is referred to twice in the opening paragraph. So I've changed the line to "The last voyage of HMCS Karluk, flagship of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, ended with the loss of the ship and the subsequent deaths of nearly half its complement." Tell me if you think this is OK.

Yes, I think that is good. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• organised a march to the nearest land - The phrase "nearest land" sounds a bit strange - "nearest island"? "nearest land mass"? I'm not sure.

What about: "After the sinking, Bartlett organised a march to Wrangel Island, 80 miles (130 km) away."? Avoids land/island word conflicts and gives more information.

Good. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, it is unclear how many men died - it is 11 (first paragraph) or is it 11 + 3 (from third paragraph)?

Is it not clear? Total eleven men, per first paragraph; second para deals with eight who died on the march to Wrangel Island; third paragraph deals with three who died on the island. To try and make it clearer, I've altered the first paragraph to read: "In all, eleven men died before help could reach them."

That clarifies it. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stefansson had returned to civilisation with plans for another expedition to continue his Arctic studies - This implies that the Inuit aren't a civilization. It would be best to simply say where Stefansson was going.

Fair point. Now reads: " Stefansson returned home..."

• According to expedition historian S.E. Jenness (son of Diamond Jenness),[44] the magnetician William Laird McKinlay expresses the belief in his unpublished expedition journal, and in later correspondence, that Stefansson's departure amounted to abandoning the ship to its fate. - Convoluted sentence

Admittedly awkward. I've split the sentence and tweaked it into better shape.

• It is arguable, Pálsson says, that suspecting that Karluk might be trapped in the ice for a long time - Awkward construction - "that suspecting that"

Again tweaked to something better.

• The crew and staff grew bored and anxious, a mood not helped when, after Point Barrow itself was sighted on 3 October just 5 miles (8 km) distant,[42] the drift turned northwards, away from the land. - I had to reread this sentence, as the clause pile-up was a bit confusing at first.

Simplified, see text.

• The one dissenting element among the party was the group of three scientists—Mackay and Murray, now joined by the anthropologist Henri Beuchat—who played little part in the general life of the camp and were determined to leave it, independently, as soon as possible - "the one dissenting element"' sounds strange - do you even need it?

Simplified this, too

• Anderson and other members of the Southern Party later petitioned the Canadian government to investigate statements made by Stefansson in his 1921 book The Friendly Arctic, which they felt reflected on their honour. - "reflected poorly on their honour"?

Yes, I agree.

Other

• It is a little bit awkward to read about the rescue in the "On Wrangel Island" and then backtrack in time to see how it happened in the "Resuce" section. I wonder if delaying a reference to the rescue would help this? I would suggest moving the following sentences: Rescue came suddenly on 7 September, when the group at Rodgers Harbor were awakened early in the morning by the sound of a ship's whistle, and found the American vessel King and Winge lying a quarter of a mile offshore. They were rapidly transferred to the ship, which then picked up the remainder of the stranded party who were camped along the coast at Cape Waring. By the afternoon all 14 survivors were aboard, heading for Alaska.

Excellent suggestion - much more logical. Now done (with tweakings to hide the scars of transplant surgery).

That reads much better to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since so many of the explorers published accounts of the expedition, I think it might be nice to include a section listing these publications. I know some of them are listed in the bibliography, but a complete list that is easy to read at a glance might be a nice resource.

I'll think about this. Basically there are four published first-hand accounts of the Karluk voyage: Bartlett's, McKinlay's, Hadley's (in Stefansson's book) and Chafe's. There also are unpublished journals. If we construct a list, where would you suggest it should go?

I would put a section titled "Published accounts" (or somesuch) after the "Aftermath" section. Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be cool if, when you were reading the "Sinking" section, Chopin's funeral march automatically played?

Well, I did look to see if there was a free soundfile of the Funeral March, but no luck, so readers will have to imagine it!

Maybe someday I'll get over my fear of recording myself and upload it. I play it rather nicely, if I do say so myself. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of monetary conversions - has this become a requirement? Money buys such a different things 100 years later that the 2010 figure is largely irrelevant.

I largely agree with you. I've offered one monetary conversion to give readers a rough idea of equivalence, but that's it. I don't think conversions are mandatory.

• Sometimes "Northern Party" and "Southern Party" are capitalized, sometimes not. This should be standardized.

I'll check out the capitalisations

• WP:PUNC - Check to make sure that incomplete quoted sentences have punctuation outside the quotation marks. I started fixing these and then decided I didn't want to do them all. :)

I'll check the puncs, too.

• Some of your ISBNs are in the 10-digit format and some in 13. It would be nice if they were all the same.

I hope these comments are helpful! This is a very good article - let me know when you nominate it at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your—as always—careful attention and thoughtful comments. I will deal with them all, except the last one which is beyond my power. The 13-digit ISBN was introduced from 1 January 2007; books published before then have 10-digit codes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I just use the 10-digit codes for everything, so it is nice and neat. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Eubulides

Well-written and enthralling. The sources are great, but rising to the challenge of trying to help improve them, I looked around and found this one:

• Levere, Trevor H. Vilhjalmar Stefansson, the continental shelf, and a new Arctic continent. BJHS. 1988;21(2):233–247.

Another source, with lists of sources and two fine contemporary photos:

• Defelice, Barbara. Scientists and scientific research on nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Arctic expeditions. Dartmouth Library College Bulletin. 1995;NS35(2).
  • Thank you. I have added these to Further Reading. As to the Levere article, I don't have regular JSTOR access so I can't comment on its content, though the title suggests that it does not focus on the Karluk voyage. Overall I am satisfied that the sources employed in the article - a mixture of first-hand accounts, scholarly histories and contemorary media reports – are sufficient to ensure comprehensive treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, let's remove the Google Books URLs. First, they often don't work (for people who are over quota, or who use IP addresses that Google Books doesn't like). Second, they have privacy problems (they reveal info about the editor who added them). Eubulides (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• What is WP policy? I have always understood that the Google Book link should be given. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I know there's no official policy, but my understanding is that Google Books should be avoided in favor of ISBN and/or OCLC. If you have them, you're one click away from the Google Books entry anyway. When this has come up in the past in article reviews, it hasn't been a problem to remove them; see, for example, Talk:Jackie Robinson #Google Books URLs. Eubulides (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Ditto, ditto. Very well written and gripping. If the prose would survive another going through, I would suggest as follows:

Lede

• "controversially left the ship". Is the word "controversially" needed? It doesn't really tell the reader anything and you explain within two paragraphs what the controversy is. On first reading, I found it confusing, not certain if there was a to-do when they left the ship or later".
• "announced intention to hunt for caribou." I suggest that this carries a connotation of "this was a cover story". While it is hard to come up with an absolutely NPOV version while still cluing the reader to the fact that they might not have been telling the truth, I would use "stating that they planned to hunt for caribou" is a bit better.
• "admiralty commission". Used twice in article. Are you absolutely sure that "admiralty" is lower case? Certainly admiralty as a government department is upper case, while admiralty as a field of law is lower.

• It's lower case in all the sources (Niven, Henighan etc). I'm following them.

Background

• "the remote regions of Northern Canada." Northern Canada! Redundant. Suggest "remote Arctic Canada".
• "$45,000" Given the several references in the paragraph to both Canada and the US, it might be wise to say which dollars are being referred to here. I am, I will admit, uncertain as to whether there was a difference in exchange value at the time.
• "the Beaufort Sea, then a blank space on the world's maps". Was the sea a blank space, or was its shoreline?

• The sea was a blank space north of the Canadian coast. The idea was to find out if he held islands, or whether land lay north of it.

• "although Stefansson maintained that "forethought appeared to have anticipated every eventuality."" It would be interesting to know when he said this.

Objectives

• "In a letter to the Victoria Daily Times," It might be wise, perhaps in the preceding section, to mention that the ship was prepared in Esquimault and note its proximity to Victoria. Might even want to mention that it is on Vancouver Island. That way you have geographical understanding for the reader and avoid the reader wondering why the ship was prepared in Melbourne.

• Impossible to incorporate this into the previous section without rewriting it, which I am reluctant to do. I've clarified, hopefully, by calling it the "Canadian" Victoria Daily Times.

• Just as a comment, I imagine this article is to use Canadian usages. I find from my experience with Dief that they often follow US phrasing, though certainly Brit spelling. You might want to get a Canadian editor to check it over. This comment was provoked by the phrase "in the islands". An American would say "on the islands". What a Canadian would say is anyone's guess, eh?

• I've commented on this point at the end.

Organisation and personnel

• "the north Canadian mainland," Odd phrase. Perhaps "the Canadian Arctic coast"?
• "northern and southern parties" Why lower case here?
• "the Commonwealth" Perhaps a little anachronistic? I would suggest "the Dominions" or "the Empire" if Dominions won't work.
• "Newfoundland" I would say a better pipe would be to Colony of Newfoundland as the province did not enter Confederation unti 1949.

Ships

• "$10,000" again, which money, if relevant. As for the $4,000, that was spent at Esquimault, so presumably Canadian dollars.

• $10,000 would be USD as the ship was bought by Pedersen in the US. The sources don't tell us what the $4,000 was, so rather than make assumptions I've removed the specific amount from the text.

• "petrol-engined" Canadians call the stuff "gasoline". See here. I am very sorry, us Yanks have corrupted them.
• "all would be clarified" I think the vernacular would be more effective here "all would be sorted out".

Toward Herschel Island

• "towards the Alaskan coast." Perhaps just "towards Alaska". The coast is a given.
• "Nome, in the Bering Sea." Ah. Like London, in the Thames River. One can hope. Perhaps "Nome, on the Bering Sea"?
• Dates. According to User:Connormah, who commented on the Dief article and is Canadian, it is more common in Canada to put the month first. See here.
• "two young children". It is later made clear that Mugpi is a girl, so why not say "young daughters". Avoid distracting the reader by wondering what sex Mugpi is.

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have adopted your suggestions except where I have commented. On the question of Canadian usage, etc, the article has been reviewed thoroughly (see above) by a Canadian editor (Finetooth) who did not raise this as an issue. I gather that Canadian readers are generally more relaxed about these things than we Brits are, or you Americans. I have used Canadian/American versions of place names (e.g. Rodgers Harbor) and have changed petrol to gasoline (as Bartlett and Stefansson both have it. But unless there is a howl of wrath from the Canadian contingent I'd rather leave the dates as they are. Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, eh? I will be back to you with more, but probably not until tomorrow or Sunday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Oregon, actually, rather than Canada, but I don't have problem with the date formatting, which is internally consistent. Quite some time ago I copyedited Lethbridge, which is FA. The dates in it are d-m-y, just like those in Voyage of the Karluk. Perhaps the Canadian editors choose whichever format suits them personally. I'm entirely relaxed with that. :-). Finetooth (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I do apologise - Oregon isn't even next door! Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem either way. Canada's governments (also Quebec) tend to use dmy more. Peer review, at least for FA writers, is to clean up problems here rather than there, and I felt obliged to mention it to Brian as Connormah mentioned it to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for raising it. The article will probably go to FAC on Sunday, but I'll welcome any comments before then. Brianboulton (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i think it is eligible for it

Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You've worked hard on this article, and it's in better shape than the last time I reviewed it. I boldly did some copyediting to improve the prose flow and to bring the article closer to compliance with Manual of Style guidelines. This included re-writing the alt text, converting a short bulleted list to prose, fiddling with a few wikilinks, and other things. If I accidentally introduced any new errors or if you don't agree with any of my changes, please revert them as you see fit. I'd also be happy to discuss any of my changes that seem mysterious or wrong. Beyond that, I have a few more suggestions.

• Citations to Internet sources need to include, at a minimum, the title, publisher, url, and date of most recent access. It's also customary to include the author's name, if that is known, and the date of publication, if that is known. All 161 of your citations are bare urls with none of the other needed information.This lack of data is certain to cause rejection at FLC. However, it is easy to fix (although tedious and time-consuming). I like to use the {{cite}} family of templates to help me organize my citations. It's not necessary to use any citation templates, and some editors prefer to enter the required information by hand (being careful to list everything in the correct order with the correct punctuation). I have used the "cite web" template for citation 1 to give you an example of how this template works. (I used the "last update" date posted at the Emporis site as the date of publication). Since all of your citations are to web sites, you can simply imitate the form of citation 1 for the other 160 citations, being careful to fill in the correct data for each one.

• To simplify long reference lists, it's customary to use another device in the citation templates that make it possible to combine citations that are identical. I used this "ref = name" device to combine citations 2 and 3, which were identical. Any other groups of identical citations can be combined in the same way. The syntax has to be exact; you can imitate my example.

• I don't quite understand the rankings in the "Completed" list. Why are there no 8 and 9 listings? I see that the second 10= would fill the 11 spot, but why is 16 missing? Why is there only one 19=? Why do the pair of 29s have no =? And so on. Are these mistakes, or am I not understanding something? Would it be helpful to add a sentence or two to the opening sentence of this section to explain how = is being used in the list?

• The numbering in the "Under construction" list is equally mysterious. Why is there no number 6? Why only one 12=?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the ranking is displaced due to the edition of newly built or topped out buildings,i will bring it to the correct order,while the = signs shows that the buildings have same height, hope you know about it.I will add Citations to Internet sources as well.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done,i have cited all the references to their Internet sources as well as i have corrected the numbering(Ranking), of both sections.Check for errors and mistakes in the article and also suggest more suggestions for this article.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

<outdent>The citation formatting looks much better, and the lists look orderly and impressive. I see a couple of small problems. In the "Under construction" section, a sentence says, "This list contains residential buildings that are at least 200 metres (660 ft) in height currently under construction, and On hold only." I think this means "This list consists only of residential buildings that are at least 200 metres (660 ft) in height and under construction or on hold." Another small problem is that habitat is misspelled as "habitate" in many of the citations. Instead of "Council on small buildings and urban habitate", these should say "Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" (with uppercase letters on the main words). Also, citations 67 and 68 are incomplete; citation 49 links to the Bangkok Post rather than to "State Tower"; citation 48 links to the main Emporis page rather than to an article about State Tower. I didn't check all of the citation links, but finding these few errors makes me think there might be more. You might ask another reviewer, perhaps one at WP:PRV to look at the article with fresh eyes when you've finished the next round of fixes. It's often helpful to get comments from several different perspectives. Best wishes. Finetooth (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i wll correct them all.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Big Bang (band)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this article at least to GA status. However a lot of constructive criticism is needed to find all the mistakes. I hope that fellow editors can help find faults and help me improve this page.

Thanks, + npervez ☂ 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GinaGucci

• The "Artistry and influences" section needs more work. The tiny paragraph before "Musical styles" is referenced, but needs to be expanded to make it more effective. It stated that the group received praises from "critics, fans, and other singers alike", but does not state who the critics were and what they said. It's not bad to mention what fans and singer says about the band, but preferably music critic. The lead category has the word "influences" in it, but I can hardly find what they influence at all. If it's going to be in the category, then at least concentrate on it. If not, it can be taken out.
  • For the "Musical styles" part, it stated that Big Bang's musical style can be classified for the most part as hip-hop (as seen with the songs "La, La, La" and "Goodbye Baby"), with a little vibe of R&B (as seen with the songs "We Belong Together" and "Forever With You"), mainstream ("This Love") music, and rock with "Oh My Friend". Are those opinions from the editors, or is it a fact? I would also like to see what kinds of themes the group touched upon in their music and what their lyrics say (since it was stated several time that G-Dragon wrote their lyrics). I think it would also be appropriate to also mention about their music videos and how it portray their music. And what about their live performances or concerts? Are they lavish about it and include props? Are there any creativity in their performances as a group?
  • The "Dance" section needs to be expanded as well, and that includes more sources. Is the group into choreographed dance, or not? What do critics think of them as a dance group?
  • The "Image and cultural impact" is okay, but the first paragraph has few source so I don't know if those are true or not of the group. (I am not a fan so I would not know). I would like to see expansion of that section as well, especially on what they influence as a group (the only mention of it directly is the Nike and Reebok high-top shoes).

• In the "History" category, it is well-sourced, though I found the word "activities" used often. I would also like to see a brief description about their albums, and what the group think of it as they released it. Did it represent their ideas and emotions? What kinds of music was included on that album? And what did critics feel about it? Did the group did something on it that is different than their previous materials?

The article is not bad and represents a fairly neutral point of view about the group. I think its rating of a "B" suits it, but it is not near being a "Good Article". I would look to GA articles such as Aerosmith or The Cure if you're lost on where to take this (since those are about band groups as well). Until then, good luck and keep it up!GinaGucci (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I am looking for new ways to improve it and to see how well it conforms to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Specifically; any uncited statements that need support, any point that need a longer introduction, and any information that is Not Notable/Completely Unsupported and may need to be removed in order to meet the criteria I mentioned above.

Cheers!, Outback the koala (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but it needs a lot more references and some other work before it will have a good chance of passing at WP:FLC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• Featured lists no longer start with "This is a list of ..."
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are several FLs in the law and politics sections. List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type seems like it might be a good possible model list here.
• Biggest problem I see here is a lack of references - most of the items in the article have no ref, but will need one to a WP:RS in order to pass FLC. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. Here every amendment will need at least one ref too.
• There are some direct external links in the body of the article (Jesse Jackson Jr's amendments, for exmaple). These need to be converted to inline references and cited like everything else.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• I also worry about how the amendments were chosen to be included here - it seems very odd that there are no proposed amendments older than 1861, and only three from before 1900, but at the same time there are six from 2009 alone. This is a problem - see WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT
• The dab finder tool (top right) finds one disambiguation link
• Seems odd that there are no images here - the Capitol? Picture of the Constitution? Images of some of the congressmen and women mentioned?
• I think the article also has to do a better job providing context for the reader - background on some of the amendments
• Any reason why this is not in table form?
• Per WP:MOS quotation marks should be " (double quotes) and not ' (single quotes)

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 _><>°^° 02:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Royal National College for the Blind

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it up to featured article status and would like to know what changes/improvements it might need. My plan is to get it ready for consideration either for the World Blind Football Championships in August, or the 2012 Paralympic Games, both events in which the college has a role.

Thanks, Paul Largo (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I haven't had time to check out the prose, but here are a couple of issues that require attention

• Lead citations: there are 16 citations in the lead, all of which appear to be repeats of citations that occur in the main text. If material is cited in the text it should not be cited separately in the lead. My view is that since everything in the lead should be reflected or expanded upon in the text, the lead needs no citations at all.
• Reference formats
  • A good many of your on-line sources are unformatted bare urls. All references should minimally contain title, publisher and last access date.
  • I assume that the Ann Lee references are to articles in New Beacon. The article titles should be given.

Also, from a glance I saw "principles" in the lead instead of "principals". And the geographical coordinates of the college appear twice, once in the infobox and once above it. While such coordinates might be useful in articles dealing with remote corners of the world, for towns in heavily populated areas they are completely pointless. I suggest knock both of them out.

If I can find time, I'll try and make some comments on the prose. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Vietnamese Poetry

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve this translation of mine, directly from the Vietnamese poetry page. Comments of any kind are very much welcomed

Thanks, Hongtran0507 (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Let me first confirm that you have translated this directly from vi:Thơ. If so, we'll need to properly attribute it. When material is copied, even if translated, it needs to be attributed to avoid plagiarism. Even if it's copied from another Wikipedia, we have to give credit, as contributors to Wikipedia do not release their material into public domain. Reusing their text without attribution is a copyright problem. If you can confirm that this is your source (it looks likely), I can help you provide proper attribution for it. This step should be a high priority. :) (See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.)

For the most part, it is brilliantly written (here's a sentence fragment, though: "From simple structure to complex ones." Material like that should be incorporated into a full sentence). It uses the first person (plural & singular) of address, which is not in keeping with the English Wikipedia's manual of style. It is sorely in need of additional sourcing, as right now a lot of it seems to be "original research".

I can't comment on the actual translation, but I'd be happy to help find a multilingual (or at least bilingual) contributor who can. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Vietnamese poetry would be a more correct name for the article, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It needs audio to actually hear what's coded into tables and phonetics. Any chances of recording? NVO (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The Kinks

Note - Due to this article being listed at WP:FAC shortly, please consider this PR closed, per FA nomination guidelines. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

--- This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing to list it at FAC. I would appreciate any comments you have on the page—everything helps.

Many thanks. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really like the article, it seems to be clear, well written and has what seems to be all the relevent information on it! Well done! Paul-T (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This seems about ready for FAC. I came to this with virtually no knowledge of The Kinks; even so, the article held my attention throughout and seemed clear and professionally written. I found a few minor things that need attention, but none should cause you any lost sleep. Nice job.

Formation

• "Davies soon quit school and returned to Muswell Hill, where the brothers and Quaife reformed their old group." - Would "re-formed" be better? "Reformed" might be misunderstood as "made them behave better".

Commercial breakthrough

• "because it was the first pop record to use a sitar" - Wikilink sitar?

The Golden Age

• "In retrospect, 'Autumn Almanac' marked the first hint of trouble for The Kinks. This glorious single, one of the greatest achievements of British 60's pop, was widely criticised at the time for being too similar to previous Davies efforts." - This direct quote needs a citation immediately after the end punctuation.
• "In fact, Nick Jones of Melody Maker asked, "Is it time that Ray stopped writing about gray suburbanites going about their fairly unemotional daily business? ... Ray works to a formula, not a feeling, and it's becoming rather boring." - Ditto for this one.
• "Boston's underground paper Fusion published a review stating "The Kinks continue, despite the odds, the bad press and their demonstrated lot, to come across... ". - I don't understand what "their demonstrated lot" means. Is something missing from the quote?
• "Ray Davies travelled to Los Angeles, California in April 1969 to help negotiate an end to the American Federation of Musician ban on the group... " - Comma after California?
• "As with the previous two albums, Arthur was soaked with British lyrical and musical hooks," - "Soaked with hooks" is probably not the best metaphor. Maybe " ...Arthur included many British lyrical and musical hooks? Wikilink "hook"?
• "Their debut for RCA, Muswell Hillbillies, was soaked with country, bluegrass, and music hall influences." - "Soaked" again strikes me as not quite right. Maybe "replete with" or "dominated by"?

Return to commercial success

• "Ex-Argent bassist Jim Rodford joined the band before the album Low Budget – on which Ray Davies played the keyboard sections – was recorded." - Should these be unspaced em dashes instead of spaced en dashes for consistency?
• "which depicted Dave Davies as a leather-jacketed piece of price scanning barcode." - Add a hyphen to make "price-scanning barcode"?
• "The tour culminated with a performance at the US Festival in San Bernadino" - Spelling. Should be San Bernardino.

Fall in popularity

• "an attack on the very MTV video culture the band had been profiting off of during the earlier part of the decade" - Tighten by using "from" rather than "off of"?
• "The Kinks' first album for Columbia, Phobia (1993), was recorded as a four piece." - What is a four piece"? Should this be linked or briefly explained (with a word or two)?
• "One single, "Only a Dream", narrowly failed to reach the UK chart, climbing to number 79." - If it was 79, wasn't it charted? What is the cutoff for "charting"?

Notes

• The page ranges take en dashes instead of hyphens. Some of the citations have them, but others like citation 11 have hyphens that should be replaced.

References

• It would be slightly better to arrange these alphabetically by last name; i.e., Bellman through Weisbard.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed and learned something from the article. I'll put your suggestions to good use. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Andrew Sledd

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to use it as a template to improve the other other articles regarding the presidents of the University of Florida, and because I would like to upgrade it to Good Article standards.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I enjoyed reading this and think this is basically very close to Good Article standards, though there are still a few things that need to be worked on. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Also to sorry it took so long review - kind of slipped through the cracks.

• Biggest problem is the lead, which is still too short. Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is nothing on his education or the Sledd Affair or really on his legacy in the lead. I think the lead could be expanded to three paragraphs without too much trouble.

 Done Expanded lead without duplicating detailed information provided in subsequent sections. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lead image is very nice, but since it is a digital collection, I assume it is also internet accessible. If this is the case, then the URL to the image should be included.

I don't know how to do this. Your help would be greatly appreciated in implementing your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I see there is an image of Buckman Hall here that could be used in the article. A map might also help for those not as familiar with American geography. Is there any chance for more images? Perhaps one of the buildings at Emory where he worked?

 Done Added Buckman Hall photo. None of the Candler/Emory buildings where Sledd worked still exist; all have been subsequently replaced. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• What happened to the campus of the University of Florida at Lake City?

Looking into this, but cannot fund anything in my references. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think I would add a phrase or even a sentence explaining what the Board of Control did / was responsible for.

 Done Added explanatory phrase. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Problem paragraph: Following Sledd's resignation, he and his family returned to Atlanta and stayed in the home of his wife's parents. Within several weeks, he received an appointment to be the minister of a Methodist church in Jacksonville, Florida, a position he held for the balance of 1909 until the summer of 1910.
  • First off it does not have any references, and needs at least one. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.

{done}} Added citation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Second, it is in a section called "University of the State of Florida" but really has nothing to do with that. The next section, "Southern University" is a two sentence paragraph and section. Usually sections are longer - could the problem paragraph be moved here? Perhaps rename the section "Minister and Southern University"?

 Done Merged paragraphs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• It also seems odd that he was at Southern U and the University of the State of Florida each for about four years, but there are two sentences on his time at Southern U and four substantial paragraphs on his time at the University of the State of Florida. See WP:WEIGHT.

Reference problem/challenge: There are plenty of detailed resources regarding Sledd and the founding of the University of Florida, and a couple of near-contemporaneous manuscripts from Emory regarding Sledd's time at Candler. There is virtually nothing to be found regarding his time as president of Southern University. Southern merged with another Methodist college and changed names after Sledd returned to Emory, and I can find nothing about Sledd at Southern other than oblique references in the Florida and Emory materials. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why did he leave Southern?

 Done Added sentence and citation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is also relatively little in comparison on his time at Candler.

I am re-reading Candler reference materials to see what else may be added. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be better to call the "Legacy" section "Death and legacy"?

 Done Agreed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would make the Sledd Hall caption clearer that this is on the four year U of FLorida campus, perhaps something like "Passageway through Sledd Hall on the University of Florida campus, named for Andrew Sledd, first president of the university (1905–1909). Built in 1929 as the New Dormitory, it was renamed after Sledd's death in 1939.

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:See also says in part Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section...

 Done Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (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 _><>°^° 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions, Ruhrfisch. I think it's a better article for your input. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

John J. Tigert

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to Good Article standards.

Thanks, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and seems about ready for GAN. It's broad in coverage, generally well-written, verifiable, reasonably illustrated, neutral, and stable. The existing lead is too skimpy, but it shouldn't be hard to fix. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

• The lead should be an inviting overview of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about Tigert's early life, his interest in athletics and reform, or his legacy. When I write my leads, I ask myself whether a reader would fairly understand the topic if everything else were erased, leaving only the lead.

 Done Expanded lead paragraph. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Early life and education

• I'd suggest moving the football wikilink up to the first use in "baseball, basketball, football and track". I'm not sure any of the other sports need to be linked, but cricket might qualify, at least for North American readers.

 Done Linked sports, including cricKet. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Educator, administrator and reformer

• If you're going to link basketball, it should be on the first use in the "Early life and education" section. I don't think you need to link football twice in the article.

 Done Eliminated duplicate links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Tigert also established the faculty senate, the Institute of Inter-American Affairs and the Bureau of Economic and Business Research." - I'd suggest merging this orphan paragraph with the one above it.

 Done Merged. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "One of his most influential reforms as president was the creation of the new University College in 1935." - Would it be helpful here to specify that University College was a part of the University of Florida? Suggestion: "One of his most influential reforms as president was the creation, within the University of Florida, of the new University College in 1935."

 Done Agreed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "with new distribution requirements in biology, English language and literature" - It might help to explain what "distribution requirements" means. If it just means "requirements", perhaps deleting "distribution" would solve the problem.

 Done Clarified. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Tigert subsequently served four separate terms as SEC president (1934–1936, 1945–1947)." - Because of the way the date ranges work, this looks like two rather than four. Would it help to say, "Tigert subsequently served four separate one-year terms as SEC president (1934–1936, 1945–1947)"? Or to list them; i.e., 1934–35, 1935–36, 1945–46 and 1946–47?

 Done Good suggestion. It did look odd. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Appalled by the under-the-table payments to college athletes... " - Would "secret" or "illegal" be more clear than "under-the-table" to readers in other parts of the world?

Contemplating how to rephrase this. Not illegal per se, but definitely unethical and a violation of the then-existing NCAA rules. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Appalled by the under-the-table payments to college athletes that were prevalent at the time, he advocated the grant of scholarships to athletes which would become the grant-in-aid of other university athletic programs and as mandated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in the years to follow." - Suggestion: "Appalled by illicit payments to college athletes that were prevalent at the time, he advocated the granting of scholarships to athletes. In later years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) mandated such grants-in-aid for all the colleges in the association." Or something like that. The juxtaposition implies that the NCAA adopted Tigert's idea directly from him, but I don't know if that was the case or not.
• "Contributing to the shortage of facility space, the Florida Legislature reinstituted co-education in 1947." - It might help to add when co-ed education disappeared or to briefly explain the historic co-ed situation in Florida. Also, the sentence might be recast to avoid any hint that the legislature's intent was to contribute to the space shortage.

• I'd think about combining the second orphan paragraph with the one below it that begins with Pearl Harbor.

 Done Check. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Images

• On my screen, the Tigert Hall image overlaps the "See also" section by four lines. I think if you move the image up to the top right of the Legacy section, the problem would be solved.

This was intentional. The photo breaks the line (good layout and design) and partially fills the "see also" right-hand white space. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

General

• I wondered if the Tigerts had any children.

So did I. I can't find any references on point, but I am in communication with the university historian, and I'm waiting to see what references he can find. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• The images need alt text, meant for people who can't see the images. You might not need them for GAN, but you will for FAC if you take the article that far. It's a good idea to add them in any case. They are not the same as captions. WP:ALT has details.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Finetooth. You comments were constructive and helpful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Lad, A Dog

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this article is currently a good article, and I'd like to get feedback on what additional work it needs to bring it up to the featured article criteria before nominating it. I believe it is comprehensive and well-written, and its certainly neutral and stable. My biggest bit of concern, I'd guess, is if the article is "well-written".

Thanks, -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:14, 10 January 2010 (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.colliehealth.org/events.html
    • http://www.roadsideamerica.com/pet/ladadog.html
  • The Dixson ref needs a page number

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.) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thought I had replied here. Weird....Collie Health is an official division of the Collie Club of America. Roadside America is an online site run by Doug Kirby, Ken Smith, and Mike Wilkins, who originally published the Roadside America and The New Roadside America books. They have been well quoted and noted in various newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and New York Times. Fixed the Dixson ref (had page numbers, param had a typo in it :-) ). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 10:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Badly needs proofing for low-level errors that are quite disruptive.

Lead

• "It was adapted into a theatrical film by Warner Brothers that was released on June 2, 1962." - Flip to active voice?

His Mate

• "Lad, an eighty-pound rough collie... " - Add metric conversion? 80 pounds (36 kg)?
• "During one of their trips, Lady is caught in a leghold trap" - Wikilink leghold trap

"Quiet

• "Lad silently attacks him, and during the ensuing fight, the man cuts Lad with a knife, before falling through the window he'd entered in." - Delete "in"?

Lost

• "Realizing he is lost, Lad makes his way towards him... " - "The Master" might be more clear than "him" in this sentence.

The Throwback

• "Glure's herdsman apologies for earlier insulting Lad and Glure offers to trade Lad for Melisande." - "Apologizes"?

The Golden Hat

• "Tired of his high-priced imported livestock losing in local shows, Glure concocts a dog show with a special gold cup for collies that requires competitors to be both an AKC blue ribbon winner and successfully complete a British working-sheep dog trial." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: "Tired of his high-priced imported livestock losing in local shows, Glure concocts a dog show with a gold cup for AKC blue-ribbon winners that complete a British trial for working sheep dogs."

Themes

• "This is further reflect when Wolf takes on the raising of Wolf, with Lady reflected as the even tempered, rational method that reflects "discipline and firm kindliness" that results in Lad having a better relationship with his son versus with Lady, who is forgotten by her son after she leaves for a period." - "Further reflected" rather than "further reflect"? Recast because of repetition of "reflect" and other problems. To this point in the article, I proofread carefully and made quite a few corrections of typos, punctuation, and other small errors. I'd suggest a careful proofing of the rest of the article to pick up similar errors.
• "When Knave destroys a beloved mounted Bald Eagle, the master breaks the rules of violence by preparing to beat her." - Isn't Knave a male? This doesn't sound like Terhune's sort of love triangle.
• I think I should stop here and move on to another article. I'd be glad to take another look after the article is a bit more polished. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed those instances noted above and will give it another read through. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please ping me on my talk page when you'd like me to have another look. My initial impression is that the article will be be fine after a bit of polishing. The rough collies are certainly attractive subjects. Finetooth (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I've printed it out so I can edit aloud offline. Sometimes helps with some of those mix ups of throwing in the wrong word in places :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Further Finetooth comments: Sorry, I see little improvement in the rate of low-level proofing errors. It might be that you've read the article so many times that you're seeing what ought to be there rather than what actually is there. Here's what I found in the first three paragraphs of the Themes section. I'd suggest getting a fresh pair of eyes to proofread the article carefully from top to bottom. Someone in the list at WP:PRV might be available.

Themes

• "In interjecting himself and Anice into the novel... " - Is this the first mention of Anice? Perhaps, "In interjecting himself and Anice, his wife, into the novel... "?

• "In interjecting himself and Anice into the novel, Terhune's Master was... " - Terhune's Master didn't interject; Terhune did.

• "Through the humans in the stories attempts at explaining Lad's inexplicable actions using "mythologies of atavism", Terhune reflects his own views... " - Awkward.

• "For example, in the story "His Little Son", Lad takes on the task raising of raising his son, using and even tempered, rational training... " - "the task raising of raising"? "using and even tempered"?

• "In the end, Lad is stated to have stronger, love based relationship with his son... " - Mising word?

• "As Terhune seems reticence to note the facts..." - "Reticent" rather than "reticence"?

• "Lady's is never stated to actually go into heat"? - Lady rather than Lady's?

• "instead the is told within the context of a "human courtly love triangle" - "the is told"?

• "Though the numerous tenets of the Law forbidding violence in various forms... " - "Forbid" rather than "forbidding"?

Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, didn't expect that I had made it worse :-( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to be a featured list.

1. I would like to know what things must/should be in the lead.
2. For pre-Union graduates, I have listed which of the two colleges (Washington/Jefferson) the person graduated from. Does this look OK?

Thanks, GrapedApe (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Recent featured lists no longer start with this list of..
• Is there an external link for the article? (eg. the alumni association)
• Surely there are fair use pictures that can be included in each section.
• The lead photo is missing WP:ALT text.
• Alumni should be sorted by their last name, not their first. Adding the sortname template should fix it.
• Very few of the website references have accessdates.
• There's instances of The New York Times and New York Times, it should be The New York Times throughout.
• Endash should be used between dates.
• I believe "Alumni association", in this context, used in the lead should be all lowercase, but I could be wrong.
• References that cite a singular book page should be listed as p. not pp. Using "page", not "pages" in the citation parameter should fix this.
• From the lead I understand what Jefferson and Washington are referring to but I have no clue what Canonsburg means, same goes for Dod and Smith/McMillan though I assume they compuses/colleges named after the founders.
• Class year should be sortable, having the colleges on there prevents it from sorting properly. Using the sorting template should fix it.
• When did John Watson, Samuel Lahm, William Stewart, James S. Rollins, James McGready graduate or attend?
• Samuel Baldwin Marks Young, Robert Moore, be consistent and use "???" not "??".
• There's no reference for Johnson C. Smith.
• I would suggest putting the † notifier above the list, not below.
• The first and second paragraphs spell out 'Washington & Jefferson College' third paragraph says 'W&J College', I would put 'Washington & Jefferson College' for consistency. If not you need to put something along the lines of 'Washington & Jefferson College (W&J College)' in the intro so that we know it will be used later on to describe the College.
• Watch for stray punctuation at the end of the notability description.
• Use the tools in the toolbox, to the right, to check dab links and references.

To me the colleges look fine (minus the issues mentioned above), same goes for the lead but prose isn't my strong point. If you want to expand the lead I would suggest working on the first paragraph since it could be longer and more descriptive. Questions that come to mind when looking over the lead: Did all of the founding college grant degrees, or did they issue certificates/diplomas, when did they start granting degrees, what was the first degree offered, is there one area that the college focuses on academically, is there an area academically that it is notable for, where are the students from?

You should consider taking off the red/black links, otherwise you are going to have to argue for inclusion if taken through FLC. You should take a look at recent FL's like List of University of Central Florida alumni, List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics), and List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government to get an idea of what current criteria is used for alumni lists. --ImGz (t/c) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Queen (band)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to finally push this article through as a featured one. Me and the other frequent editors have been doing a lot of work on this article in the recent weeks and would like to know your thoughts on what could be improved before we enter it as a FA nominee.

Thanks, TheStig 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of mainly technical things I noticed:

• Refs 2-5, 26, 81, 82 need extra information on them, currently they're just links. Author, date etc.
• Refs 16 and 101 have been marked as dead, these need fixing
• dablinks brings up Amandla, Band Aid and Dave Stewart pointing to disambig pages, point these in the right direction.
• Alt text needed for all images though all the licensing looks great.

I'll try and do a thorough read through later, bit strapped for time but I hope that helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 20:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll work on this. You advice is much appreciated. :) TheStig 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the article is heading for an FAC, the lead will probably need some expansion. Three somewhat beefed-up paragraphs seems reasonable for a major band like Queen. Also, a lead should not contain citations of its own since it's supposed to be a summary of the article. Placing one right after the the first verb seems taking it a bit too far and is quite distracting. If there are frequent disputes about changing "are" to "were", then I recommend adding a caveat as a hidden comment instead.

By just a quick scan of parts of the text, I suspect the prose might need some work. For example, there's a lot of stubby paragraphs that could probably be merged with others paragraphs or expanded. Cutting down on the list of bands and artists under "Influence" might be a good idea as well. It looks a bit like a collapsed bullet list at the moment. And you could probably lighten up the read a bit by sorting the remaining examples into (specifically stated) genres.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---

July 2009 Ürümqi riots

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently went through a FAC, but it was derailed by one editor who was (unjustly, I believe) concerned over POV. In short, he believed the article was too pro-China—which some of the article's editors found disturbing since most other people complaining about POV have made the exact opposite complaint, and since we have been working carefully for months on making the article extremely balanced.

Therefore, I would appreciate a fresh set of eyes to just read through the article once and let me know how you feel about its point of view. Other things (like copyediting, etc.) are pretty much handled already so there's no need to worry about them, although if you find things you think can be improved you are of course welcome to point them out. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Anthony Roll

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The update of this article came about during my work on the article on Mary Rose during the last six months. It grew from an auxiliary article to a self-sufficient minor topic of its own. I was very fortunate to get my hands on the 2000 edition of the roll, complete with pictures and essays on various aspects of it. All of the illustrations are available at Commons and the text is also available at Wikisource (though not entirely proofread yet).

My aim is to nominate the article for promotion, though I'm not sure whether to choose GA or FA quite yet. I'm looking forward to your advice and comments.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this would pass WP:GAN as written (doubtless with a few tweaks) and is an excellent candidate for WP:FAC. I have to say I looked at it to see if I would review it here and was drawn into the article and read the whole thing in a sitting. Now here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I am not sure Anthony Anthony needs to be in bold in the lead, as usually bold is reserved for alternate names of the subject of the article (and he is the roll's creator, but not the roll) - see WP:ITALIC and WP:LEAD
• Looking at the edit history, I see this was done to help with the redirect from "Anthony Anthony". I have edited that redirect to point to [[Anthony Roll#Author and artist - perhaps the bold could be moved to that section too?

  I agree. It's a better solution, particularly with the new redirect.

• Could some rough inidciation of time for William IV's gift of the second roll to his daughter be given in the lead - has to be between her birth and his death dates, even if it is otherwise unknown. My guess is early 1800s would work.

   Done

• I would also link his daughter Mary Fox in the article William IV had given it to his daughter Mary FitzClarance, one of his illegitimate children by the courtesan Dorothea Jordan. as William IV is linked there a second time (after the lead)

   Done

• Direct quotations in the lead need a ref per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD - ...the artistic value of the Anthony Roll has been described as being characterised by "naive draughtsmanship and conformity to a pattern" thought its artistic aspects display "a decent amateur grasp of form and colour".

   Done

• Although not required for GAN, for FAC this will need alt text for the images - see WP:ALT
• Suggested addition After the rolls were presented to the king they were archived in the royal collections and [two of them were] given by Charles II to Samuel Pepys, former secretary at the admiralty, in 1680. might also read better in active voice at the end (and Charles II gave two of them to Samuel Pepys...)

   Done

• Confusing - Pepys is introduced as a former secretary, then we read he resigned. Which office had he resigned? Pepys had resigned that same year and refused to recognize the reign of William and Mary,...

  I think the same office, but I'm actually not sure. Our article on Pepys seems to paint a rather complex series of intrigues, so I tried to simplify it a tad. Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would wikilink forecastle, may be some other nautical terms that could a link too
• Needs a ref Along the railing of all ships, most prominently on the large carracks and the Galley Subtle, there are rows of banners displaying various heraldic designs, including the English royal arms, one or three fleur-de-lis of the French arms, Saint George's crosses and Henry VIII's monogram ("HR") in gold on blue, what appears to be the Tudor rose, and the green and white of the House of Tudor.

   Done (Just joined it with the paragraph below, really.)

• When I first read this I noticed a few places where I thought a word was missing or a tweak was needed. I see there have been no edits since, but do not see them now a second reading. Sorry.

  I'm sure it still needs some tweaks. I'll print it out and run through it properly before I put I nominate it for article promotion. Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Michael Devore is very good at finding typos if he is available. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:59, 29 January 2010 (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 _><>°^° 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe you've been very helpful, and your comments were quite encouraging. Peter ^Isotalo 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know when this is at FAC and I will support. Ruhrfisch _><>°^°

---

Xiang Yu

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think that it has the potential to become a GA or FA. I think that what the article lacks most are references and images. I'd wish to hear from other editors about how the article may be improved in terms of structure and content. Is there any information that might be useful, that is absent from the current revision? Please share your views.

Thanks, _LDS (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• DAB Links - Fix these by pointing them in the right direction, or if that isn't the possible, delink them

 Done

• Refs 8-12 are fully foreign references, I'm pretty sure these need to be changed so they can be understood by an English speaker

Those are the exact words used by those people who commented on Xiang Yu. What readers see in the main text are the translations. I believe that's what I should do, as written here. If I'm wrong, then how should I correct it?

No, fair point. The way they are now seems good, though you don't need to use blockquote tags in the refs, the mess up the refs section at the bottom.

 Done

• The Family section isn't needed as it's written in prose in the Family Background section

 Done

• Make sure you pay attention to the weasel words (like the one marked in the lead), back them up or remove the speculation (I know you know about the lack of references, weasel words are slightly different though I find)

I've removed the last paragraph in the LEDE. The bulk of it is mentioned in the evaluation and legacy section. Maybe I'll restore it later when I find good references. I'll get rid of the weasel words in other sections later.

• Evaluation and Legacy - I think that numbered list can be put into prose.

It'll look kinda ugly if I number the points. How about bullet points instead?

Don't keep the numbers when you put it into prose. Each one can be separated by a semi-colon.

Sorry, but I don't quite get what you mean. Why don't you do a demonstration or something?

eg. In 1964, Mao also pointed out three reasons for Xiang's downfall: Not following Fan Zeng's advice to kill Liu Bang at the Feast at Hong Gate and letting Liu leave; adhering firmly to the terms of the peace treaty (without considering that Liu Bang might betray his trust); and building his capital city at Pengcheng (present-day Xuzhou)

You could also use commas instead of semi-colons, I'm not particularly good on the grammar side of things so someone else may want to check it.

 Done

• Rebellion against the Qin Dynasty - There doesn't seem to be much about Xiang Yu up until the last paragraph, maybe it can be condensed.

 Done I've removed most of the information unrelated to Xiang Yu, like the parts about the Daze Village Uprising and the early stage of Xiang Liang's rebellion etc. I'll retain some lines because I think they're crucial in providing the historical setting for readers to understand the later parts better.

• Feast at Hong Gate - "he saw that Liu Bang had beat him in the race to Guanzhong." Sounds encyclopaedic to say "beat him in the race"

 Done Reworded as "he saw that the pass was occupied by Liu Bang's troops, a sign that Guanzhong was already under Liu's control."

• "and intended kill Liu during the feast." missing a "to" before "kill"

 Done

• "Liu Bang left the banquet and returned to his camp safely." - Not sure if that line is needed

 Done I've changed that line, such that it now describes how Liu Bang escaped from the banquet.

• "A large library in the palace that contained many unique copies of certain "forbidden books" was destroyed in the blaze as well" - Not needed, would be be better of in the article for Hong Feast if it can be cited.

 Done

• Chu Han Contention - "Liu Bang managed to escape after his defeat with Xiang Yu's troops hot on his heels." Reword to be more encyclopedic

 Done Reworded as "with Xiang Yu's troops on pursuit."

• Death - "asking the ferryman to bring his beloved" "bring" should be "take"?

 Done

• Song of Gaixia - Not sure if the lyrics are notable enough to have in the article. Maybe explain the song where it's mentioned earlier in the article.

I've considered splitting this section into a separate article, but it's very likely to become an orphan.

I hope that helps, I did enjoy reading the article so I hope it improves. CrimsonFox ^talk 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. _LDS (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to a couple of the comments you made CrimsonFox ^talk 06:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. _LDS (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Effects of Hurricane Wilma in The Bahamas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like feedback before taking it to a FA nomination, which I have never done before.

Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I reviewed this last year (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Effects of Hurricane Wilma in The Bahamas). Have these issues all been addressed? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware of that assessment, but now that I am I went through and corrected what I could find a way to correct. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks better. I'm still concerned about the reliability of certain references (particularly http://bahamasvacationguide.com/wilma/index.html). Also, Wayne Neely's The Major Hurricanes to Affect the Bahamas (2006) has tons of info on the storm that isn't in the article. If you can't get access to that book, I can add it for you eventually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't have that book, and my local library doesn't carry it [2], but I submitted an Interlibrary loan request for the book asking for it by the 31st. If it would be quicker for you to add the information then go for it, and I will just read the book for background knowledge when it gets here. In the meantime, is there anything else I could fix in the article? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The ILL I requested said it would take several weeks to get it lent, as apparently only a handful of libraries across the United States have the book, and none in my home state. If you could add the information, it would be much appreciated. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          

---

Jade (Beyond Good & Evil)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to push this article to Good article status and eventually Featured article status. Any advice would be very strongly appreciated, especially grammar-wise.

Thanks, The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question:: What is the purpose of the material shown below? Is it part of this article's review? Brianboulton (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• One is the standard peer review, the other is the WikiProject: Video Games review. --Teancum (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So does this still need a review - looks like it got a pretty thorough sets of comments below? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Gunsmoke radio episodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Gunsmoke is an radio series that is often regarded as a classic. It also let to the television version, which became the longest running western in TV history. Please help impove it if you can.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I did a bit of proofing and I have a couple of minor suggestions below. Other than that, the only things I can think to say are about possibilities for expansion. "Gunsmoke" (counting both the radio and TV shows) was so popular and long-running that there must be reviews. Literary critics might have analyzed the show; historians might have too. I don't know for sure, but I'd suggest poking around to see what turns up.

Lead

• "The information provided in this list is derived from the book Gunsmoke: A Complete History by SuzAnne Barbaras and Gabor Barbaras." - Since the book is cited and referenced, I think you could just delete this sentence from the lead.
  • This sentence has now been deleted.

Episodes

• "The original pilot episode... ". - Wikilink pilot episode"
  • I've left this as it is. "Pilot episode" redirects to television pilot. Since this page is about a radio program I don't think the link is appropriate.

General

• Looking through the WP:FL#Media list, I don't see any radio-show FLs, but I might have missed one or more. In any case, the FLs for television shows generally seem to include quite a bit of detail about the cast and the production, the individual episodes, and the critical reception. It might be tough to follow this formula for radio shows, and you wouldn't want to include plot summaries for 414 episodes in any case. Still, critics might have published something about the show, its over-arching plot, and its characters, and it's possible that one or more critics have examined the recurring themes of the show and, possibly, their relationship to recurring themes in traditional western tales. You might also find and add more details about the actors and maybe something about how the show was produced. Technical details about the recording equipment and the recording studio might be interesting. Where was the show recorded? Are any stats on audience size available? I'd suggest looking for studies of the western hero and other western stereotypes in fiction; if you can find some, they are almost certain to mention Gunsmoke.
  • I'm leaving this aspect alone, too. I believe that details about the show are (or should be) included in the main article about Gunsmoke and not in a "sattelite" page such as this one. — Jimknut (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this brief review proves helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Antonin Scalia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

I've listed this article for peer review because… I am planning to nom it for FA and would like feedback. While I did enter the WikiCup, I am not competing seriously in it. Many thanks. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Interesting but quite tough reading. Looks like a longish haul, so I will post comments in segments:-

• A couple of images lack alt text
• Early life
  • "His father, Salvatore Eugene Scalia, was an immigrant from Sicily who was then a graduate student and clerk..." I believe that "then" means when Antonin was born, but this needs clarifying, e.g. "...who at the time of his son's birth was..." etc
  • "the former Catherine Panaro" sounds as though she was notable as Catherine Panaro, so better say "formerly Catherine Panaro"
  • Repetition: the word "school" occurs three times in the sentence beginning "After completing..." Perhaps Xavier could become "a Jesuit establishment"?
  • The narrative needs a sentence or half-sentence to cover a gap between his graduating from Xavier and his graduating from Georgetown University. We should be told when he went to Georgetown before being told that he graduated from there.
• Legal career
  • "He moved his family to Charlottesville, Virginia..." Sudden appearance of a "family" – there should be some prior indication of their existence.
  • Also, as written it reads as though his professorship was the result of his moving to Charlottesville, when the reverse is presumably the case.
  • Second paragraph: the first "he" needs to be "Scalia"
  • "Scalia's position for the government on behalf of the petitioner corporation prevailed." Could this sentence be rewritten for the benefit of us non-lawyers?
• Judge and nominee
  • Why "As early as 1985" rather than "In 1985"? In what sense was 1985 "early"?
  • "...to be considered if there was a vacancy." Need to clarify this refers to a Supreme Court vacancy.
  • "Reagan first decided to nominate Rehnquist, then an associate justice, to become Chief Justice, meaning that Reagan would also have to choose a nominee to fill Rehnquist's seat as associate justice." Rather heavy-footed, and unclear to those without knowledge of these procedures. Also, as this is the first mention of Renquist in the text (as distinct from the lead) he should be properly described. Try: "Reagan decided to nominate William Rehnquist, then an associate justice, to become Chief Justice. This meant that Reagan could choose a nominee to fill Rehnquist's seat as associate justice."
  • I'm a bit nonplussed by the information that candidates' relative smoking habits are central to their appointment or otherwise to the Supreme Court. Was this really the decisive factor that secured Scalia the nomination – he smoked less than Bork?
• Judicial performance
  • "Lockstep" is an American term; I've no idea what it means - alternately, at the same time, or whatever?
  • "written large number of opinions." An indefinite article missing?
  • Successive sentences start "Scalia has, from the start of his career on the Supreme Court..." and "Since Scalia came to the Court..." This sounds repetitive; suggest rephrase
  • I apologise for my non-legal ignorance, but what respectively are "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions. Concurring with what, and dissenting from what?
  • As Scalia's opinions are apparently so entertaining, it's a pity we don't get a direct quote from one (or perhaps we do later in the article).
  • "...the opinion is assigned by the senior justice in the majority," Explanation required for non-legals.
  • In relation to Scalia's "warm relationship" with Ruth Bader Ginsburg it might be worthwhile noting that Ginsburg's orientation is liberal.
• Statutory and constitutional interpretation
  • "...as it would have been understood to mean when they were adopted." An "it" and "they" conflict.
  • "panned" is a bit informal, even slangy
  • It's not clear to me what Scalia's opinion on the Heller case was. Was it that the original meaning of the Second Amendment did allow non-military individuals to own guns, or that it didn't? What "faux originalism" was Posner referring to?
  • Confused again: what is "corporate speech"?

To be continued. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, which all look excellent. I will deal with them in the next couple of days. This is very helpful, the comments of a well-informed non-American layperson. You do get quite a few Scalia opinion quotes, btw. Wait and see. This part is really an introduction to his jurisprudential viewpoints.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. I did links for concurring and dissenting opinions, as explanations I think would be too long inline. The others are all covered.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing

• Separation of powers
  • "Scalia authored a thirty-page draft dissent, which surprised Justice Harry Blackmun for its emotional content and which Blackmun felt could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted "the screaming"." This is the second use in a couple of lines of the awkward verb form "authored". The sentence reads better, I think, as "Scalia's thirty-page draft dissent surprised Justice Harry Blackmun for its emotional content; Blackmun felt it could be cut down to ten pages if Scalia omitted "the screaming"."
  • "Blackmun felt ... Scalia felt" - repetitive language again. Perhaps "Scalia believed..."
  • "whose members" in first line of 2nd para reads ambiguously. Perhaps remove the comma after "Judicial Branch", or perhaps slight reworking.
  • "Eight justices joined in the majority opinion written by Blackmun." But what was the majority opinion - for or against the petition?
  • What is an appropriations bill? Is it what in the UK we call a "money bill" - one which deals with the raising or spending of money?
• "different than" → "different from"
• Detainee cases
  • What does "finding jurisdiction" mean in layman's language?
  • "...actions by Congress inadequate to detain Hamdi..." Is "actions" the best word here? And shouldn't it be "inadequate to justify detaining Hamdi"?
  • "recuse": I know what it means, but it's not a common term so perhaps use a more recognisable form?
• Federalism
  • "Scalia wrote for the Court in finding the part of the statute which imposed those duties unconstitutional as violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states and to the people those powers not granted to the Federal Government." The meaning of the first part of this sentence is obscure: "wrote for the court in finding"?
  • Words such as "contratextualist" take a bit of working out. It would be more user-friendly to replace it with an explanatory phrase.
• Abortion
  • What in legal terms does "strike down" mean? Does it mean repeal, or reverse, or declare unconstitutional, or some other precise meaning?
  • "Scalia did not have to wait long for Stenberg to be overruled" - this rather personalises the issue. Perhaps the sentence should begin "In 2007..."

Breaking off again, more to come. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those things have been done, although I varied from your suggested solutions a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately a computer breakdown prevents me from continuing the review for the moment. If it's still open in a few days' time I will return and complete. Apologies Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I will just push it ahead to FAC and you can add comments there or on the talk page. Many thanks for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Bill Spivey

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan on taking this new article to GA status, and I feel a good PR is needed to fix any weaknesses before a GAN nom. Prose comments in particular are welcome, as I'm much worse at finding flaws in my own writing than that of others (the curse of dedicated reviewers). If anyone could provide a big-picture look at the article as a whole, that would be great as well. I will do my best to address all concerns presented here.

Thanks, Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is well-written, broad in coverage, neutral, stable, and verifiable. It lacks images, but I'm guessing that free-use ones are hard to come by for players from the pre-digital-camera, pre-Flickr era. Maybe fair-use of something from the University of Kentucky or elsewhere might be possible. Here are a few other suggestions:

Lead

• Give the heights here and in "Early life" in metric as well as imperial?

Recruitment

• " The University of Kentucky first became aware of Spivey when a Georgia newspaper publisher phoned Fred Wachs, who writer Earl Cox called... ". - "Whom" rather than "who" since it's the object of "called"?

1948–49 to 1949–50

• "In 15 games, his points per game average was around 20.0." - Slightly better might be: "In 15 games, he averaged about 20 points per game." (Side note: the word "around" negates the meaning of anything after the decimal point, so it should be 20 rather than 20.0).
• "but was eliminated in the quarterfinals by CCNY, 89–50." - Spell out City College of New York (CCNY) and link?

1950–51

• "Spivey again averaged more than 19.0 points per game... " - "More than" negates the meaning of the 0 after the decimal point; plain 19 would be better.

Implication in gambling scandal

• "On February 16, 1952, he and the association's directors agreed to have him go in front of a grand jury in New York." - Would "testify before" be slightly better than "go in front of"?
• "the university gave him a permanent ban on March 2" - Maybe "the university banned him permanently on March 2"?
• "Kentucky's athletic board said evidence pointed to him fixing games during the 1950 Sugar Bowl Tournament" - Could "1950 Sugar Bowl Tournament" be linked to something? I associate the Sugar Bowl with football rather than basketball.

Trial

• "Hirsch also said before the grand jury that Spivey and West, the ringleader, had not met." - "Before" might be taken to refer to time. Would this be slightly more clear: "Hirsch also told the grand jury that Spivey and West, the ringleader, had not met"?

Professional career

• "He states that he received $10,000 as part of a settlement." - "Stated" rather than "states"?
• "Spivey got into a fight with Globetrotters player Bobby "Showboat" Hall" - Any idea what the fight was about? Did Hall taunt Spivey about alleged point shaving?

Later life

• "Then living in Daytona Beach, Florida, he later became involved in an automobile accident, which aggravated a lower-back injury." - Maybe "was hurt in" rather than "became involved in"?

References

• Publisher for citation 9 and 14?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review; it's exactly what I needed. I made all of the suggested prose fixes. The two cites are shorthand; the publisher is included in the full reference at the bottom. The Sugar Bowl basketball tournament doesn't have a related article that I could find, so I created a red link for it. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything more on the fight, not to mention a free photo. Thanks again! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Bon Jovi discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is now worthy of feature article status. Before I nominate it for FA, I would like to get some peer reviews.

The Bon Jovi discography page was rated a C-Class on the quality scale a few months back, but I have now referenced all information, as well as created new sections such as Music Videos and Promo & Bonus releases. I also reworked the intro paragraphs, categorized the video releases section, added worldwide album sales information and added other charted songs information.

Perhaps the only relevant information missing on the page are 3 music video directors (for "Runaway", "If I Was Your Mother" and "Wanted Dead or Alive 2003"). I have searched everywhere for sources but I have been unlucky. However the other 49 music videos have all been referenced.

Looking forward to some peer reviews. It would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Savvi72 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes for now:

• DAB Links - Fix these.
• Ref 18 is dead
• Descriptive alt text is needed for the image. Find out more here
• In last paragraph of the lead there's a ref (13) before the comma, should be after.
• Write out in full any hash then number (eg #1 - number one or "both reached #1" -> "both reached number one".)
• "To date, Bon Jovi has sold more than 120 million records worldwide." - Use a specific date, imagine this was being read a year from now.
• In the notes section ""Superman Tonight" is currently being filmed." should be removed or cited. Even then, it's about an upcoming event so I would say it'd be best to wait until it's done to add it.

Sorry it's only a couple of comments, but I hope it helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Your comments helped a lot. I have fixed them all except the "Superman Tonight" music video. Just looking for a source. Thank you for the review. Much appreciated. Savvi72 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Electronic fluency devices

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

On December 22 I wrote on the discussion page a list of a dozen mistakes in the article. Three weeks later only one of these mistakes, a typo, has been corrected. I'm not allowed to correct the article because I made some of the medical devices used in the studies referenced in the article. Ironically, that's one of the mistakes, a study using one of my medical devices is credited to a different medical device. Hmm, if the article mistakenly says that all the referenced studies are of other medical devices, does that make me an unbiased editor and allows me to edit the article? :-) Seriously, some of the mistakes I pointed out are minor, but some are howlers. E.g., a statement is referenced to "some anecdotal reports" when peer-reviewed studies found the opposite of the statement to be true. Another line states that "most studies have noted that DAF is more powerful than FAF in reducing stuttering" when the referenced source actually said the opposite.

Thanks, TDKehoe (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, WP:COI applies mainly in situations where i) a user is promoting themselves, ii) getting compensation for an edit, or iii) are otherwise involved in some manner with the article's subjects, so I can see why you would be leery about making any adjustments to the article.

That said, if it is a simple matter of factual accuracy (ie. the source says one thing and the article says another) then I don't think there should be any issues in correcting those yourself. After all, you did not put those sources into the article (or at least I assume you didn't), so correcting the mistakes that you do see shouldn't be an issue, since that's a matter of WP:V. If there are any larger or more problematic issues then factual errors then it would probably be best to leave a note on the relevant WikiProject's talk page (if there is one), or to contact the primary editors directly via their talk pages with your concerns. I'm a little hesitant to jump in myself with the corrections you've recommended since I am 100% unfamiliar with the subject matter and I do not want to risk making a factual error worse; a user more familiar with the subject matter would be best. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Melican. While I cannot imagine anybody objecting to TDkehoe correcting minor errors including typos etc, I really don't think that suggesting that he correct what he considers errors of factual accuracy is very wise. I do know something about the subject and have access to the original articles, and vast majority of his suggestions in my view fail verifiability and original research policies, complicated of course by the conflict of interest (see the talkpage for details). Now, it is always possible that I am wrong; I would suggest that if Tdkehoe wants to pursue other proposed edits that he use dispute resolution using WP:30 or WP:RFC Because of past problems, he has been advised not to edit the page, and I think that advice was wise, except for the most obvious edits.--Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Taconic State Parkway

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I just spent the better part of a month improving and expanding it. I think it has GA and FA potential, particularly with more photos which I plan on taking in the warmer months. But I'd also like people's opinions on whether we should split the history section out as a daughter article or not.

Thanks, Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just took a cursory glance at the article. Much of the route description has no sources, so that will be an issue. There also appear to be two citation styles in use. The article is rather lengthy, especially the history section. It might worth splitting off the history into a separate article...I'd have to take a closer look later on. --LJ (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked one of the other NYSR editors who knows better than I do the best maps to cite for route descriptions to do so (i.e., the ones that have succeeded at past FAs). Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

1. I dont' think there is a "magic" map source to use. Paper atlases and free state maps are probably your best bet, in addition to things like topographic maps and tourist guides. I'd shy away from Google Maps, or any other online mapping services if you can.
2. The bolding in the lines of the table is against MOS:BOLD, especially as you have bolded wikilinks.
3. All of the shield graphics need |alt=|link=, or they should be converted over to {{jct}} for WP:ALT compliance. There is the |map_alt= tag for the infobox for ALT compliance as well. The ALT text page will explain the requirements best.

   OK, thanks ... the table is the one major aspect of the article for which I wasn't responsible. See? That's why we have PR. It seems that many of the shields do use {{jct}}. How would I debold the other stuff? It's not immediately obvious to me and table formatting isn't my strong suit. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done as far as the infobox alt tag is concerned. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

   The "!" at the start of those lines should be changed to a "|", using <center></center> as needed to recenter the text. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

    Done Thanks for the help on that one ... learn something new all the time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

4. You should look into using the system like in Saginaw Trail to simplify the references. If done right, the footnotes will be wikilinked to the expanded version of the reference at the end of the article.
5. Ref 74 should have the title converted into Title Case from ALL CAPS.

    Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

6. There's inconsistencies in formatting.
   1. New York Times should be in italics all the time, and if you're going to include the publishing company, then it should be included all the time.

       Done Apparently I had double-entered the "publisher" parameter. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

   2. Dates are not consistently rendered in the citations.
   3. Author names should be Last, First all the time. The state senator's title need not be included.

      There seems to be a new form of {{cite news}} that doesn't do that automatically. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

      You might need to manually enter |author=Last, First M. instead of |last= Last |first=First M. then. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

7. Footnotes that are explanatory, not references should be in a separate Notes section. This can be done using <ref group="note"> tagging and {{reflist|group="note"}}.

    Done That was easy. Daniel Case (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the prose. For now, I'd leave the history in the article, maybe summarizing it a bit here or there. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look through the prose another day. It's just easier to check some of the other stuff first before actually reading the whole article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think regarding #2 - Imzadi means just the rows that span the entire table, not the headers (Mile, Destination, County, etc.) --Rschen7754 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, Rschen. The header row of the table can be bold, but the rest should not. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not only can be, but should be. A table without header cells really isn't a table. – TMF 14:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article and beautiful photographs, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I agree that the biggest problem is a lack of refs. For the course section, I know Pennsylvania's DOT has beautiful maps online - if NY has such, I would use them as refs. If not, the DeLorme atlases seem to be quite frequently used as refs in road articles.
• There are several other places without refs that would be a problem at FAC. For example, the whole first paragraph and end of the third paragraph in the Engineering section need refs. Or many sections have an introductory paragraph or two that often seem to need refs.
• There are also several places where there are sentences that follow a ref, but have none of their own. One example is As a result the engineers were told to only survey property once it had been acquired, a policy that they found difficult to follow. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• I would link New York in the lead
• The dab finder tool in the upper right corner finds two diambiguation links that need to be fixed.
• I think the prose could be tightened in some places. One example:
  • The parkway got another state park in 2006, when another wealthy individual donated land. Donald Trump had bought 436 acres (176 ha) along the east side of the road near the Westchester-Putnam county line in 1998, intending to develop it into a hotel and golf course.[78] Local opposition was considerable, and he decided to donate the land to the state. It is now Donald J. Trump State Park, with separate parcels called Indian Hill and French Hill.[79] could be something like...
  • In 2006, Donald Trump donated the 436-acre (176 ha) Donald J. Trump State Park along the east side of the road to the state, with separate parcels called Indian Hill and French Hill. Trump bought the land, near the Westchester-Putnam county line, in 1998. He intended to develop it into a hotel and golf course,[78] but considerable local opposition prevented this.[79]
• The whole last section is fairly choppy - lots of short paragraphs that do not flow as well

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Pilot (Parks and Recreation)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FA. (Note: This will be a Wikicup nomination.) I think the article is well sourced and comprehensive, but the prose could probably use a review. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

James26 comments: I mainly just found minor issues, which can be noted in my edit, mostly revolving around punctuation, missing words, redundancy, and a few matters concerning proper tense. I was also a bit confused by the mentions of "the talking-head-style," as I have little idea what that is, having never seen this series and being unfamiliar with the technique. A brief explanation would be nice. For the most part, though, I thought it was a very thorough, well-researched article. -- James26 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Alboin

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted assistance to bring this biography to at least A-class status, and once obtained that eventually try making it a FA. I would especially appreciate suggestions concerning the prose, but in general I need indications wherever possible; the referencing and the accuracy should be OK, but also there other views would be of great help.

Thanks in advance, Aldux (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• Images need descriptive alt text. See WP:Alt if you need help.
• Add a clear template at the end of Aftermath, the notes section is hanging well over the picture
• "His Father's Rule" - Shouldn't refer to article, remove "His" (Section Headings)
• "Albion's Death" - As above - Remove "Albion's" (Section Headings)
• A heading should not start with "The" eg The March and The Skull Cap (Section Headings)
• Approximate birth date should be included after his name in the lead (Birth and Death)
• The use of "i.e." throughout the article I'm not sure about. In some cases it isn't needed and can be in the sentence. The other occurrences where is explaining a word I'm not sure about, someone else will have to help on that one.
• Foreign terms appear fairly frequently, some like "milites limitanei" and "magister militum" aren't explained. Are their English alternatives to use? If not, explain them. Something like "possessores (wealthy)" should just have the English version as it isn't specific title unlike, magister.

*Lead

• "wile in the second opened the door" -> while?

*Fathers Rule

• "The Franks' alliance was important exactly" -> Don't need "exactly"
• "killing in a decisive battle Thurismund," -> Doesn't have very good flow possibly - "killing Thurismund in a decisive battle"

*Reign in Pannonia

• "Placed in dire constraints and faced with the danger of annihilation, Alboin made in 566 an alliance " - Remove "dire" and change the last bit "made an alliance in 566 with"
• "half of the war booty " - Is "booty" an appropriate term?
• "with their king slained by Alboin" - Slain?

* Departure from Pannonia

• "they had not increased much their power " -> "they had not increased their power much" - There's a lot of wording like this through the article, I won't mention anymore but I suggest you get someone to look through and fix the wording.

"parly absorbed by the Lombards" - Partly?

There's a lot to go through, it's a big article so I apologise if I missed somethings. Overall the article needs someone to go through and check wording to tidy it up. Hope this helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 14:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer Thanks for the help, Crimson :-) I've followed your advice, but I can't remove te Latin words, as I can't twist to much, but I've tried to give everywhere possible a sort of English equivalent, and first giving English except that in a very few cases that are pretty specific, but I tried to give a meaning there to. Ciao,--Aldux (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Halo Legends

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, well, I have to. Halo Legends is an upcoming DVD/Blu-Ray release, but I'd like to solicit some comments on the text as-is so that I can add this to the Halo media featured topic.

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• There could be many articles about its release and reviews listed here: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Halo+Legends%22. I also added an Anime News Network interview with one of the directors on the bottom of the page. Extremepro (talk · contribs) as 211.30.12.191 (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the Google Link. I am not a manga or anime fan, and it falls outside my normal editing scope, so finding sources is a bit trickier than my usual methods. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I have a few suggestions for improvement. Mainly the article needs proofreading to catch and fix small errors in the prose.

• The image needs alt text.
• What makes Halo.Bungie.Org or Halo Panel Live Blog reliable?

Lead

• "The idea for an anime compilation... ". Wikilink anime?
• "is intended to be a parody of the universe" - "Halo universe" for clarity?

Development

• "Microsoft was deeply involved in making sure story details were correct and writing the scripts for the stories—O'Connor estimated that 50% of the dialogue in the final products were verbatim from the original scripts—but the animation studios were given wide latitude in their animation styles." - Awkward. Perhaps " The animation studios were given wide latitude in matters of style, but Microsoft was deeply involved in story details and script writing; O'Connor estimated that 50 percent of the dialogue in the final products were taken verbatim from the original scripts."
• "While all the stories save one are considered canon, O'Connor noted that some discrepancies were the cause of artistic interpretation." - Logic? Shouldn't it be "... artistic interpretation caused some of the discrepancies"?
• "the dubbing studio" - Wikilink dubbing?

The Duel

• "Produced by Mitsuhisa Ishikawa and directed by Hiroshi Yamazaki, with creative supervision by Mamoru Oshii follows an Arbiter named Fal... " - Missing word?

The Package

• "The Package segment is animated by Casio Entertainment" - "The Package, animated... " instead of "The Package is animated"?

Origins

• "where Cortana and Master Chief were stranded on after the events of Halo 3" - "Which" instead of "where"? I'll stop pointing out the small proofing errors from this point on. It would be a good idea to get a fresh pair of eyes to proofread the article from top to bottom.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I Luv Halloween

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how it can be improved. Thanks, Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• The article needs a lot of expansion first of all so sorry if don't make too many comments, the article is quite small still.
• The plot section currently only really talks about the characters, this can be expanded into the story and then split into two sections if there is enough information.
• Development is made up mostly of quotes. Cut them down and point out the most significant parts of the quotes that can't be adequately explained without them
• The volume list, from what I know, shouldn't really have a place in articles. The paragraphs in it could be tweaked a little and put into a story section

Hope that helps. CrimsonFox ^talk 12:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Echelon (signals intelligence)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of multiple ongoing structure and design issues.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Error-correcting codes with feedback

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because better wordings need to be found.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Block code

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is unreadable in its current form.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Information theory

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is too technical and not as usable as it could be.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Fountain code

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review as it is hard to read and not useful and not readable.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Error detection and correction

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has reached near portal status.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Micro Transport Protocol

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of its emerging technology status.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Low-density parity-check code

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is overdue for a review of its contents.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

DVB-H

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

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is in need of such a review.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Randomizer

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article is not really readable in its current form.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Interleaving

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because in its current form it is not readable to the general population.

Thanks, Eyreland (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of 13 peer reviews started in one day by the same user - I am closing all but one of them per the peer review instructions "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Final Fantasy XIII

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like some feedback on it. Gary King (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• General

• Ref 6 and 62 don't point to the correct links anymore
• Images need descriptive alt text
• Lead needs some serious expansion. The lead should contain a summary of all the headings in the article.
• Seeing as the references in the lead are backing up non-controversial information, they don't need to be in the lead

• Structure

• Crystarium - This section either should be merged with the rest of gameplay as it's too short of a section
• Cast - This information can all be put into prose and merged with the character section
• Release - Has a lot of one sentence paragraphs, some of these can be merged together as well as those lists. They don't contain information that can't be presented in prose without losing the point they're trying to put across.
• Reception - Could do with expanding but it is early days for the game seeing as it isn't out anywhere but Japan yet
• Reception - Personally I like having scores in a {{VG Reviews}} template so the numbers aren't cluttering the paragraphs and that space can be for specific comparisons about the game.

• Writing

• "A new interface was shown recently" - Specify a date. Imagine this was being read in the future, it would make no sense.
• HP and MP should be written in full the first time they are used eg. Hit Points(HP) then HP thereafter.
• "certain Roles, similar to the Job system" - I don't think "job" and "roles" need capitalisation, but you'll need to check with someone about that
• Roles and Paradigms - There's a lot of in-universe content in this section such as attack names. Imagine someone who doesn't know common FF names is reading this. Generalise them.
• "Roles, with a specific purpose in mind for each, are the only means by which to direct ally AI." - I get what this sentence is trying to say, but it's written oddly. Simplify it, I don't think all readers will understand it if they don't read it a couple of times.
• "as they were in Final Fantasy IV DS and Final Fantasy IX) will return in Final Fantasy XIII." - Remove "will"
• First mention of "mark of l'Cie" should give a brief explanation of what it is
• "When summoned, the Eidolon stay in" - "will stay in"
• "joins the summoned and its summoner somehow;" - Remove "somehow"
• Wikilink levelling system
• There's no Setting section which tends to be the norm
• Story - The use of colons and semi-colons needs to be revised. Check WP:MoS
• Story - Some of it is written in-universe eg "Some 1,300 years ago" could be "1,300 years prior to the events of the game".
• Characters - I'm not sure of practice regarding how bullets have been used in the character section. It seems like the names could easily be referred to in the first sentence of each paragraph so I'm not sure. Need some backup on this one.
• "Vanille" - "She also serving as the game's narrator" - She also serves as?
• Development "but none is a prequel or sequel to any " - Should it be "but is not a pre..."
• Devleopment "and appear in one Blu-ray disc" - Appear isn't the right word, possible "be on one Blu-ray disk"

All in all it's on it's way to becoming a good article. I think a lot of the information is there it just needs looking over and going through with a fine tooth comb. Don't just focus on the writing mistakes I've pointed out as I'm sure there are ones I missed. Good luck with the article, I'll put the PR on my watchlist for now to look out for questions. CrimsonFox ^talk 04:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the review. I've done a bit more work on the article but will continue doing so. Gary King (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

LYNX Rapid Transit Services

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have previously listed it for peer review as part of the WP:Trains/PR to no avail over two years ago and I have on and off been working on improving and expanding it. I think it has GA and FA potential. But I would also like people's opinions on whether the history section should be separated out as an independent article in addition to thoughts on areas missing or lacking in the article as it presently stands.

Thanks, Patriarca12 (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A new subject area for me. Seems a well-researched piece, but there are numerous mainly prose problems with the text as it stands. At present I have only reviewed in detail to the end of the "Ridership" section, so a second tranche of comments will follow when I have your responses to these:-

• Use the dablink tool (in top r/h box) to identify and deal with redirect
• Lead: Possibly overdetailed. For example, I would question whether the following sentence is necessary in the lead, which should be a broad summary of the article, leaving details for the main text: "LYNX uses a proof-of-payment fare system, and is policed by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department with CATS Fare Inspectors present to inspect fares."
• Information should not be cited in the lead if the same information is cited in the text, e.g. the 20,000 daily passengers, the 2034 completion etc.
• History
  • "Local leadership" needs clarifying
  • "...the region's rapid growth." Can the nature of this growth also be clarified, e.g. population, economy, etc?
  • It is not immediately clear why a rail link is a "means to control growth".
  • The phrasing "was to have become the first major rapid rail service of any kind" suggests that the intention was not achieved. Is this so? Otherwise the phrase "was to have become" should be reworded (perhaps "would be" or "would become")
  • Second para: I imagine the task force arose from the renewed debate, though the text suggests the reverse.
  • "The task force received $185,000..." Who provided this?
  • Try to avoid repeat of "envisioned" in a single sentence. Possible synonyms are "visualized", "anticipated", "contemplated", "foreseen", etc
    • Note: you still have "envisioned to consist of" which is verbose. I have altered this to "consisted of".
  • Third paragaph, first line: "estimated" is the wrong verb. You need another of the synonyms, above.
  • Say who the $101 million bond issuer was. The sentence should say "The cost of the plan was significantly more..." etc. (Why the odd total, incidentally?)
  • "This combined with being unable to obtain rights-of-way..." Needs punctuation and clarity for "This". Perhaps "The cost factor, combined with..." etc. And I don't believe "rights of way" is a hyphenated term.
  • "By March 1990, CATS only allotted $14 million..." This should either begin "In March 1990..." or ""By March 1990, CATS had only allotted..."
  • I am getting a bit confused by the financing details. Was the rail to be financed by a bond issue, or was it dependent on a federal grant? Then we have a half percent sales tax. Can we have further clarity here?
    • City bond issue + sales tax + matching federal funds - is that it? Still needs clarifying Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Blue Line
  • "would not commence until 1999" → "did not commence until 1999"
  • "the low projected ridership figures for station." Something missing - what station?
  • "By March 2004, costs of the line were increased..." I think this should read "estimates of costs had increased", and at end of sentence "in January".
  • "...attributed to both rising land and construction costs" → "attributed to rising costs of land and construction."
  • "With construction underway for a year,..." "Under way" is two words, but I think "in progress" reads better.
  • "...LYNX Blue Line would open..." → "LYNX Blue Line opened..."
• Ridership
  • A few prose tweaks, see edit history
  • Link dial-a-ride
  • "Ridership would continue..." → "continued"
  • "10 millionth passenger tip" Typo?
  • "daily ridership at 20,000 passengers a day" - spot the redundancy.
  • "twentieth largest" is two unhyphenated words, and would be better expressed as "20th largest"

Please let me know via my talkpage when you are ready for me to look at the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for such a thorough review. I have addressed all comments as best as I could. Hopefully everything looks good to you too.Patriarca12 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't solve the redirect problem thrown up by the dablink tool. This might need admin help to resolve. Responses so far look OK. I'll post my remaining prose comments soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

• Controversy
  • I have copyedited the first two sentences into a more concise form. But we need to know when the American Foundation for Prosperity made their report. This whole section lacks any time references, so we don't know where we are in terms of time.
  • "Opponents claimed that $8.9 billion is slated for transit out of a total of $12.7 billion for all transportation projects slated for the Charlotte Region's Long Range Plan, with most of the cost attributed to rail."
    • Opponents of what, or who?
    • Tenses: "claimed" followed by "is slated"
    • "slated" used twice in the sentence.
    • The reader needs to have a clearer idea of what you mean by "transit" and "rail" in this sentence.
  • "The opponents also alleged..." Reading this sentence, the oppnents of the scheme didn't "allege"; they used findings published by Professor Hartgen. The sentence should be redrafted.
  • Second para: after "alleged" you revert to the present tense: "Wendell Cox cites", "Sam Staley says" etc. The present tense is only appropriate here if the controversy is current, and without any time guidance I don't know if this is so.
  • Forms such as "aren't" are non-encyclopedic. Use the full form "are not".
  • I have copyedited the last paragraph for clarity.
• After opening
  • "the line was averaging 80% over initial projections..." Is this passenger numbers, or revenue?
  • I wouldn't capitalise "Huge Success"; that's just headline capitals.
  • "co-leader of the recall" What does that mean? Is this a reference to the tax repeal campaign?
  • "Still, LYNX still has vocal critics." Quite apart from the ugly "Still ... still", this remark sound like a conversational aside, and seems detached – does it refer to the next paragraph? It doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. and I sugest you drop it.
  • "...and that low estimates were made with lower gas prices." What is the point at issue here?
• Remaining sections: I'm sorry, but I simply don't have the time to give the final sections the kind of line by line treatment I've been giving the article so far. However, there have been significant prose problems thus far, some but not all of which I have fixed, and I imagine these will continue in the remaining sections. I am pretty impressed with the level of detail; I think the article is comprehensive and it appears to be reliably sourced. So I would concentrate now on the prose; try to get a non-involved editor to give the article a top-to-bottom copyedit. Just a few sample prose errors in the final sections:-
  • "Each vehicle contains 68 seats and have..." Should be "has"
  • "Car 101 arrived via flatbed truck to Charlotte..." Things arrive at, not to.
  • "while the corridor still under construction." Missing a "was"

There are, unfortunately many more. I hope this review has helped, but after several hours i really must move on. Good luck with it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at this as the prose was the primary issue I wanted looking at. I'll take your advise and get additional eyes on the article in the future. Cheers. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to get the page up to featured list quality. I had nominated it for GA previously, and the editor suggested I nominate it for FL, because it is essentially a list.

Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

comments by doncram Some quick thoughts:

• The intro is a bit unclear, IMO. It states " The city is divided into five areas for neighborhoods: downtown, central, east end, near north and northwest, and west end.[1]" It begs the question: Who divides it that way? I see there is a footnote to a planning commission or something, but if you want to organize the list according to their scheme I think you need to explain whose scheme it is, explicitly.
  • Fixed CTJF83 chat 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Next sentence is: "The neighborhoods contain many architectural designs including Victorian, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, along with others.[1]" To be technical, buildings have architectural styles like those; i don't believe that neighborhoods are designed by any one of those styles. There could perhaps be some planned neighborhoods which actually have a particular style of neighborhood layout/design, however. But you seem to be referring, perhaps too broadly to be useful for readers, to the probable fact that there are houses in those styles. I would imagine there are many other styles of architecture represented in Davenport, too, including styles that are more restricted to industrial and commercial buildings, which are also in neighborhoods.
  • Do you suggest removing the whole sentence "The neighborhoods contain many architectural designs including Victorian, Queen Anne, Tudor Revival, along with others" or just rewording it so it doesn't sound like the neighborhoods are all focused on one specific design? CTJF83 chat 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I suggest rewording. As a summary, lede-style statement, given that there is info on architectural styles in the neighborhood sections below, perhaps you could say something like there are several/six/however many neighborhoods which have concentrations of specific architectural styles, while many other neighborhoods have typically vernacular architecture or are more diverse in their architecture. If you say something like that, you should make it be clear in each of your following neighborhood sections which type of neighborhood it is. The lede section is summary. Actually you should look at guidelines on writing ledes, see wp:lede. I have seen another frequent peer reviewer often commenting that a lede should pretty much contain mention of the topic of each separate section following, and that it usually should not contain anything not covered in more detail elsewhere. --doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• I notice at National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa that there are actually hundreds of places in Davenport that are listed on the National Register, including, by my quick count, at least 17 separate historic districts. Few of these have articles yet, but I know that there are available extensive NRHP nomination documents for each one of them. Many are covered in a NRHP "Multiple Property Submission" (document available at http://www.nr.nps.gov/multiples/64000149.pdf ), which i recommend considering for use as a source. But, I was checking the NRHP list first with the idea that i could suggest that you link to individual NRHP places, from each of the neighborhood sections in your list. However since there are so few with articles so far, I wonder if it would be better to advise that you recruit others to work on developing articles about many or all of them, before trying to bring this neighborhood article up as a FLC. Especially for the historic district ones, it seems to me that it would improve this neighborhood list article to link to them, and to include summary information about some of the historic districts (from articles that have yet to be developed in wikipedia, yes). I and other WikiProject NRHP members could possibly help you with developing some of them. You could post at wt:NRHP about that.
  
  • • The on-line PDF document i linked actually contains two reports, dated 1982 and 1983, and are possibly the basis for, or a major contributing element of, the 1985 off-line study which appears to be your primary source. I note that it mentions neighborhood(s) such as Smart-Monroe which the current list-article does not mention, and that it provides some other detail on neighborhoods such as Riverview Terrace which the list-article does cover. Riverview Terrace appears to be NRHP-listed. Since these documents are long, i suggest when footnoting to it to be sure to include page numbers of the PDF document using the {{rp}} template. --doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would start articles on the NRHP, with help. It isn't really a task I want to take on myself, do you know (including you) of any of the members who would specifically help with this? CTJF83 chat 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I notice u've just asked Pubdog, who has done a lot of very good starter articles on NRHPs, especially working systematically in states where NRHP documents are available on-line at a state site. Unfortunately I cannot find a state repository of on-line docs for NRHPs in Iowa (tho i did not check the National Park Svc's own system for its IA coverage yet). You might reach others who would help with creating stub articles at least, upon request at talk page of the project (wt:NRHP) but asking individually is fine too.
    • Another you might contact is User:KudzuVine, who is very experienced and skilled in uploading historic Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) pics. Searching at the HABS/HAER website http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/hhquery.html on "Davenport IA" and on "Scott County IA" yields about 10 places where there are historic pics available, which would help in developing articles. I didn't cross-check HABS items vs. the NRHP list but there is usually some overlap, and where i have identified places of specific interest K has always been extremely helpful about selecting, cropping, uploading pics.
    • User:Royalbroil has done a lot of Iowa NRHP work over time
    • I notice at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Members that 3 others identify Iowa as their location or interest area.
    • To begin to make a dent, I would encourage you to identify one or a few historic districts on the NRHP list that seem to correspond to a neighborhood, and request the NRHP documents for them. These are provided free of charge in either scanned form by email or by postal mail, upon request to nr_reference (at) nps.gov . You may find them very valuable, especially if there is an NRHP historic district that corresponds pretty well to a neighborhood. doncram (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, I wonder if you have identified any other neighborhoods list-articles, either FL or not, which you would like to emulate. I am aware of neighborhood list-articles for a number of U.S. cities including Boston MA, Hartford CT, Philadelphia PA, but i don't particularly recall any one being a great model to follow. Do you have one or two in mind, though?
  • Well there are no neighborhood articles in either FL or FA. The Hartford one is a decent start but the other two, like most neighborhood articles are more of just a list without substance and descriptions. Perhaps I could turn this into the FL/FA model. CTJF83 chat 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hope this helps a little! --doncram (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the review. CTJF83 chat 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • You're welcome :)
    • Another big question is: how comprehensive is this list of neighborhoods? In some cities the city is officially partitioned into named neighborhoods, and then all such official neighborhoods should certainly be covered. But in these and all other cities, there are many unofficial neighborhoods used in newspaper coverage and by real estate brokers and for many purposes. Not sure how you get a comprehensive list, but it's worth mentioning as many as you can find, even if you choose to just say a given neighborhood is pretty much covered in a section about a different name. You don't need a separate section about every past name. But have you done a lot of Google searching/browsing and/or searching in archives of the local newspaper, to dig up neighborhood names as well as articles about them? Lots of newspapers include real estate section articles about "Living in X neighborhood" from time to time. Certainly there must be some such articles to use as sources. I would bet that public library librarians would be very helpful in knowing about such and in helping you find them, if you are local. --doncram (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I can try and expand. All these came from one book about historical neighborhoods, I'll see what else I can dig up. CTJF83 chat 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
        

---

Tchaikovsky and the Belyayev circle

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is a sequel to Tchaikovsky and the Five, which was recently listed as FA. Like its predecessor, it is on a topic known about Russian classical music but seldom duscussed in detail in the West; unlike its predecessor, it talks about a later, more positive relationship Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky had with his peers, one that was mutually beneficial in terms of artistic growth. I've listed this article for peer review because I have taken it as far as possible on my own in terms of scope and quality of writing. I really need input on how this article can be improved and taken to FA quality. Please note: Alt text has not been provided for all images because the images used in the article are still being finalized. Thanks very much for your attention, and I look forward to your comments. BTW, special thanks to Brianboulton for his encouraging me to create this article, and to Ruhrfisch for the very cool lead image, which he provided. Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• Lots of additives such as "also" and "moreover" - These should be removed where possible and reworded if necessary.
• Big block quotes need quote marks This was wrong, sorry. CrimsonFox ^talk 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• "but due to the Russianness of the art itself." - Is Russianness a term?
• "{When these arrangements did not arise as planned, Tchaikovsky made urgent covert attempts to make good on his promises, especially to Rimsky-Korsakov, whom he now called "an outstanding figure ... worthy of every respect)" - This doesn't need the parenthesis, it's long enough and not note-like for them.
• "relationship with Rimsky-Korsakov had gone through a number of changes" - "number of" isn't needed.
• "Tchaikovsky with some suspicion" - "some" redundant
• ", and found much to enjoy in their music, as well" - "as well" redundant"
• He wrote to Nadezhda von Meck that while he found Cui to be "an individual deeply hateful to me ... this in no way hinders me from respecting or loving such representatives of the school as Balakirev, Rimsky-Korsakov, Lyadov, Glazunov, or from considering myself flattered to appear on the concert platform beside them. This confession showed a wholehearted willingness for Tchaikovsky to have his music heard alongside that of the nationalists. - No closing quote marks
• "over the Five with a seeming generosity—"seeming" because, while he remained" - Repetition of "seeming", no need for the second one
• "Another lettter to Kruglikov goes even further" - "even" isn't needed
• "To a point, the Belyayev circle continued from where The Five stopped. However, " - "to a point" and "However" both convey the meaning that it was different at some point, one of these should go.
• "(Kuchka, short for Moguchaya kuchka or "Mighty Handful", was another name for The Five.) " - I would say move this bracket to where it first says "Kuchka" and remove the "Kuchka" from the bracket and the full stop. Punctuation should be outside the bracket unless there is more than one sentence inside it. Or take it completely out of brackets and have it as a statement itself.
• "Tchaikovsky, in fact, planned to conduct Rachmaninoff's tone poem The Rock" - "in fact" seems redundant

I really enjoyed reading the article and wasn't expecting it so I hope my comments help. Browser crashed first time trying to submit this so I may have missed some things I originally put, I'll have another quick check later. CrimsonFox ^talk 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Glad you enjoyed the article, and thank you for your comments, most of which I have incorporated into the article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Very quick response, noticed one other thing "Another lettter to Kruglikov goes further" - "lettter" has 3 "t"s CrimsonFox ^talk 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed "lettter" plus another typo in the same section. Jonyungk (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

I have so far been concentrating on the lead. As written I think attention is needed in a number of areas, mainly:-

• Getting rid of "treading water" sentences or phrases (those which merely reemphasise what's just been said, rather than moving things along). Examples are ""Before this visit Tchaikovsky had spent much time keeping in touch with Rimsky-Korsakov and those around him" and "of the country".
• Removing significant overlinking, e.g. "timber", "Russia", "orchestra" etc
• Grammatical and other tweaks to maintain the prose flow
• Some rephrasing for clarity.

As a result I have formulated a slightly shorter lead which is given below. However, I am still confused by the third paragraph, even though I've modified it slightly. Is it saying that the two main legacies of Russian music—Saint Petersburg and Moscow—were supplemented by a third, perhaps more unifying legacy, that derived from Tchaikovsky's association with the Belyayev circle and of which Rachmaninov and the others mentioned are representative? That's how I read it but I may be wrong - it needs further clarification.

• This paragraph has been a probem for me, as the legacy section in itself is confusing and may need some rethinking. The third legacy, as personified by Arensky, waffled in influence from R-K to Tchaikovsky and took on elements of both composers' works. Taruskin states there was only one legacy for Russian classical music—the one for the Belyayev circle—and that legacy was eventually all-encompassing. To an extent this is true, but it leaves out Arensky, Taneyev and Rachmaninoff, not to mention the modernists such as Scriabin and later Shostakovich. As simple as it would be to stick to the Belyayev circle and how its exposure to Tchaikovsky and his music expanded its horizons to some point, I'm wondering if that would be over-narrowing the picture. Your thoughts? Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert on Russian music, but I will read the legacy section and then suggest an appropriate wording for the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've rewritten much of the Legacy section, simplifying it to Tchaikovsky's influence on the Belyayev composers and streamlining from there. I've also rewritten the third paragraph of the lead section accordingly. I'm looking forward to your comments on the effectiveness of this approach. Jonyungk (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Suggested revised lead:-

In November 1887, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky arrived in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to attend the Russian Symphony Concerts, a series devoted exclusively to music of Russian composers. Among works featured were the first complete performance of the final version of Tchaikovsky's First Symphony, and the premiere of the revised version of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's Third Symphony. Rimsky-Korsakov, with Alexander Glazunov, Anatoly Lyadov and several other nationalistically-minded composers and musicians, had formed a group called the Belyayev circle. This group was named after timber merchant Mitrofan Belyayev, an amateur musician who became an influential music patron and publisher after he had taken an interest in Glazunov's work. During Tchaikovsky's visit to Saint Petersburg he spent much time in the company of these men; as a result, the somewhat fraught relationship he had previously endured with the nationalistic composer group known collectively as The Five would eventually meld into something more harmonious. This relationship would last until Tchaikovsky's death in late 1893.

By 1887, Tchaikovsky was firmly established as one of the leading composers in Russia. A favorite of Tsar Alexander III, he was widely regarded as a national treasure. He was in demand as a guest conductor in Russia and Western Europe, and in 1890 would visit the United States in the same capacity. By contrast, the fortunes of The Five had waned, and the group had long since dispersed. Modest Mussorgsky, who had remained the most antipathetic of the group toward Tchaikovsky and his music, was dead, as was Alexander Borodin. César Cui, the composer and critic who continued to write negative reviews of Tchaikovsky's music, was seen by the composer as merely a critical irritant. Mily Balakirev, the former leader of the group, lived in isolation and was confined to the musical sidelines. Of The Five, only Rimsky-Korsakov remained fully active as a composer. Now a professor of musical composition and orchestration at the Saint Petersburg Conservatory, he had become a firm believer in the Western-based compositional training that had been once frowned upon by the group.

Tchaikovsky's friendship with Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov gave him increased confidence in his own abilities as a composer. However, there remained friction between composers based in Saint Petersburg, then the political and cultural capital of Russia, and those based in Moscow, which also boasted a music conservatory at which Tchaikovsky had formerly taught. Because of this inter-city rivalry, two distinct Russian musical legacies emerged together with a third, less distinct one, from the members of the Belyayev circle. Among those influenced by Tchaikovsky in Moscow were Sergei Rachmaninoff and Sergei Taneyev. Anton Arensky, a former pupil of Rimsky-Korsakov, also received musical advice and encouragement from Tchaikovsky; his works varied in influence between these two men.

• This revision is a definite improvement, which I will incorporate into the article. Thanks very much. Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One minor point in the first paragraph: which is more correct, "a group called the Belyayev circle" or "a group which became known as the Belyayev circle"?

• This is a good question. I would personally lean toward "a group called the Belyayev circle" since that was what R-K called it in his autobiography and how I have seen it referred to in other texts. However, I am open to suggestions. Jonyungk (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can respond on these points, I'll continue my review into the body of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing:-

• Tchaikovsky
  • "...the sometimes sensitive relations with various members of the staff." Unclear: should this be "among" various members of staff, or "between Taneyev and various members of staff"?
    • Changed to "among". Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Tchaikovsky also promoted Russian music in his own compositions as well as a guest conductor." Not quite grammatical. The required sense, I believe , is "Tchaikovsky promoted Russian music both in his own compositions and in his role as a guest conductor."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • On the whole, this section seems a bit isolated and lacking direction. As well as telling us what Tchaikovsky was up to, I feel it should (a) mention his relationship with R-K and (b) make some reference to the Belyayev circle. Thus, instead of standing in isolation, the section would meld gracefully into the text that follows.
    • In other words, you sound like you're talking about melding and reorganizing at least a good part of the first three sections, since they talk about the Belyayev circle and Tchaikovksy's relations with R-K, am I right? Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have done some shifting along these lines, along with some of the Glazunov material, to allow a progression of material along the lines I think you re suggesting. Please let me know how this looks to you. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Belyayev and his circle
  • "Because of their cultural and political orientation, they were more likely than the aristocracy to support native talent, and were more inclined to support nationalist artists over cosmopolitan ones." This should be briefly explained; what was the cultural and political orientation that would make them likely to act in this way?
    • They came from the working class rather than the aristocracy, were liberal politically and Slavophilic in musical and artistic preferences. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Liszt does not need the qualifying description "famed Hungarian composer and pianist" - there is only one Liszt.
    • What about people who may read the article and not know who Liszt is? Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • They can use the link. Though as a general rule articles should be self-contained and not dependent on links to be comprehensible, there must be limits to spoonfeeding. Would you describe Mozart as "the famed Austrian composer"? Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Awkward construction (To ... to ... to...: "To select to whom to offer money, publication or performances from the many composers who now appealed for help, Belyayev set up an advisory council made up of Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov. ." Possible: "Belyayev set up an advisory council, made up of Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov, to select which among the many composers appealing for help should be assisted, either through money, publication or performances."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Though Glazunov, Lyadov and Rimsky-Korsakov worked together,..." You could avoid the repetition of names by saying: "Though the three..."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Relations with Rimsky-Korsakov
  • Pronoun confusion: "...he had regarded Tchaikovsky with suspicion since he possessed an academic background..." The first "he" is a different person from the second.
    • Changed accordingly. Jonyungk (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The last couple of sentences rather disturb the chronology. The article at this stage should be working towards, not beyond, the 1887 meeting with which you opened the article and which, I assume, is the beginning of Tchaikovsky's relationship with the Belyayev circle. I don't think these sentences are necessary in this article, and they could easily be discarded.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Glazunov
  • "raved enthusiastically"? I'd alter "raved", with its suggestion of madness.
    • changed to "written". Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph ending needs a closing quote somewhere.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "the relationship between he and Tchaikovsky" → "his relationship with Tchaikovsky"
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• Lyadov
  • "not been impressed" → "been unimpressed"
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph: "though" is intrusive and unnecessary. The description "indolent, fastidious, very private yet very engaging man" is presumably a quotation and should be in quotes with an attribution.
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• New confidence
  • Cumbersome phrasing: "...the realization that it now possessed the ability to sit comfortably..." Simplify to: "the realization that it could sit comfortably..."
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "...despite a public opinion that believed the contrary." Can you clarify what "the contrary" refers to here? Also "a public opinion" is odd - an opinion held by only some of the public does not qualify as "public opinion". Perhaps "a widely-held view to the contrary" (when we know what contrary refers to)?
    • Done. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "In the years following, Tchaikovsky's visits became quite frequent." As Tchaikovsky died in 1893, this would be better worded: "In the two years of his life that remauned, Tchaikovsky's visits..." etc
    • I'd agree except for the fact this is a quote. Jonyungk (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I missed that it was within a quote. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Will conclude this later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concluding

• Mixed feelings: a few suggestions concerning this section:-
  • The title is uninformative - whose mixed feelings? Rimsky's, as it turns out, but I wonder whether Rimsky's second thoughts are really worth a section? What this section could usefully do, in a slightly truncated form (see below) is highlight Tchaikovsky's increasing influence and acceptance. Perhaps "Tchaikovsky's increasing influence" might be an appropriate alternative section name?
  • R-K was a masterful composer but, it seems, not great shakes as a writer. I had trouble deciphering the first quote, the gist of which is that Tchaikovsky had replaced The Five in the public's estimation as the king-pin of Russian music. Might I suggest this could be paraphrased? Also, the unexplained reference to "Iolanthe" is (Iolanta) unnerving. The second quote is I think unnecessarily long—150+ words—and requires further words to explain who Rubinstein and Larouche were. Can this, too, be shortened?
• Legacy
  • It seems to me that the legacy of Tchaikovsky's relatively short association with the Belyayev circle is summed up in the last paragraph of this section - his influence was short-lived. The earlier two paragraphs are a little wordy, and rather distract attention from this conclusion. They could easily be edited to a more concise form. My greatest problem is trying to marry this section with the summary information given in the lead, which gives a rather different picture. I think it is necessary to rewrite this part of the lead to refllect what is here. I'm sorry I don't have the knowledge or the time to suggest how this might best be done, but I am sure you can do it competently.

I hope these final remarks are helpful. I haven't had time to do a line-by-line review of this part of the article, though no obvious problems stand out. Overall this has been a fascinating insight into the politics of 19th century Russian music, an area on which I previously had little or no knowledge, and on which I am now much better informed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit's comments I've read the article once now - I'll reread and then post my comments. Awadewit (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't until the middle of the first paragraph of the lead that the reader discovers what the circle really is - is there any way to immediately describe it in the first sentence of the article?

• The musical legacy of the circle needs more explication in the lead, particularly as relates to the "Legacy" section.

• The second paragraph of the lead might focus too much on the The Five, who are not at the core of this article.

• While more eclectic in their approach than their predecessors in The Five, they fell back stylistically on their predecessors instead of developing individual styles, as Tchaikovsky had done. - Repetition of "predecessor" is awkward

• They also spread this approach to Russia on the whole and were an influence on composers well into the Soviet era. - It is unclear what "this approach" is.

• The Tsar's decoration was a visible seal of official approval, which helped Tchaikovsky's social rehabilitation - This suggests that some of Tchaikovsky's social problems were created by society, not just by his own personal problems. If so, this should be explained.

• As a member of The Five, Rimsky-Korsakov had been essentially self-educated as a composer, and before 1871 had not considered an academic education in musical composition to be a necessity - I don't quite see the logical connection between the first clause and the second.

• Should more of the musical works be linked or redlinked?

• In giving this opinion, Tchaikovsky now showed not only an implicit confidence in his own music, but also the realization that it now possessed the ability to sit comfortably and confidently alongside any number of their compositions, in no way suffering in the ears of any audience. - The music has a lot of agency here.

• The "Legacy" section does not get to its main point until the third paragraph. Could it be reorganized so that the main points come first and the details later?

• WP:PUNC says that quotations which are complete sentences should have punctuation placed inside the quotation marks while incomplete sentences should have punctuation placed outside the quotation marks. Please check the article for this.

I hope these are helpful - I think it is the lead that needs the most work. Awadewit (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very nice article and lovely lead image ;-) - glad to see it has received so many comments already. As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement.

• I like Brian's new lead, but wonder if the lead would be still better with a different (new) first sentence. WP:LEAD says of the first sentence "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?"" The title mentions both Tchaikovksy and the Belyayev circle, but the first sentence does not mention Belyayev or the three main composers in his circle.
• Perhaps the first sentence of the lead could be something like "Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's relations with the group of composers known as the Belyayev circle, which lasted from 1887 until Tchaikovsky's death, influenced all of their music and helped shape the next generation of Russian composers." Not great, but maybe it will give you and idea of what I mean.
• Refs ususally go after punctuation unless there is a good reason not to - can the [1] be moved after the period in In March 1884, Tsar Alexander III conferred upon him the Order of St. Vladimir (fourth class), which carried with it hereditary nobility[1] and won Tchaikovsky a personal audience with the Tsar.[2] ?
• Provide context by adding [his patron] here: Tchaikovsky wrote to [his patron] Nadezhda von Meck: "I have never seen such a triumph....
• Is it "The Five" or "the Five"? The article is Tchaikovsky and the Five but here it is usually "The Five" - I am fine either way, but it needs to be consistent
• There are some places where more detail could be given earlier and the more general statement moved later. For example, we are told Glazunov was 16 when he wrote his first symphony in the Belyayev and his circle section, where this detail could go earlier in the Tchaikovsky section, where it now reads just He had begun showing a keen interest in Glazunov shortly after the premiere of the teenage composer's First Symphony,... Another place where this might be needed is with the early references to Belyayev - perhaps mention he was a lumber baron, but I am not as sure there.
• There is brief biographical info for Rimsky-Korsakov and to a lesser extent Glazunov, but Lyadov is described very sparsely (pupil of R-K, then mostly in terms of Tchaikovsky's reactions to his music). Since he is one of the least well known of the composers here, could a bit more on him be added? Not sure if Glazunov could also use a bit more detail
• Should the mighty kuchka in the R-K quote be explained better? I know what it means from other articles, but it is not clear that it is the Five here. It is currently explained later, in the legacy section.
• Link Name day in nameday party?
• Missing word? choir? orchestra? Despite his reputation as a Moscow composer, he actually produced the majority of his work in Saint Petersburg after succeeding Balakirev as director of the Imperial Chapel [choir? orchestra?] in 1895.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Alabama Crimson Tide football

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on and off of the article for several months and would like some feedback on the current progress. Originally, the article was mostly full of lists, but myself and a few other editors have turned it into text with references.

Just a side note, I'm aware that the Gene Stallings section could use a few more references, and have been trying to get myself to do it for some time.

Thanks for your time, Latics (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Philcha

Coverage

• Looks enough, in fact the article looks rather long, and this may be why you had to wait for a review. --08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Most of section "Notable games" is also in other parts of "History", and the other parts are more interesting because they describe the key personalities. I'd incorporate the 5-6 items from "Notable games" is in other parts of "History" and then removed "Notable games". As well as length, "Notable games" is a long list and not an attractive way to start the main text. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Most of "National championships" covers the same ground as NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship and that should be removed from Alabama Crimson Tide football or summarised as a paragraph of about 5 lines. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Most of "National championship seasons" is also in other parts of "History" and be removed. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The big table looks impressive until one realises that it records only the highs and not the lows, i.e. it's not objective. I'd remove it as it is not objective, adding the lows would make the table too long and the parts of "History" about the coaches cover the highs and lows already. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Structure

• "Head coaching history" looks like a summary of the "History" section, and I'd make it the first sub-section of "History". --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'd incorporate "Conference championships" into "Head coaching history" at its new location. You might also notice that other schools bumper up their own numbers. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• You also need to add one or more citations to support "Conference championships". --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The complete list of "First team All-Americans" is rather long and I'm sure you hope it will growth quickly. I suggest you make it a separate list article now. --Philcha (talk) 08:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• If you find the changes in the structure rather daunting, you might make a copy of the article in a sub-page of your User page and try it there - I sometimes use sub-pages for the same purpose. If you do so, post HTML comments round each image so it's unlikely to deleted. --Philcha (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

References

• Rather statements appear unsupported by citations. In some cases moving an existing citation may do the job, while in other cases you'll need new citations (or removed the * Rather statments appear unsupported by citations. In some cases moving an existing citation may do the job, while in other cases you'll need new citations (or removed the unsupported content). Some examples in the early sections, you should check the whole article:
  • "Wade led the Crimson Tide to two more national titles before taking the head coaching position at Duke in 1931."
  • The whole paras about Frank Thomas and Harold "Red" Drew.
  • "Alabama was victorious in the bowl game, a 21–15 victory over Illinois." --Philcha (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The citations to "The Record Book" need pages numbers, e.g. for "... Alabama was a combined 103–16–1 in the decade, a .863 winning percentage." --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prose

• Several cases of WP:PEACOCK. In case you should remove the whole sentence that includes the WP:PEACOCK phrase, as the next sentence provides the facts and makes a strong impression without the WP:PEACOCK phrase/sentence. Examples:
  • "... Thomas as head coach and led the team to a respectable 54–28–7 record over the next eight seasons ... "
  • "Winning eight conference titles and three national championships,[2] very few teams were able to defeat Bryant and the Crimson Tide. </>Alabama wasrecorded a combined 103–16–1 in the decade, a .863 winning percentage.[12]"
  • "and snappedended a losing streak versus rival Tennessee".
• Redundant phrases, examples:
  • "Thomas led the team to continued success and two more national championships before health issues forced him to retire ..." - to continued success is vague, what was his record?
  • "Alabama was gained victorious in the bowl game, a 21–15 victory over Illinois."
• Poor choice of words/phrases - examples include:
  • "... the winningest college football coach ..." - "winningest" is not standard English.
  • In "... Ray Perkins replaced Bryant, who he played under in the early 1960s ...", "who he played under in the early 1960s" is ungrammatical - "under whom he played ..." is better.

Images and other media

• Check that each image/media clip complies with Wikipedia:Image use policy. If a image/media clip is not free, you must:
  • Justify the item at all - "remove" is the default.
  • Add at the items File description page a Fair Use Rationale for the use of the item in this specific article. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• If you accept my suggestions I made on coverage and structure, you'll need to move images/media around. Item should be next to the text that describes the subject of the file. For example I'll not sure that File:Joe Namath.jpg corresponds to the text in the same (sub-)section. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

After all the content in the main text is resolved

After coverage, structure, references and the severest prose issues:

• Use a tool such as Link Counter to chedk for dead links in citations, and citations where required parameters as missing. If a link has died, you can often get a backup from the Internet Archive - see instructions at User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died. --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Use a tool such as checker of redirs and disambiguition links in the article being reviewed --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Check that the lead complies with WP:LEAD, especially contains no content that is not expanded and referenced in the main text, and that the items in the lead show the importance as in the main text - except that the lead can't mention everything. --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Ask one else to copyedit the article - very editors can copyedit their own work, even if they are good at copyedit others' work. --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

General

• If you are aiming to take an article to GA / A / FA review, you should check the WP:WIAGA GA / A in the relevant WP Project / FA criteria and resolved all issues these raise before you nominate the article for GA / A / FA review or for a Peer Review in preparation for a GA / A / FA review. If you aren't aiming for a specific review level, I suggest you act as if you're aiming for GA - FA is much more stringent and A is usually a bit more stringent. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. I look to see how you get on. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Starting... Might take a while, but I'm working. Thanks for the feedback. :) – Latics (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

John Adams

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like a thorough read-through of this article, as I intend to preferably get this up to GA status. Any comments, suggestions, or edits will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Connormah (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have been asked to look at this as a preliminary to some possibly extensive revision with a view to the possible nomination of the article for GA or FA. I won't be doing a close review of the text, but will try to identify the main areas on which the editors working on the revision ought to concentrate. It may be a few days before I post anything here, but please be patient; the work is under way. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• General prose standard: This looks a little uneven; though some parts read well, there is some clumsy writing. Here are a few suspect sentences, from the early parts of the article – though perhaps most of these will be lost in rewriting. I would recommend that when redrafting is finished a thorough copyedit is arranged:-
  • "obtaining important loans from Amsterdam" (with link to city) is uninformative (Lead)
  • "President of the United States" and "president of the United States" both occur in lead
  • Successive lead sentences begin "During his one term" and "During his term..."
  • Early life: "Adams was not a popular leader..." Ambiguous; I think "populist" is probably what is meant.
  • Opponent of the Stamp Act: "...the Stamp Act of 1765, which was imposed by the British Parliament to pay off British war debts as well as the expense of keeping a standing army in the American colonies." Suggest reword: "to pay off British war debts, and to meet the expense..."
  • Continental congress: "His influence in Congress was great, and almost from the beginning, he sought permanent separation from Britain." It's not clear that this refers to Adams - the last person mentioned is Washington
• Article structure and organisation
  • Structure looks generally sound, but the lead needs to be a better reflection of the whole article content.
• Comprehensiveness
  • The detailed list of contents suggests that all aspects of Adams's life have been covered. Without any expert knowledge I can't comment on the comprehensiveness within sections, but on the face of it, this is probably not a problem. However, the lead should mention that Adams was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence.
• MoS compliance: I found several instances of a double hyphen that ought to be an en-dash or em-dash (e.g. "preparation for war--and perhaps..." in the Foreign policy section of his Presidency). I have not carried out a full compliance check, though.
• Referencing and citations: This is the weakest part of the article as it stands at present.
  • The refimprove banner should not have been removed. Parts of the article are still very lightly cited - many complete paragraphs, and at least one whole section (Dispute concerning Parliament's authority) has no citations at all.
  • Some book refs show page numbers, others only chapters, also other inconsistencies
  • Use of "ibid" discouraged in reference lists. New references may be inserted, which destroy the ibid.
  • Online refs are unformatted. Each needs to show, minimally, title, publisher, last access date.
  • Some "references" are unreferenced footnotes
  • Some works are included in references but are not listed in the bibliography. Many books in the bibliography are not cited as sources. If they are not used in the article they ought to be either in "Further reading" or dropped.
  • The bibliography should not include POV comments on the character or usefulness of these books.
• Image issues.
  • alt text required for all images
  • The Declaration image is tiny, and needs to be resized
  • Consider increasing the number of images, and introducing some variety. Do we need two "old age" images?
  • Images appear to all be free, but some image descriptions are lacking/inadequate, and we need to be sure that each has the correct licence

I hope that these comments will be of some use as you work on the article. I will be happy to look at it again when the work has been carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

List of development projects in Dubai

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review ,because in my point of view it can well become a featured list

Thanks, Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• Lead: I suspect that English is not your first language, and as a result the whole lead needs a thorough copyedit; the prose is weak. Here are several examples:-
  • "from oil-based economy" → "from an oil-based economy"
  • "real estate and other developments..." What is the nature of these "other developments"?
  • "2004-2007" requires an en-dadsh, not a hyphen
  • Second sentence bgins "It is a part..." What does "It" refer to?
  • "Dubai Strategic plan 2015" - if this is a formal policy document, "plan" should be "Plan"
  • There are multiple issues with the rest of the second sentence: part of the Dubai Strategic Plan (capital P); comma after "ruler of Dubai"; "maintain economic growth" not the economic growth"; "to bring Dubai on the map of the world" presumably should be "to put Dubai on the world map".
  • "iconic city" - is Dubai a city? I thought it was an emirate.

These are only examples - my list could be much longer. Hence the need for a full copyedit

• Lists: I've only looked at the first one, which looks unfinished.
  • Empty spaces in some of the "Developer" cells
  • Some estimated completion dates cited, others not. What are the sources for the uncited dates? Also some blank cells. From a presentational viewpoint dates look best centred in the column
  • Costs: currencies not clear - what is AED? What is Dhs? Does $ refer to US dollars? If so, why does one cell dhow "USD"? Amounts should be formatted consistently you have, for example, "$ 4 billion", "$81 billion", USD 16 Billion, USD 275,000 etc. Also some amounts are cited, others not. And there are blanks.
  • Why are the "areas" useful information? The diverse nature of these projects means that areas are in no way comparable.
  • Most of the information in the Descripion column is uncited.

Similar comments apply to the other lists.

• References: all bare urls at the moment. They need to be properly formatted, with (minimally) title, publisher and last access date.

In conclusion, I think this has been brought prematurely to peer review, and much more work is required before it can be considered properly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on this article, thanks for your valuable suggestions and comments.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Zoo Station

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to get this article to GA and eventually FA status. There is a plethora of information available on the song's unique musical composition and many critics have analyzed the song in the context of the group's musical reinvention. I believe this makes the article a very interesting read. A lot of the information I've added is regarding the band's reinvention and the musical composition of the song (e.g. lots of technical terms). I've written from the perspective of a U2 fan and someone with some knowledge of musical concepts, so I'd like it perhaps if an outsider could give this article a review to make sure that it can be properly understood by all.

Thanks, Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall this is at least GA quality, but a few things stick out.

1. The composition and reception sections contain too many quotes. While some quotes are fine, they should be used more sparingly. The composition section needs more work of the two.
2. Personnel list should either find a way to be incorporated into a list in the composition section or removed as trivial, repeat info. It doesn't really add anything that cannot be shown in prose well enough.
3. Some external links might be appropriate, such as linking to the bands websites.陣内_Jinnai 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about certain things that you would do? I'm not sure how I would eliminate quotes from the article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll give an example:

Guitarist The Edge says "Danny [Lanois] provided an incredibly mad intro which sounds like a keyboard, but is in fact guitar on which I'm creating strange textures."[1]

Guitarist The Edge explains that the keyboard sound in the intro is actually a guitar.

I'm not the best with prose, but I hope you get the idea. Whether you think this particular line is better quoted or not is an editorial decision you have to make, but the number of quotes needs to be trimmed down. Read it over and decide what quotes really stick out and keep those while paraphrasing the others.陣内_Jinnai 06:06, 1 February 2010 (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 hope to take it to FAC eventually. I am conscious of the length and also that the prose may drag in places where matches or series of matches are being described. Images may be a problem due to copyright, advice would be welcome. Any comments appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Great work and very comprehensive. Some quick comments. Some of the sentences seem to run together a bit, with commas joining phrases that may be expressed better in separate sentences. Some examples:
  • "Finishing fifth in the national averages, he was chosen to play in two Test trial matches, he was also selected in the M.C.C. team to tour South Africa that winter."
  • "In 1932, Hammond was appointed vice-captain of Gloucestershire, but it was noted in Wisden that he sometimes failed to inspire his team, while Hammond himself felt unable to take the same risks that Lyon had done because he was a new captain."
  • "During the season, Hammond was elected to life membership of Gloucestershire and elected to membership of the M.C.C., while also captaining the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's, having previously captained the Players and becoming the only player ever to captain both teams.". These are only examples and there are many other similar sentences in the article. Try looking at User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises for some guidance. Will provide more feedback later. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Beginning to overhaul some of the clumsier sentences but it may take a while. Will probably miss some, too, as it's all still too recent to spot anything that isn't glaring!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's easier to get teh content down pat, add whatever more you want and/or forking others to subarticles, and then copyediting. CEing and then changing content and doing it again can be annoying. Nothing wrong with having subarticles for the guy, Bradman, Miller and Ponting all have a few YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've sorted the worst examples. It needs another pair of eyes to check!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Someone, or some group, has researched Hammond's career very thoroughly and is to be commended; there is the basis for a high quality article here. However, it first needs a thorough copyedit, with a view to reducing the overall length considerably. An encyclopedia article should be in summary style; while important details of Hammond's life should not be omitted, information such as that relating to his school life could be cut substantially, and in the career sections the essential details are often buried by too many examples. The quality of the prose, good in parts, suffers numerous lapses, probably indicating the presence of several editorial hands.

I've made some cuts. Is it still too long? He had a long, eventful career which is why the article is so long. If any more cuts are needed, I'd appreciate advice on which bits need shortening the most. I doubt that it's all as important as I think it is!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some detailed comments relating to the lead:-

• Image: we need to know the source of this photograph and details of its publication. Why is it PD in the United States? Also it needs alt text.
  • I'm not good with images, so if anyone can help, much appreciated!--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean the infobox one, it's expired copyright in Australia. Snapped in the 1937/38 Ashes I think. SGGH ^ping! 08:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you "take over" the Test captaincy of a country, I think you are appointed. An appropriate link should be used for "Test".
  • Done. Test cricket linked in previous sentence. Is it needed again?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no need to repeat links so quickly. SGGH ^ping! 08:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• "He was considered the best English batsman of the 1930s and at the time of his death was considered to be one of the best four batsmen in the history of cricket." There is an awkward repetition of "was considered", and also it sounds as though he was playing up to the time of his death. And who "considered him" – cricket historians, commentators, other players etc?
  • Done. Took out "at the time of his death" and clarified who considered him in the top 4. Does it need saying that this was the opinion of him when he died, as it is less likely he would make the top 4 now?--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• The repetition just referred to is made worse by the next sentence, which begins: "Many considered him..." Apart from the wording, an indication should be given as to who these "many" are.
  • Done.
• "...he could have achieved a high standard." Hmm, 83 Test wickets sounds pretty good, perhaps "higher" rther than "high"?
• "He was captain in 20 matches..." → "He captained England in 20 matches..."
• "He was the leading run scorer in Test matches from 1937 until 1970..." This is confusing, as it makes it seem that he was active during those years. The main point here is that his career aggregate of 7,249 runs was the highest in all Tests matches, until passed by Cowdrey in 1970. 1937 is pretty irrelevant. I would simplify this entry to something like: "His career aggregate of 7,249 runs was the highest in all Test cricket until surpassed by Colin Cowdrey in 1970".
• "His 22 Test centuries remains the joint English record." A bit inspecific, and also likely one day soon to be out of date. Suggest: "As of January 2010 his total of 22 Test centuries remains an English record, held jointly with Cowdrey."
• "In 1933, he set a record for the highest Test innings of 336 not out which lasted until 1938." I don't like "which lasted until 1938", since this isn't a lengthy period of time. You should say "highest individual Teat innings, and link "not out" for the benefit of non-cricketers.
• "He also took 83 wickets" Clarify that these were Test wickets
• Again you need to clarify that his career totals of runs and centuries were respectively the seventh and third highest as of January 2010.
• "Although Hammond began his career in 1920, he was forced to wait until 1923 to begin playing full time due to his qualification to play for Gloucestershire being challenged." Clumsy wording; suggest: "Although Hammond began his career in 1920, he was required to wait until 1923 before he could play full time, after his qualification to play for Gloucestershire was challenged."
• "...he was chosen to visit the West Indies in 1925–26 - clarify that he was chosen as a member of an MCC touring party.
• "When he recovered in 1927, he began to score heavily. Chosen for England, he scored 905 runs in a series against Australia which was then a record." A bit imprecise - for example, the nature of the record is not properly specified. Suggest "After his recovery in 1927 he began to score heavily, and was selected for England. In the 1928–29 series against Australia he scored 905 runs, then a record aggregate for a single Test series."
• "into the 1930s" or "in the 1930s"?
• "...he was made captain of England in 1938 when he became an amateur." Forget "when he became an amateur", that can be explained in the text.
• "Outside of cricket, Hammond was married twice, divorcing his wife in acrimonious circumstances," Delete the "of", and clarify that this was his first wife.
• The word "difficult" is repeated in the next sentence
  • Done. All these points altered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• "He was also described as a heavy drinker by people who knew him." Too vague; indicate who these people were.
  • Took this out, it's not mentioned in article and not a big point.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why does the lead tail off with the car crash? It should end with a brief resume of the last years of Hammond's life.
  • Done. Not much to say about the end, though.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to go through the main article in any detail, but here are just a couple of points:-

• "While on tour in South Africa in 1927–28, Hammond was "not at the moment the dominating personality as a batsman expected" Can you check the wording of this quote? It's not grammatical as it stands - what was the complete sentence?
  • Mistake in quoting! Quote included extra words from a previous edit.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the "Loss of form" section, referring to the 1935 season it says that Hammond had only scored around 500 runs by the end of July. Later it says that his season's total was 2,616 runs. So he scored around 2,100 runs in just over a month (seasons ended early in September then)? Unlikely, please check the figures.
  • This was what Hammond wrote, but as you point out, it is just plain wrong. Took out the runs part and left in his opinion of the season.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have as much time as I would wish to devote to this article, but I will be happy to look at it again after an effort has been made to address the main concerns I have expressed. Please contact my talkpage as necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, very helpful.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments. The conventional figures given in Wisden, Frindall etc for the catches in the 1928 season is 78. The same appears in 2009 edition too. You need to check where the difference with CA comes from. Nothing is mentioned here. Tintin 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Before seeing your comment, I'd noticed the discrepancy and have added a note mentioning that Wisden has 78. JH (talk page) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The text was changed a while ago by User:RossRSmith with the edit summary claiming that Hammond caught Evans off Mills against Worcestershire on 2-4 May. Not sure where this info comes from so I've asked him.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I've responded with answer days ago...RossRSmith (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done as RossRSmith suggested to find out what the discrepancy is. However, he has not said how he knew which the "disputed" catch was, nor how reliable the CA information is.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also wondering whether you could add a mention of Herbert Fishwick's famous photo of Hammond's cover-drive somewhere. Tintin 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Clarke Carlisle

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… it is currently a Good Article and I am specifically looking for comments to take this article to FAC.

Thanks, -- BigDom 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is generally well done, it needs come polish before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The most difficult FAC criterion for most articles to pass is 1a, a proffessional level of English. This could use a copyedit to tighten the prose and polish it in places. A few examples follow, all from the lead:
  • The first two sentences have some issus Clarke James Carlisle (born 14 October 1979) is an English footballer, currently playing for Premier League side Burnley. He plays as a central defender. could be something like Clarke James Carlisle (born 14 October 1979) is an English footballer, playing as a central defender for Premier League side Burnley since August 2007. Combing the two sentences tightens the prose, and in general articles should avoid "currently' and similar words (as they can be come out of date quickly). I used the "since date" here, another possibility is "as of year".
  • This sentence could also be tightened His professional career started with Blackpool and he made his Football League debut in September 1997. as either something like He made his Football League debut with Blackpool in September 1997. or if there needs to be a distinction made between the start of his career and his debut, then The start of his professional career was his Football League debut with Blackpool in September 1997. might work
• His birthpalce is mentioned in the lead, but not the body of the article. Since the lead is supposed to be a summary of everything in the article, this should be in both places. See WP:LEAD
• Make sure to provide context to the reader. For example would this be clearer if his height was added: An imposing figure in the centre of defence thanks to his 6-foot-2-inch (1.88 m) stature, Carlisle also provides an attacking threat from set pieces
• Another place that needs context is the quote box with "With the knowledge I have now, I realise it had been affecting my performance for a long time ... To be honest, I was scared." —Clarke Carlisle[9] Could that be attributed as something like "Clarke Carlisle oh his alcohol problem, in 2003[9]" to make it clearer what he is talking about and when. I think readers often look at the pictures and quote boxes before reading the rest of the article, so this helps there too (not just from its placement in the text)
• Early life is a bit sparse on details - do we know his mother's name? Does he have siblings? When did he start to play football? I realize some of this might not be known, but if it can be included, it should.
• OK, I wrote this as I read the article and now I see the Personal life section has the details I was looking for. I do not normally edit sport biography articles, so I am not sure if this is a standard model or not. I do think that the treatment for alcoholism has to be in two places, probably better just to put all the details in his Career section.
• Any idea when he married his wife? Or when his children were born (years)?
• Other than these I think this looks pretty good. The article mostly avoided jargon or explained it.

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 _><>°^° 12:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Home Park

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I have done extensive work on the article over the last two weeks and would appreciate feedback on where it is currently at and what could possibly be improved. I drew influence on the general layout from Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium, both of which are Featured Articles. My initial aim is for it to achieve Good Article status and then press on to achieving Featured Article status, so any feedback, suggestions, constructive criticism, etc will be very welcome. I would love to expand certain aspects of the article further, for instance the match involving select teams from the Football League and Irish League (line-ups, goalscorers, etc), but a lack of sources is a stumbling block where that is concerned.

So to summarize, I would greatly appreciate any feedback in order to improve the article and reach the goals that I've set.

Thankyou for your time. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Jameboy (talk · contribs)

Overall it looks as though you've put together a very informative article about one of my favourite grounds. A couple of things I noticed that could be improved:

• Per WP:DATE, date format should be 10 October 1936 not 10th October 1936 (just an example, you'd need to fix all instances)
• Don't use apostrophes to pluralise (matchdays, not matchday's)

Sorry this is brief, I will try to review more thoroughly if time permits. --Jameboy (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I think I've got all of the dates but if I haven't then it can be easily corrected. I've cleared up the second part too, again I think I got them all. The word 'arguably' is considered as a weasel word by the toolbox to the right so I've corrected that also. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: There are significant prose issues throughout the article, as well as questions of focus - the article often seems to veer away from the ground and towards the club. I have done some copyedits and tidying as I've read through the first few sections, but more needs to be done, and the later sections are untouched at present. Details:-

• Lead: rather a mish-mash of assorted facts than a concise summary of the article, which is what a lead should be. Some of the detail is excessive for a lead section, such as "Pelé played and scored a penalty but it wasn't enough as the Pilgrims claimed a 3–2 victory." Other parts of the lead prose needing attention are:-

I don't think the lead is too disimilar from Old Trafford, but I agree that including the match with Santos is excessive for that section.

• • "It underwent several expansions in the 1920s and 1930s before it was heavily damaged in 1941 by the Nazi German Luftwaffe as part of the Plymouth Blitz during the Second World War." A lumbering sentence that needs drastic pruning. Without going into details of what's wrong with it, can I suggest as a replacement: "After undergoing considerable development in the 1920s and 1930s the ground suffered heavy damage during the Second World War." That says all that need be said.

Corrected. Considering it is the lead, I went into too much detail.

• • Other football histories tell me that the Football League proper resumed in 1946, not 1945; the 1945–46 season was played on the basis of the wartime regional leagues.

That is correct, more information about it is available in the relevent section, but if the lead should be changed to include "regionalised" or change the date to 1946 then so be it.

• • "The work was completed in February 2002 and the stadium became all-seated in the summer of 2007." Shouldn't the words "after further work" be inserted after the "and"? Otherwise, after the construction of three all-seater stands, why did it take five years for the ground to become all-seater?

"After further work" added. I didn't include the reasons behind converting the stadium to an all-seated venue because it would be excessive for the lead, as you put earlier.

• • "The plans, designed by Populous..." - What plans? You haven't mentioned any.

There is a reference at the end of the sentance and a summary of the plans in the Future section.

• • "One of the most famous nights in the grounds long history came in 1973 when Plymouth Argyle played host to Santos FC as part of the Brazilian club's European tour." Very POV, and sounds like a sports reporter. Suggest mostly delete.

Agreed as excessive. Removed.

• • "amongst" → "among"

Pretty much the same, but corrected. ;)

• Construction and early years
  • As an example of the heavy copyediting which I feel is needed throughout the article, take this sentence: "In 1901 the Argyle Athletic Club obtained a lease on the ground, which was at the time an oval-shaped bowl with a cinder track and the surrounding land was made up of allotments and farmland." The essential information can be conveyed much more succinctly " "In 1901 the Argyle Athletic Club obtained a lease on the ground, then an oval-shaped bowl and cinder track surrounded by allotments and farmland." I'm not going to point out every sentence that needs surgery, though I may highlight examples. The need, however, is for a competent copyeditor to go through and polish the prose vigorously.

Corrected.

• • "Plymouth Argyle became professional in 1903..." You need to precede this statement with something that states explicitly when the club was founded.

Corrected. 1886 is the best I can do because there is no specific date for the club's formation, that I'm aware of.

• • "In addition to that, a roof was erected along with the main entrance at the Devonport End of the ground." Non-encyclopedic language ("In addition to that", "along with") Also, what was the roof erected over?

Re-worded.

• • "grandstand" does not have a capital G. I've altered some, please check for others.

Corrected those that I spotted.

• • "...with many of these facilities reportedly being built with funds raised by the supporters club." Uncited assertion on which I have placed a "fact" tag.

Added citation. The reference to it is short, but I felt it should be included in the article.

• • "43,596 packed in to Home Park to watch the club play out a 2–2 draw..." The wording is again that of a sports report, and the following sentence ("Long-serving Scottish player Sammy Black, and compatriot Jack Connor scored the goals for Argyle") is decidely off-subject - the article is about the ground, not the club.

Re-worded and removed references to the club's players.

• • "...until normality was put on hold by the outbreak of war in 1939, which would change the city of Plymouth forever." Inappropriate soliloquising in an encyclopedia article about a football ground, suggest you omit it.

Can see where you're coming from. Removed.

• Wartime: What is the source of the text in this section? The two references [16] and [17] are respectively to a results summary and a captionless photograph. The photo is useless as a source unless it is independently described.

Removed. There are few resources for me to go on so I felt it was better to include season summaries than nothing at all.

• Resurgam?: where on earth did that title come from? Inappropriate, any way ("I will rise again"), and why expect your readers to know Latin? I've not gone through this section line by line, but in general there is too much focus on the team and the postwar Football League structure. Most of these details shold be eliminated.

It is a word that caught on during the Blitz, briefly explained here. Plymouthian's latched on to it when times were very bleak. It was a way of giving them strength to rebuild their lifes and is still used today. I feel it is a fitting word to use, but I can understand it might confuse the average reader. What title would you suggest? As for the focus of the section I see little reference to the club, aside from one match signifying the return of competitive football to the ground.

• Other issues: I haven't looked at the prose in the second part of the article, but I noticed that your first three External links are all cited as references in the article, so should not be listed as "external links".

I didn't realise there were specific rules regarding that. Removed.

Plenty of work to do, then preferably with the assistance of an indepoendent copyeditor. I'll be willing to look at the rest in more detail when you have addressed the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I've addressed what I can. I think the general content of the article is fairly even. You have to understand that there is not an awful lot of information available on what the ground was like before the war. I summarised it as best I could and limited what I put in the post-war sections to ensure that recentism isn't apparent. However I have just noticed a couple of sentances in the 2001 redevelopment section which are slanted toward the history of the club instead of the ground, so I will address that shortly.

I appreciate the feedback and would welcome an indepedant copyedit from someone to ensure the article is presented 100% correctly. At the end of the day I am human, so mistakes will creep in from time to time. Regards. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Thoratec

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it A or GA status.

Thanks in advance, Leifern (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

It is going to need a fair bit of work to get it up to GA standard, but the first thing I think should be done is get all those lists made up into prose. All of that information can be represented using paragraphs and no lists.

• Generally needs expansion and the text needs tightening.
• There's some one sentence paragraphs which should either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs.
• No text at all under "Studies", unless the heading after is meant to be part of it
• Paragraphs and statements with no references
• Regarding structure, I think "Milestones" and "Innovations" and "Studies"(or what's supposed to be under it) can be included under history. They seem to be the main achievements of the company so they would naturally be a major part of their history.

It's hard to do a full review of the text in an incomplete format. Once the lists are expanded, a more thorough review can be done. If it helps, try looking at some FA articles in the same field such as Microsoft or NeXT. I hope this gets the article on its way up. CrimsonFox ^talk 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Chemetco

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because recently, the former Chief Executive of the corporation, Denis L. Feron, was placed on the federal US EPA's 'most wanted' list.

He features on this list because he was indicted for criminal environmental actions at Chemetco that he sanctioned between 1986 and 1996. These included Clean Water Act offences at the most extreme end of the scale: he ordered the construction of a secret pipe at Chemetco that was used to discharge sludge bearing heavy metals into a tributary of the Mississippi River. Denis L. Feron fled the country rather than face a jury trial. Because of the increased prominence now given to his and Chemetco's bevaviour, the Wikipedia Chemetco page is now therefore a likely 'landing' page for anyone following links from the Wikipedia Denis L. Feron entry.

Chemetco had a long history of environmental delinquency, spanning the entire thirty years of its existence before EPA inspectors discovered the crime that was to lead to its downfall. Many readers will be interested to hear that this privately-owned company was once also the highest producer of atmospheric lead in the entire United States.

Thanks, Astral highway (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. This needs a lot of work.

• Major cleanup tag on possible conflict of interest at the top is a major concern. This also raises concerns that the article may not follow a neutral point of view. If they were as bad as the article makes them out to be, a dispassionate recitation of the facts will condemn them more effectively than a clearly skewed POV screed.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and no more than four paragraphs long. 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
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase.
• Article needs more references, for example four of five paragraphs in Location have no refs. Or this direct quote does not have a ref: A trade magazine covering metals industry news has noted that "The closing of the Chemetco Inc. secondary smelter in Hartford, Ill., in 2001 marked the end of large-scale secondary copper smelting in the United States." 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
• Per WP:MOSQUOTE, {{blockquote}} should be used for quotes of four lines of text or more, but in many places the quote is not even a full line on my monitor.
• Article has very many short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that impede the flow of the article. These should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
• Per WP:MOS#Images, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
• See also is generally for links that are not also in the article - most, if not all of the See also links are already linked in the article.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I will be listing it for FAC very soon, and would appreciate any comments on it before I proceed.

Thanks in advance, - I.M.S. (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: For once a music album I actually know at PR! The melody of "Victoria" is going through my head as I type. While I like what is here, I think it needs a fair amount of work before it would pass FAC, so here are some suggestions for improvement in order as I reread the article.

• A model article is always useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are a number of WP:FAs on albums, though most are not as old an album as this. See Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music
• Direct quotations in the lead need to have a reference per WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:LEAD
• Quotations need to follow logical quotation, basically punctuation goes outside the quote unless it is a full sentence.
• Until Dave Davies is introduced, I think Ray Davies can just be referred to as "Davies" (after his own first appearance)
• For most articles the most difficult FA criterion to meet is 1a, a professional level of English. Though the writing is generally good, it could still use some polish in places. See WP:WIAFA - a few examples follow:
  • Kinks frontman Ray Davies constructed the concept album as the soundtrack to a Granada Television play; however, though the storyline had been developed in collaboration with novelist Julian Mitchell, the play was cancelled and never produced. could be something like Kinks frontman Ray Davies constructed the concept album as the soundtrack to a Granada Television play and developed the storyline with novelist Julian Mitchell; however the play was cancelled and never produced.
• Or this is just too long and complex a sentence - I think it needs to be split into simpler sentences In early 1969, Quaife had told the band he was quitting,[10] though the other members did not take the remark seriously; when an article in the New Musical Express mentioned the band, Maple Oak, that he had formed without the rest of The Kinks' knowledge,[6][11][10] Ray Davies unsuccessfully requested Quaife to return for the upcoming sessions of Arthur.[12]
• Another thing to watch out for is providing context for the reader - as one example look at the first sentence in the recording section The Kinks had performed demo takes and test sessions for Arthur with Quaife a few months earlier, trying out several new songs that Ray Davies had written.[10] which has no year or clear date. The reader has to wade through the previous section, which talks about a 1965 concert ban in the US five sentences before (doubt this is the year) and then six sentences earlier we get "Davies travelled to United Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California on 11 April 1969,..."
• Other places where context could be provided to the reader are the year of Village Green Preservation Society or the years of the reviews in the Legacy section
• Or in the lead all the reviews referring to "their finest hour" are quoting the album's song "Mr Churchill says", so it might help to say something like echoing the lyrics of the album's song "Mr. Churchill says"...
• I have read the article twice and the Background section several times - the Beginnings subsection confuses me each time. We have a nice intro in the Television play section, then there is a lot of material which has very little to do with Arthur. We learn about the group's poor album sales the year before, the bassist leaving, and Ray flying off to the US to work with the Turtles, almost none of which has anything to do with Arthur. I wonder if it would help to put much of this information earlier, before the Television play section, then mention the few relevant bits in there later?
• The chronology seems jumbled in places too - I think part of this is due to going through the story of the TV play in that section (Jan to Dec 1969), then the Beginnings section refers to 1968's Village Green, then early 1969 with asides on 1977 and 1965, then the Recording section is from May to Oct 1969. I think it might help to tell the story more chronologically, even if that would split up the story of the TV play a bit.
• I also was not sure what the purpose of the tour map was - it is difficult to see the dots (at least on my monitor) and the trip to Lebanon is not shown on it and most of the dates shown are not mentioned in the article that I could see.
• A few of the other sections seem out of order to me too - for example the story and themes seems out of place where it is - could it be moved to a spot between Recording and the the Release and Reception sections?
• The reviews in the Legacy section also seem oddly out of place - the article already has a reception section, could the more modern reviews be added there, perhaps as a subsection?
• I would also mention the CD reissue in the article - what tracks were added?
• There are four fair use media files in the article (two images and two sound clips). The album cover and sound clips are pretty standard for album articles. The art insert is not realy discussed in the article now at enough detail to pass WP:NFCC
• MAke sure refs have all needed information, for example current ref 23 omits the date (2003-09-01) given in the review Golden, Matt. "On Second Thought: The Kinks - Arthur (or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)". Stylus Magazine. http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/on_second_thought/the-kinks-arthur-or-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-british-empire.htm. Retrieved 25 January 2010.
• Iam not sure what makes music sources relaible but please check WP:RS - what makes http://acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A1125.htm a reliable source, for example?

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 _><>°^° 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review, Ruhrfisch. Here are my responses to some of the points raised:

• For "why I think x website is a RS", please see User:I.M.S./Reliable sources
• Responding to the placement of the TV play info - I agree with you on its awkwardness. I had initially filed it lower down the page, as you can see from this revision, but SilkTork suggested that it would work better integrated with the "background" section. What do you think?

Thank you! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that having the idea for the TV play in the background section so the reader knows why they wrote it would be OK, but also think having the whole tv play story there is just confusing (as I explained above).

Watch needless repetition, for example we are told in two different places after the lead about Arthur being named for the brother-in-law, or the whole US tour ban is also discussed twice. Once in the lead and once in the text is a good rule for most things.

As long as you are aware of WP:RS I trust your judgment (but be aware that it might be questioned at FAC too).

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Fark

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article recently underwent a successful Good article review on September 23, 2009. It has remained relatively stable since then, and has a good amount of reliable sources and interesting content. I would like to know what still needs to be done to bring this up to Featured article standards? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an experienced reviewer so it would be good if other people review the article and make their own comments. I've made a few minor changes to the language to try and remove some bits that sounded repetitive. The article is lacking in images, especially one of Drew. I notice his article has one of him so perhaps that should be included, albeit it isn't a great picture? I'm afraid I can't think of any more feedback to give. In case nobody else offers advice here, I guess your next move could be to see if there are any featured articles on websites and to read those for some inspiration and ideas on what could be done to improve the article. --bodnotbod (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I found a decent shot of Drew Curtis on Flickr that's licensed in the Creative Commons, so I uploaded that and added it to the history section.

I also removed the 'citation needed' tag from the sentence in the lead about greenlit links recieving 300,000 page views because that statement is summarizing cited information in the 'traffic and users' section. So a specific citation is unnecessary in the lead. WTF? (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple of things I noticed:

• Images need alt text
• The last external link "Grampy's Cliché City" should be removed per WP:ELNO
• I think the Foobies section should be merged with history as it's not quite a feature of Fark but it is connected.

Hope they help. CrimsonFox ^talk 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just to add an additional comment about citations; I currently count 16 out of 59 citations in the references section as citing Fark.com itself. The rest are coming from outside sources. WTF? (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

School Rumble

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it failed a recent FAC proposal. After discussing why at WT:FAC#School Rumble, I have started to implement some of the suggestions.

In order to get more opinions, I am seeking further opinion on what could improve the article with these notations:

1. There is no English anime sales data that is publicly available
2. There is no more forthcoming info on the fansubbing contriversy, ie how it affected sales.

Some suggestions in the discussion made were:

1. Reformat the lead to talk more about "why School Rumble is important", including leading off with it and making it less of a listing of releases and dates (note: the current version does comply with mirror the format of Tokyo Mew Mew, the most recent Anime FA though)
2. Convert some of the larger non-controversial citations with a lot of refs into 1 all-encompassing ref
3. Any further copy-editing in the prose that can make it more engaging
4. Bringing the article here for further comment

Thanks, 陣内_Jinnai 07:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Crimsonfox's Comments

• I noticed differences of spelling "skeptical" and "sceptical" - There may be others that I didn't spot.
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Refs 68-71 are dead, might be a site problem so keep an eye on them
  • Weird because checklinks doesn't spot any problems (the rightstuf one cannot be fixed)陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Must of just been the site down for a bit then.
• Minor point really but some formatting of numbers is inconsistent. Some are written as numbers and some written in text. (26 and twenty-six)
  • Fixed. For some I left them as prose because it wouldn't flow well with the rest of the sentence. FE: "Sakura Eries, also of Mania.com, gave volumes five, six, and eight to eleven overall positive..."陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "English-language translation have been overall positive" - Switch "overall" and "positive" -> "positive overall" - Better flow.
• "centered around some of jokes" - "the jokes"
• "has received similarly great sales" - Suggestion: "has received similar sales" Seems slightly not NPOVish
  • Edited the first 2 and changed the last to "The anime adaptation has also sold well in Japan..." As it charted I think there's no NPOV issue with stating it had good sales.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It was more a case with the word "great", it seemed to imply a little more. Doesn't matter now you've changed it.

Development

• "draw the basics illustrations" - "basics" -> "basic" ?
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Manga

• "In School Rumble, those chapters" - "those" seems redundant
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• "In School Rumble, those chapters marked with a sharp sign (♯) concern the main plot development focusing around Tenma and Harima, while side stories dealing with supporting characters are indicated by a flat sign (♭)." - Are four citations needed to back up this claim? One if a reliable source directly claims it, and I guess two is there isn't as you could cite the manga for it, possibly even one if you don't specify specific page numbers
  • I removed 1. I currently have the primary source and 2 articles from the same person from 2 different sources. I can remove one or combine those 2 into 1 ref.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same with the sentence after regarding use of the natural sign, one citation is probably enough
  • One citation is for verifying in the manga it has a natural sign while the other is for verifying the magazine if was first printed in.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anime

• "as streaming content on the Internet." - Does internet need to be capitalised? Not sure on this one, never really thought about it.
  • It is common practice to capitalize the word Internet when you are referring specifically to it rather than a general type of internet.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• "The Second Semester was screened, along with several other titles," - "along with several other titles" doesn't add any extra information as it mentions "film festival" anyway indicating there were more films shown.
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• "The anime's first season focuses primarily" - "primarily" is redundant as there is no mention in the paragrapph of what else it focuses on.
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Sentence a the end, I think needs to have the punctuation outside of the quote marks.
  • Personally I'd agree, but WP:LQ says otherwise. While the line is spoken, it is clearly the end of the sentence.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sales

• I would write out any things like "1st, 2nd, 3rd etc" -> "first, second, third". Maybe excluding the higher numbers
  • Problem is that I want the prose to be consistant. The usage of numbers above and below the single digits varies way too much and becomes distracting to the reader, which I believe is a justified case for ignoring the MoS for numbers.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• "sales run in both Japan and" - No need for "both" as it is indicated by saying them
  • Done.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Anime - Quote marks needed around that block quote My bad, this is wrong. CrimsonFox ^talk 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope these comments help, the article seems pretty comprehensive. The large amount of references after some statements does seem slightly messy, is there definitely no way for them to be reworked so not so many are needed? CrimsonFox ^talk 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Most of those I cannot do so although I can just group some into 1 ref with a bunch of indivisual refs inside it so it looks better.陣内_Jinnai 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Made a couple of comments CrimsonFox ^talk 01:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Can you comment on any of the 4 points I made in the intro or if not, find someone who might be able to?陣内_Jinnai 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        

---

Counties of Romania

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am just wondering if I am missing anything before I go to FLC. Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:

Maps and table excellent, prose not so good - problems as listed.

• Prose issues in the lead
  • First sentence: "The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest represent compose the official departmental level of the administrative divisions of Romania." "represent compose" is presumably an error: suggest delete "represent", replace "compose" with "comprise".
  • Sentence needs rewording anyway. The words "the department level of" should be removed. Thus the revised first sentence should read: "The 41 counties (Romanian: judeţe) and the municipality of Bucharest comprise the administrative divisions of Romania.
  • Same paragraph: Is there a way that the second sentence can be worded rather more clearly, and without the need for the reader to have to click on links at least twice? Or otherwise, is this information important enough to be in the first paragraph of the lead?
  • "...respectively ţinuturi of Moldavia" should be "termed ţinuturi in Moldavia"
  • "at least to the early 15th century" → "to at least the early 15th century"
  • "as a model", not "as an example"
  • "Between 1927 and 1938, a total of 71 judeţe existed" - this reads awkwardly. Perhaps "From 1927 to 1938, a total of 71 judeţe existed" Then, what happened in 1938 to affect this total? The territorial losses came later.
  • "The current format has been in place largely since 1968," → "The current format has largely been in place since 1968,"
  • "small changes were made, with the last one in 1997." → "small changes have been made, the last in 1997."
  • In the last paragraph the metric areas need to show conversions to square miles. Use "convert" template, which for 5,809 sq km gives "5,809 square kilometres (2,243 sq mi)".
• Prose issues in History setion
  • Due to its chopped prose, frequent insertions and repetitions ("respectively" occurs three times) the first paragraph of this section is almost unreadable. In any event, as per the lead, "respectively" is the the wrong adverb. As a start in removing te fact clutter, the Latin origins of the Romanian words could be put into a footnote. Then the opening sentence could read: "The earliest organization into judeţe (for Wallachia), and ţinuturi (for Moldavia), dates back at least to the late 14th century." Similar kinds of surgery necessary to make the rest of the paragraph digestible.
  • Second para: again, "example" used when you mean "model"
  • "as basic administrative unit" → "as the basic administrative unit"
  • Give dates for the part of the Communist period to which you are referring
  • "this system remained in place." Should be "this system has remained in place.
  • Irrelevant Latin origins should be removed (prefect, pretor)'
  • "only a couple minor adjustments" - too informal. If you actually mean two adjustments you should say so. Otherwise say "a few".
  • "introduced back" → "reintroduced"
  • Give year for the establishment of "communist rule" (not "communism")
  • Ungrammatical sentence, needs rewording to make sense: "The county borders introduced in 1968 are largely in place, but administrative reform during 1990s has devolved the functions of different authorities have changed."
  • Presently" → "At present..."
  • "some of which with..." → "some of which have..."
• Other points
  • Non-English sources and their language should be indicated
  • Alt text should be added for the main maps. This won't be easy, but for the first (lead) map it might be: "Outline showing the territory of modern Romania and its division into 41 counties and the Bucharest municipal district."

Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these nice suggestions. I will work on them later today. As for wp:FT, I just saw that you worked on a huge amount of articles in that topic and I wanted to make you aware of the topic part of wikipedia because it would be a really neat topic. Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done with most suggestions. I still need to do alt text, cleanup refs, and copyedit the history section. Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Brian, I've cleaned up the text a bit. Does it read sufficiently well now for FL or it still needs some work? Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Aramoana massacre

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may meet WP:GA?, and could be promoted as a result.

Thanks, Adabow (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment: You should expand the lead (see WP:LEAD) to meet the GA criteria. A good rule of thumb is to touch on every section of the article. I'd say the lead should be at least two meaty paragraphs. Mm40 (talk) 12:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some more quick comments: You should identify people by both first and last names. On a quick reading, I got lost figuring out who "Helen" is. "Crib" in the caption and the text should be explained to non-Kiwis. "Alight" meaning "caught fire" might also be a Kiwi-ism. I don't think Kiwi is banned on Wikipedia, but the article should be clear on first reading to both standard US English speakers, and standard Pom speakers. The "Significance" section should probably be merged with the following section "Aftermath" making for 1 long section, rather than 2 very short sections. The music section is very close to trivia (this is a personal call, of course). The footnoting is eratic - some sections are perhaps too heavily footnoted, others hardly at all. I found the sentence "His father died in 1978,[19][23] and his mother died in 1985.[24] His sister said her death deeply affected him, and this prompted him to move from Port Chalmers to the Gray family holiday home in Aramoana.[20][25]" a bit hard to work through - whose sister, whose death? I hope this doesn't seem too picky - if I had a longer time some of these would probably disappear. Smallbones (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I believe the article needs a lot of work to bring it towards GA standard. I have not carried out a line-by-line study of the text, but here are some issues requiring attention.

• Lead: per comments above, the lead should be expanded into a summary of the whole article. Everything of significance in the main text should be touched on in the lead. Conversely, everything in the lead should be expanded in the text. The material presently cited in the lead would be better cited where it occurs in the text.
• Prose
  • In general the prose is clear and graphic, though there is some clumsy phrasing, as pointed out above. Also there is too much use of short, single-sentence paragraphs. These should be merged to give a better prose flow and to reduce the staccato effect
  • Style is a little journalistic at times, for example referring to the massacre as "Gray's spree", the already noted references to "Helen", etc
  • There are inconsistencies in the narrative; for example in the lead we are told that Gray was "shot dead" by the police, whereas the text records that he was severely wounded and died later in hospital. Also, there are problems with "Gray shouted, "Don't shoot!", leading Guthrie to believe he was surrendering." Since you report that Guthrie was then killed instantaneously, we cannot say with certainty what he believed.
• Structure: Too many short sections. The "Causes" section (if you can find sources to support this conent) could be merged into the section on Gray. The information on books and films might be included in the "Aftermath" section. The music information is pure trivia and should be deleted altogether.
• Referencing: Very uneven, with some paragraphs (including the entire "Causes" section) without any citations, while some sentences are cluttered with multiple citations of simple facts. I have removed the "unreferenced" banner from January 2009, as this seems unwarranted, but more attention needs to be paid to referencing throughout the article.
• Images:
  • Infobox image is so dark as to be uninformative, and is not helped by the vagueness of the image caption
  • Gray image: The licensing information appears to relate to the image's use in a differently named article. Curioualy, the rationale refers to Gray as "one of the perperators".
  • Both images are lacking alt text. See WP:ALT for information.
• Link to Dunedin Cemeteries (refs 23 & 24) is dead.
• MOS violations: I saw at least one use of a hyphen rather than a spaced en-dash; there could easily be more such things lurking. Needs an MOS audit.

Please note that I am not watching peer reviews at the moment, so if you need to contact me about this review please use my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Auctionair

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I want to get it right!

Thanks, Ship69 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: this is a good start, especially for a first article, but it needs some more work to conform to the Manual of Style and guidlelines here. So with improvement in mind, here are some suggestions.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. So the whole notion of sealed-bid auctions is only explicitly in the lead and should be in the article too.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - but as two examples, history and sale of unclaimed winning bids are not in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
• Biggest problem as I see it with the article right now is a lack of inline references (there are only two now). 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
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase so fix In 2006 the company launched The Times Online Auction Room[2] as a co-branded partnership with The Times
• Most of the External links should be converted into inline references. At least one (Good Web Guide) is a dupicate of current ref 2, so should just be removed.
• External links are typically for things that are useful for understanding the subject of the article but are not used as references. The official website should be listed here, but I am not sure any of the others should be. See WP:EL
• External links is not for links to Wikipedia articles (those are internal links). These can be placed in a See also section, but that is usually for articles not already linked in the article (which Spafax already is). See WP:See also
• Please add more wikilinks to the article - The Times and many of the businesses mentioned could be linked, for example. Please see WP:Build the web
• There is a one sentence section and some short (one or two sentence) paragraphs - these break up the flow of the article and should be merged with others or perhaps expanded
• Any chance for a free image of the headquarters building or one of the key personnel? Business articles can use the company's logo as a WP:FAIR USE image
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - see the article on BAE Systems for a British business example that is a Featured Article and may be a good model

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 _><>°^° 22:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Azes II

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it may actually not even be a legitimate article, but rather should be part of Azes I. Scholarly sources are scant on the this dynasty in general, and the article is currently a combined product of two editors who largely disagree with each other. Anyone with an interest and an understanding of the Indo-Scythians is requested to join in this review and help improve/verify the article on Azes II.

Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

According to User:Sponsianus, Azes II had recently been shown to be identical to Azes I thanks to the analysis of a coin overstrike by Senior. Although I haven't read the Senior's analysis myself, I fully trust Sponsianus's research. Sponsianus has always shown to be an excellent and highly knowledgeable contributor in this area. The differentiation of Azes I and Azes II was always suspect to me anyway (personal opinion), but scholarship had been separating the two systematically. I think a merging of the two articles into Azes I (or into, even better, a single Azes article) would be highly legitimate. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the evidence is actually quite strong. For those who wish to read Senior's two articles that were "the final nail in the coffin for Azes II" (that's actually the title of one of them), they are available via [www.onsnumis.org]. The price is not that steep. Sponsianus (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I recommend that a rump article should remain for Azes II. This attribution will certainly remain for decades, as so many coins and books refer to him.

Sponsianus (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Per WP:PR, article with major cleanup banners are not eligible for peer review. It further seems that the article's future existence is in doubt. The discussions proposed in the nom statement above should take place on the article's talkpage, among those with appropriate knowledge. Wikipedia Peer review is not an academic review. and this is not the right place for such discussions. The review should be closed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Iowa state highways

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple years. I've never submitted any work I've done on here to any scrutiny, so here I am. With some work, I think this list can become an honest FL.

Thanks, --Fredddie™ 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start on what might qualify as an article or a list. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

• I'd be inclined to put the text first and the list last. The text is interesting, whereas the list, although not without interest, is mainly functional.
  •  Done Reordered. --Fredddie™

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead doesn't mention "History", "Funding", "Signage" or "Secondary roads".
  •  Done Lead rewritten.

• I think the highway icon numbers are too big. You might try using smaller ones such as those in the main text of Interstate 70 in Colorado.
  •  Done Replaced list with sortable table. --Fredddie™

• Would it be useful to create a table with more than one column? The Interstate 70 in Colorado article has such a list for the highway exits. The list for Iowa highways might have a column for the highway name, another for its length, and one or two for each of its end points. Featured lists are often sortable, and it might make sense to make some of the columns of this list sortable. You can find examples to imitate at WP:FL. See, for example, List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
  •  Done Replaced list with sortable table. --Fredddie™

• The punctuation should come before the ref tags. I fixed several of these, but there are others that need fixing. For example, "Today, the primary highway system represents over 8% of the total 114,000-mile (183,000 km) public road miles in the state[18][5]."
  •  Done Fixed.

• The convention with multiple references for the same sentence is to arrange them in ascending order. In the example above, they should be arranged as [5][18].
  •  Done Placing the text first seems to have corrected this. --Fredddie™

• "Iowa has over 800 miles (1,287.48 km)" - The two numbers should have the same number of significant figures. If, on the other hand, you want to use 1,287.49 km because that's the precise distance, then the miles should be expressed as 800.01 miles.
  •  Done Made the conversion less precise. --Fredddie™

• The date formatting in the article is inconsistent. Some are m-d-y, while many are d-m-y. For U.S.-centric article, m-d-y is the norm.
  • Comment This I am well aware of and will fix. At one point, I thought {{Date}} would autoformat dates per Special:Preferences, which I now understand is a method that should be killed with fire. After I submitted this article to WP:PR, I made an attempt to subst the dates to one format, but it didn't work.
  •  Done I'm 99% certain I caught them all. --Fredddie™

• "The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 set aside $75 million over 5 years[23] ($1.4 trillion in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation[24]), of which $146,000 per year was earmarked for Iowa." - Something's wrong with these numbers. A sum of $75 million would not inflate to $1.4 trillion over this time span.
  •  Done Using {{Inflation}} now. --Fredddie™

• "Gasoline, regular and ethanol-blend, and diesel fuel is taxed in the range of 19- to 22.5-cents-per-gallon... " - Convert to cents per liter as well?
  •  Done This took some creativity, but {{Convert}} works in mysterious ways.--Fredddie™

• "All county routes are signed with the MUTCD-standard blue pentagonal shield, however some older signs still remain[29]." - MUTCD should be spelled out, abbreviated, and linked on first use.
  • Comment MUTCD is linked with full text in a hatnote above this section. Is this sufficient? --Fredddie™

• The alt text for each map should give an overview of what the map says rather than describing the map colors or lines. WP:ALT#Maps has a pretty good explanation and some examples.

 Done Alt text for maps is much better now. --Fredddie™

• Purely decorative images such as the highway icons with numbers should have the alt text turned off. I'm not quite sure how to do this in this article because of all the templates, but the explanation at WP:ALT#Purely decorative images might be helpful.
  • Comment I created the template in use here. I intentionally set the alt text for the shields as an asterisk. If you were to look at this page in Lynx, the list would be a bulleted list. I've looked at it in Lynx with and without the asterisk and feel it's easier to read with the asterisk.
  •  Done Fixed with sortable table. --Fredddie™

This is not a complete line-by-line review, but I hope my suggestions will prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Benet Academy

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to improve it to GA standards. I specifically need info on whether there are any gaps I need to fill in, but other comments are, of course, welcome.

Thanks, Benny the mascot (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I suppose some tips on getting it to FA status would be nice. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Another question that came up on the talk page: does this website violate WP:EL, or may I display the link as a "window" into student culture at Benet? Thanks in advance! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The site appears to be a personal blog and therefore would be one of the no-nos (#11) listed at WP:ELNO. Finetooth (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and thanks in advance for reviewing! Benny the mascot (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started to fix the problems you've pointed out through your edits. Let me know if you foresee any potential conflicts. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: A lot work has gone into this article, which seems comprehensive to an outsider. I found and fixed quite a few minor things, most of them related to punctuation (en dashes, apostrophes) or other Manual of Style issues. Generally the article is good, and I was happy to see that the article was well-sourced and the reference section well-done. I have suggestions for improvement, but they deal mainly with things that will not be difficult to fix.

Lead

• Since the lead is to be a summary of the whole article, I'd suggest adding a brief mention of the performing arts and perhaps of the notable alumni.
• "The school would continue to grow over the next few decades, and nearby Benedictine nuns would construct the all-girls Sacred Heart Academy in 1926." - Rather than "would continue" and "would construct", I'd use straight past tense, "continued" and "constructed".

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I might split the big first paragraph in two, starting the second paragraph with "The school continued to grow over the next few decades... ". Breaking it up might prevent reader fatigue, and an article this long can accommodate a lead of four paragraphs.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Benedictine operations begin in Chicago

• Short telegraphic heads are usually preferred to long ones. This and the next two might be better as "Chicago", "Move to Lisle" and "Progress".

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress in Lisle

• "The commercial program would later be dropped in 1915... " - Tighten to "The commercial program was dropped in 1915... "?

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Benedictines threatened to close the boys' school, but abbot and St. Procopius alumnus from the Class of 1941 Rev. Daniel W. Kucera convinced them not to." - Too many adjectives in front of Kucera. Suggestion: "The Benedictines threatened to close the boys' school, but Abbot Daniel W. Kucera, a St. Procopius alumnus from the Class of 1941, dissuaded them."

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

• The Manual of Style suggests turning lists into straight prose where feasible. I think it would be possible to turn this alumni list into prose by combining the actors DeCarlo, Fay, and Murphy into a single paragraph with something in the first sentence that ties them together. This might take the form of "Actors who graduated from Benet Academy include X, who blah blah; Y, who something something, and Z, who stuff stuff stuff." Politicians could be combined in the same way to form a second paragraph, writers and journalists a third paragraph, and so on. To keep from having too many short paragraphs, you might need to combine singers and actors or something of the sort.

After the merger

• "Physical education lockers are located one-half stories above ground level, and team lockers are located one-half stories below ground level, and a corridor links the new building to the older gym." - Unnecessary detail? I'd leave it out.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

• "1,333 students were enrolled at the school for the 2009–2010 school year." - The Manual of Style advises against starting a sentence with digits. Suggestion: "For the 2009–2010 school year, 1,333 students were enrolled."

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• "despite having been ranked lower than 27 of her classmates who were waitlisted or denied admission" - I'm not sure that "waitlisted" is a real word. Perhaps "who were put on a waiting list"?

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sports

• "The school sponsors teams for both men and women in basketball, cross country, golf, lacrosse, soccer, swimming and diving, tennis, track & field, and volleyball." - The word "and" is preferred to the ampersand unless the ampersand is part of an official name such as a company name.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "This tradition began in the late 1990's and temporarily ended after the 2006–07 season... " - Constructions like "1990s" don't need the apostrophe since the word is a plural rather than a possessive.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd suggest removing the Wikinews links from this section and the Christmas Drive section. These kinds of links belong in the External links section, where you have already placed a third link. That third one is the only one I'd keep.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "one of which is a student-led mass choir used for school liturgies" - Wikilink liturgies?

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

• I'd suggest moving the abbot down and to the right to avoid creating a text sandwich between the abbot and the infobox. It would also be better to have him looking into the page than out.
• File:Maple-Yackley map.JPG overlaps two sections. The Manual of Style suggests keeping images confined to one section and avoiding section overlap. On my computer screen, the Sacred Heart Academy image also overlaps two sections
• The St. Joseph Hall caption says "today". Better would be to give the specific year the photo was taken; i.e. "St. Joseph Hall in 2008".

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

References

• The url in citation 68 is dead.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• The date formatting in the citations should be consistent throughout. The existing article has a mix of three formats. For a U.S.-centric article you can use m-d-y, as in the main text sections, or yyyy-mm-dd but not both and not d-m-y. Since most of the dates seem to be m-d-y already, I'd suggest using this format throughout.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Even when a source uses all caps in a title, Wikipedia changes them to title case. For example, citation 31's "DUPAGE'S HELP SOUGHT FOR SCHOOL ARTS CENTER PLAN WOULD LET BENET BORROW $10 MILLION" should be converted to "Dupage's Help Sought for School Arts Center Plan Would Let Benet Borrow $10 Million".

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• The abbreviation for a single page is p. and for multiple pages it is pp.

Alt text

• Rather than saying "black and white photograph" or "color photograph" in the alt text, I'd suggest (using the abbot as an example) something like "Elderly man with a beard, a hat, and a crucifix hanging from his neck is sitting on an ornate chair."

• The alt text for maps should describe the content rather than the lines and colors on the map. For the satellite image, for example, I'd suggest something like "Two roads divide the Benet campus into four roughly equal quadrants. A satellite view shows buildings and athletic fields in three of the four quadrants and thick woods with few buildings in the southeast quadrant.

• I added the alt parameter to the infobox and then added the alt text. Feel free to edit it as you like.

• The three mug shots at the bottom of the article need alt text as does the little schoolhouse image. You can check your alt text and captions with the alt text tool at the top of this review page. WP:ALT has examples of alt text, and you can see current discussions of alt text going on at WP:FAC.

General

• It's helpful to other editors to remove the parameters in the citation templates that you do not intend to use. For example, the first one (Proco history) in the main text has " | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = " and several other blanks. The cumulative effect of these over the course of the article is that it makes it harder to work in edit mode because of the long interruptions between sentences of text.

 Done Benny the mascot (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Ryugyong Hotel

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made substantial changes to it, and I'd like to see if there's anything else that can be done before possibly submitting it for a GA review. There isn't a great deal of information available about the subject (due to the very closed nature of North Korea) so most of the improvements I believe could be made to the article would center around its structure and prose; most of what's known about this hotel and available online is already in the article.

Thanks, AniRaptor2001 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A great subject with very few sources (you alredy know it...). And quite contentious after all these changes on the site (alleged? real? do we really know anything?). You did the right thing attributing available sources and opinions right in the text, but it leaves many questions unanswered.

• It needs thorough proofreading and editing for flow and logic (non-native speakers like yours truly can pinpoint the weak links but are no good in fixing them). Consider the phrase "Under the leadership of Kim Jong-il,[8] construction on a pyramid-shaped hotel began in 1987". Sounds like a quote from NK propaganda. If it is simply a nod to Kim's place in NK govt, it is redundant. If he did, in fact, have a non-trivial role in actually driving the project - then I'd prefer to see a source more credible than an Idiot's Guide.... Information on personalities behind any project is always non-trivial and needs RS better than a Guide or a casual mention in a newspaper.

Absolutely. Though just about everything that goes on in North Korea is attributed to KJL, I think in this case the source meant to indicate that he "ordered its construction". -AniRaptor2001 (talk)

• Right now I'd recommend citing every cite-able bit of text, even if it means overciting (excessive cites can be removed at a later stage). For example, the last words of the lead: "when it is completed in 2012 [6]" (oh really?) need a proper source on 2012 (right now it's a link to a wikipedia list) and, perhaps, a hint on the uncertainty of such forecasts (the LATimes source on 2012 quoted in Construction resumes is quite uncertain, isn't it?). Check every sentence that does not cite a source.

Removed all speculation regarding the building's eventual ranking, noted (as pointed out in the BBC article) that internal construction will last until 2012 "or beyond". AniRaptor2001 (talk)

• Check anything that may prompt readers' questions ("A government official told the Los Angeles Times" - NK govt or US govt or ...? I cannot access LATimes site, the question remains). Either resolve such questions in the text or remove their roots altogether. NVO (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed all such problems.AniRaptor2001 (talk)

Thanks for your help! AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

German Type UB I submarine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this good article to FA status eventually. User:Bellhalla, the majority contributor to this article, left Wikipedia last year. As a result it, this article has on one to "look arfter" it. (I am in no way suggesting article ownership) Anything that needs to be fixed in order to get this to FA status would be great.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

It would be helpful if you also indicated what work you think is needed for this article to reach FA status. My suggestions are:

• The article needs a copyedit to fix some repetition and a little bit of awkward grammar
• There's good coverage of the fates of the subs, but not their achievements (to the extent there were any!)
• The lists of subs could be presented as a table providing information on the key dates in their service history (eg, commissioning, final fate, etc) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on the table soon. Do you think that I should also include a list of ships sunk or otherwise damaged by the Type UB I subs? Much like the one on German Type UE II submarine? Or perhaps I can include how many ships were sunk by each U-boat in the table that you proposed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-written. I agree with Nick-D that a table would be good, and your idea of including ships sunk is also good. I have some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• "In 1918, four of the surviving German boats were made into coastal minelayers. Of the seventeen boats in German service, two were sold to Austria-Hungary, one was sold to Bulgaria, and nine were lost during the war." - Something's amiss here. If a total of twenty UB Is were built and Austria-Hungary bought five and Bulgaria one, how could seventeen be in German service in 1918? Should the reference to 1918 come later in the paragraph?

Design

• "By 18 August, just two weeks after the German invasion of Belgium, the planning of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun." - Would it be helpful to add the year here as well?
• "the Germaniawerft boats seem to have had a fewer number of larger vents" - Tighten by deleting "a" and "number of"; i.e., "to have had fewer larger vents"? Or perhaps "to have had fewer large vents"?

Service

• "Another reported problem with the UB Is was the tendency to break trim... " - Should "trim" be briefly explained or linked?
• "when firing from periscope depth the boat could broach after firing" - Should "broach" be explained or linked?
• "Stern" is redlinked in the article. Would stern work?

Constantinople Flotilla

• "she was surrendered at Sevastopol in November 1918" - To whom was she surrendered?

General

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The first image has alt text, but it would not be of much use to a blind reader who on a machine that reads the text aloud. The other two images have no alt text. WP:ALT has details.

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Its editor says here, "Please note: This entire system is written by individuals in their spare time and without any official or commercial support." Does the site meet the guidelines of WP:RS?

• Perhaps the flatcar image would be better if somewhat bigger than thumb. It's hard to see what it is at thumb size.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In oreder, "Lead" I have no clue how that happened. I'll have to check up and see why the numbers are not the same. "Design", I'll get to that right now. "Service" same as Design. "Constantinople Flotilla", I'll have to look that up. I'm sure that it was the French/British as they had troops there to help out the White Russians in the RCW but I'm not 100% sure. "General" I'll have to add that in. uboat.net is a RS. Or at least acording to The Ed17. You'll have to ask him about that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

List of 1920s jazz standards

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's been expanded quite a lot since the previous review, and I'm planning on nominating this at WP:FLC somewhere in the near future. Therefore any suggestions to help the list meet the featured list criteria would be welcome. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• 'The popularity of a song is not constant over time; some of the tunes listed were already well-known standards by the 1930s, while others were popularized later.' I'm assuming that this means the list is only of songs created in the 1920s rather than songs popular during the 1920s, but I'm not sure.
• The See also section is a bit silly.
• Needs more overview - the bit about increasing complexity and how record companies liked to dictate what to record is good, but more would be better. --Gwern (contribs) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the list only includes tunes written in the 1920s (see the second sentence of the lead). So some of these tunes were next to unknown in the 1920s, but became standards later. I'm not sure how to make the sentence clearer, though. This came up at the last FLC nomination, and that's what we ended up with. (reworded, see below)

I've removed the see also section. I guess it makes no sense to have a section for just the portal link, and there's already a link to the jazz portal on the talk page banner. I'll try to expand the lead to include more overview. Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is an impressive list of wonderful jazz songs and a nice addition to the encyclopedia. I was a bit bothered by the sea of blue (both in the main text and the references), which I think should be reduced. Otherwise, it was mainly easy going and nice reading throughout. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

• Overlinking. It would be worthwhile to go through the whole article to hunt down and remove redundant wikilinks. For example, in the 1924 listings, the Gershwins are both linked in consecutive entries as is the musical Lady Be Good; a bit further down Bix Beiderbecke is linked twice in quick succession. I would suggest linking each person and each song or musical just once in the whole article. The idea, I think, is to make each link special; multiple links to the same things or persons (such as many many links to Louis Armstrong) dilute the links' effectiveness because readers start to block them out. For the same reason, I would avoid multiple links to things like "chord progression" and "Carnegie Hall". Once these overlinks have been cleared away, you might see a couple of things like cornet that it would be useful to link on first use.
  • That is a good point. I've now removed quite a few unnecessary bluelinks.

Lead

• It might be that the troubling sentence mentioned by User:Gwern could be improved by deleting the first clause. "The popularity of a song is not constant over time; some of the tunes listed were already well-known standards by the 1930s, while others were popularized later" would then read "Some of the tunes listed were already well-known standards by the 1930s, while others were popularized later."
  • Done.
• Ain't Misbehavin' in the lead links to a dab.
  • Done.

1922–23

• "the composers were sued by Puccini's publishers in 1921 for $25,000 and all subsequent royalties." - Was the suit successful? I think it's important to note whether it was or not. You could just say "... were successfully sued by... " if it was.
  • Done.
• "Benny Goodman's 1935 recording revived interest in the song, and it was performed in Goodman's famous Carnegie Hall concert in 1938". - Delete "famous"? It implies that he performed one or more "unfamous" concerts at Carnegie Hall.
  • Done.
• "It is one of the most often played early New Orleans jazz pieces." A few too many adjectives in a row, perhaps. Suggestion: "It is one of the early New Orleans jazz pieces most often played."
  • Done.
• "Credited to Rhythm Kings band members on the original record, the tune has been claimed to be based on Joe "King" Oliver's rendition of "Jazzin' Babies Blues" by New Orleans pianist Richard M. Jones." - A bit awkward. Suggestion: Credited to Rhythm Kings band members on the original record, the tune may have been based on Joe "King" Oliver's rendition of "Jazzin' Babies Blues" by New Orleans pianist Richard M. Jones.
  • Done.

1926–27

• "Berlin responded with "Blue Skies", and on the opening night Baker was demanded 24 encores of the song." - I'd flip this to avoid the awkward passive voice. Suggestion: Berlin responded with "Blue Skies", and on the opening night the audience demanded 24 encores of Baker's song.
  • Done.

Notes

• A lot of names are wiklinked in the notes, but nothing happens when I click on them. For example, "Ruhlmann 2004" looks as though it links to something, but it doesn't. I'd unlink all of these that don't go anywhere so that only blue links are ones that work. Readers will realize that these names are related to entries in the Bibliography section; they don't need links.
  • I think that's a problem with the {{Harvnb}} citation template. It did work at some point... I'll try to figure out where it's broken. On second thought, I've gone ahead and removed the unnecessary bluelinks. The reader will know where to look anyway.
• The page range in citation 87 needs an en dash.
  • Done.
• A date in citation 89 should be flipped to yyyy-mm-dd format to match the others.
  • Done.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very useful. Thank you for your review. Jafeluv (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Sherlock Holmes Baffled

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This might seem a slightly odd article to nominate for peer review, given its brevity. However, I've been working on the article for a few days, and in many ways think I've probably said all that can realistically be said about a 30-second silent film. Considering that this is such an accidentally significant film, I thought it might be fun to see if there was a possibility of it being a good, or even featured article at some point - the film will be 110 on April 26th!

Thanks, Bob talk 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Short and interesting. Mainly housekeeping points (I have also done a lttle copyediting while reading through):

• In the lead you refer to Holmes's appearance as "in barely recognisable form." This suggests heavy disguise, or mutilation, or something fantastical. I think all that is meant is that he doesn't appear in his trademark deerstalker hat and tweed coat. It may be best to modify the wording here.
• The words "by extension" seem to be unnecessary
• "...to steal a stack of stolen goods..." can't be right. Delete "stolen"?
• I think "Action" might be a better section title than "Plot", since the action described scarecely amounts to a "plot".
• Would "lighting a cigar" be more accurate then "smoking a cigar"?
• What is the purpose of citation [4] at the end of the first paragraph of the "Plot" section? In what way does this site support the text?
• Clumsily worded: "The identity of the first film Holmes and his assailant are not recorded". Do you mean: "The identitiy of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded"?
• What/who does "its" refer to in "produced at its rooftop studio"?
• "Writing on its discovery in 1968..." - again, "its" needs to be defined.
• "Estimates suggest that..." → "It has been estimated that..."
• "...has gone on to be..." → "has become"
• Online references all require, minimally, title, publisher, url and last access date. At present several are lacking one or more of these.
• Reference [9] is a dead link
• Licencing details for the Mutoscope advert are defective, as noted on the image page. The link to source is dead.
• Both images should have alt text

I hope these points are helpful. If you wish to raise any issue with me, please do so via my talkpage as I am not watching peer reviews at present. Brianboulton (talk)

---

Indo-Scythians

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of my starting a review of Azes II at Wikipedia:Peer review/Azes II/archive1. Truth is, both the kings of the Indo-Scythian kingdom need work, as does the kingdom itself. Timelines are in some cases obscure, poorly sourced, or hard to verify. Given that this topic covers a large part of the history of what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, I have to think we can find a way to improve the article considerably.

Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All contributions to this article are welcome: this is a highly fascinating, if little-known (and sometimes obscure) part of history. Some of the chronology and dynastic content has to be changed: according to User:Sponsianus, Azes II had recently been shown to be identical to Azes I thanks to the analysis of a coin overstrike by Senior. Although I haven't read the Senior's analysis myself, I fully trust Sponsianus's research. Sponsianus has always shown to be an excellent and highly knowledgeable contributor in this area. The differentiation of Azes I and Azes II was always suspect to me anyway (personal opinion). I think a merging of the two articles into Azes I (or into, even better, a single Azes article) would be highly legitimate. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, PHG! This is a good initiative by Hiberniantears. As PHG pointed out, not much is known, but to make matters worse, the Indo-Scythian period seems to have been a turbulent one, with a patchwork of smaller rulers co-existing alongside the major kings. But even so, the article should not be a patchwork of old and new (including some of my own) edits. I'll try to look into the consistency this weekend.Sponsianus (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And thank you both for working towards an expanded (or at least refined) article on a subject which admittedly is unknown to many, and certainly of great interest to me. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is the second nomination on 31 January from Hiberniantears. WP:PR limits ediors to one nomination per day - see the main PR page. Please help us by observing this in future. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry about that! Hiberniantears (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: The article has many problems, as you mention above, among them the complete lack of sourcing in many places and a kind of instability related to the question of whether the article should be merged with other articles or not. It would be a mistake for me to attempt a line-by-line commentary when the article is so unsettled, but I still have several suggestions for improvement.

• The merge tag needs to be dealt with. If the consensus is to merge the article with something else, that should be done before proceeding with other revisions. Otherwise it will be very difficult to maintain a sensible internal organization and, eventually, to write an excellent lead.

• Large sections of the article lack sources and therefore fail to meet WP:V. My rule of thumb is to provide a source for every paragraph, every set of statistics, every claim that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and every direct quote. Many paragraphs in the article are unsourced.

• The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. The existing lead says nothing about many of these sections.

• The article is over-illustrated; that is, it does not have enough text to accommodate so many images without spoiling the layout. For example, the existing layout includes text sandwiches in which a small column of text is sandwiched between images on either side. The Manual of Style suggests avoiding text sandwiches. It also advises against displacing heads with images (as for example, the toilet tray image does to the Bimaran casket subhead) and advises against placing an image so that it overlaps two sections, as the Bimaran casket image does. Some of these problems can be solved by moving the images around, but I think you should consider moving some to a gallery on the Commons and then adding a link to the gallery from the "See also" section.

• Scrolling footnote sections are a specific no-no. Please see MOS#Scroll

• Generally, the Manual of Style deprecates extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The two main solutions are to expand or merge.

• The images need alt text, meant to describe the image content to people who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details and examples.

• The disambiguation tool in the upper right-hand corner of this review page finds 13 wikilinks that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.

• Citation 29 has a dead url.

• The list of references is not of much help if not tied to specific claims in the article. In some cases, such as "Early History of North India, S. Chattopadhyava", the bibliographic data is incomplete; the entry lacks a publisher, date of publication, and place of publication. It's good to make it as easy as possible for people interested in the subject to be able to find the sources if they want to learn more.

• In "Descendants of the Indo-Scythians" it's very odd to see "Jats" supported by 15 citations and some of the other entries by none at all. Do you really need 15?

• I'd consider doing something about the long list under "Main Indo-Scythian rulers". Perhaps creating a separate article, List of Indo-Scythian rulers would solve the problem. You could simply link to it from this article. That would improve the layout and make the article a bit shorter and more direct.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (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)

---

Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article, about Maya Angelou's third autobiography, has the potential to become a featured article. Eventually, I'd like to see a MA featured topic, so the improvement of this article will contribute to the completion of that goal.

Thanks, --Christine (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting but needs more work before heading to FAC. The article needs more background for readers who know nothing about Maya Angelou or the earlier two books, and it needs less repetition of its core ideas. Here is one set of examples of the kind of repetition that I'm alluding to:

Thanks for the review. Sorry I haven't been able to get to this before; life has been crazy busy. I'll focus my limited free time on this now. Regarding the background issue: I wonder if this can be dealt with by the creation of a new section one called (d'oh!) "Background", that briefly discusses Angelou's bio and past success with the first two autobiographies. What do you think? I'll play around in a sandbox and see what I can come up with. --Christine (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Title section": "depicts the conflict Angelou feels about being separated from her son"

Deleted the words "being separated from". Hopefully, that takes care of this instance. --Christine (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Plot summary": "she is racked with guilt and regret about leaving her son with her mother"

More deletions, so that the phrase now reads: "she is racked with guilt and regret about her son" --Christine (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Repetition": "haunts Angelou is how she, like her mother before her, left her child for long periods of time"

I'm keeping this phrase in, since it's no longer repetitious now that I've changed the other instances and it's an important point.

• "Motherhood": "Angelou feels a deep sense of guilt and regret when she leaves her son in the care of her mother".

Phrase now reads: "Angelou feels a deep sense of guilt and regret when she leaves her son to tour with Porgy and Bess" --Christine (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few other suggestions:

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details, and you can see recent examples of alt text discussions at WP:FAC.

Done. I don't know what I think about the lack of images in this article, but I haven't been able to be creative enough to come up with any solutions. One of the reasons I brought this article to pr is to get some help with this. --Christine (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Part of the lead, the first paragraph especially, serves as an introduction rather than a summary of the main text sections. Generally, nothing important should appear in the lead if it is not mentioned in the main text. One solution would be to add a "Background" section right after the lead and before the "Plot summary". It could include important details that appear in the lead but not elsewhere, and it could bring readers up to speed on details (such as Angelou's birth place and full name) from the first two autobiographies. I say a bit more about this in some comments below.

Ah, I should've read further before making my previous comments, but it appears that we're of the same mind about this. I agree with this, of course. One glaring example of a statement in the lead that's not in the rest of the article is Lupton's assertion that this book marked the first time an African American autobiographer expanded her story into multiple volumes. I agree that this could be addressed with a "Background" section, as well as give more detail about Angelou and her previous books and other writings. --Christine (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The publication of this volume in 1976 marks the first time a well-known African American woman writer had expanded her life story into a third autobiography." - Should the first verb be "marked" rather than "marks"?

Yes, and the correction's been made. I have tense problems all throughout this article, don't I? --Christine (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The autobiography, which includes a wide geographical range, covers five years of Angelou's twenties... " - The "five years" may not be necessary here since the range (1949–1955) already makes this clear in the second sentence.

By golly, you're right! The phrase now reads: The autobiography, which includes a wide geographical range, covers most of Angelou's twenties... --Christine (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Angelou depicts the conflict she felt as a single mother, in spite of her success as a performer as she travels Europe with the musical Porgy and Bess." - Tighten by changing "in spite of" to "despite"?

Yes, thanks. Done. --Christine (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Angelou changes her name in the pages of this autobiography, and so does her young son Guy;" - At this point in the article, it's not clear what this sentence means. It could mean that she uses a pseudonym, or it could mean that she writes about the time she changed her name from X to Y.

Good point. Sentence has been clarified to now read: She changes her name from Marguerite Johnson to Maya Angelou in the pages of this autobiography; her young son changes his name as well, from Clyde to Guy, and their relationship is strengthened as the book ends. --Christine (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Title

• "According to Angelou, she derived the book's title from the rent parties of Harlem in the 1920s and 1930s" - Because Harlem is the first specific place mentioned in the article, a reader who knows nothing about Angelou will assume she is from New York and is (oddly) offered a job as a salesgirl in San Francisco. I think it should be made clear early on where she is from and how she got to San Francisco. It might be necessary to briefly recount the plots of the first two books to bring readers up to speed. You can't assume that they will have read anything else about Angelou. Even though this article is part of a set, it has to stand on its own.

Plot summary

• "she gets a job dancing at The Purple Onion," - Someone who knew nothing about Angelou would assume from this that she was a dancer rather than a dancer and a singer. When she's offered a part in Porgy and Bess, we are left to assume that she danced rather than sang. It would be good to make clear what role she played in Porgy and Bess and in what capacity she was offered a job opposite Pearl Bailey.
• "The job allowed her to move back into her mother's house and to spend more time with her son." - "Allows" rather than "allowed"?
• ""My life began to resemble a Good Housekeeping advertisement". - The Manual of Style advises against linking thing inside direct quotations because the link is not part of the original quote. I'd suggest unlinking Good Housekeeping but adding italics since it is a journal.
• "After Tosh tells Clyde there is no God," - "Clyde" needs to be explained on first use. I assume that this is her son's name.
• "announces her desire to return to her grandmother in Stamps," - Ditto for "Stamps" the first time it is mentioned. Where is it? Could we be filled in on this background data early in the article?
• "but Tosh tells her that Annie has died the day after her operation." - Would it be more clear to say "the day after Maya's operation"?
• "She changed her name to the "more exotic"" - "Changes" rather than "changed"?
• changed her name to the "more exotic" "Maya Angelou" - I assume that she was using Maya Angelos before this, but it would be good to make this explicit. Also, I think it would be helpful to be told here, if not earlier, that her original last name was Johnson.
• At the close of the book, mother and son express pride in each other, he in her skill as a singer and as she writes: "He was partially right. Although I was not a great singer I was his mother, and he was my wonderful, dependently independent son". - Awkward construction. Suggestion: "At the close of the book, mother and son express pride in each other. Of his praise for her singing, she writes: "Although I was not a great singer I was his mother, and he was my wonderful, dependently independent son".

Travel

• As McPherson further states, "Marguerite Annie Johnson of Stamps, Arkansas, and Rite, Sugar, and Rita—fall away as she comfortably inhabits her new name, Maya Angelou". - What do "Rite, Sugar, and Rita" refer to? Are they other places Angelou lived in before moving to California?

Music

• "Angelou's association with the musical takes up almost 40% of the text." - This is, I think, the fourth repetition of this claim, which is probably too many

Notes

• The page ranges take en dashes rather than em dashes.

Captions

• "James Weldon Johnson's poetry influences Angelou's writing in Singin' and Swingin'." - "Influenced" rather than "influences?

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Akira Kurosawa

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because of the vital importance, acknowledged by it being assigned as a level-3 vital article, of Kurosawa (widely considered one of the greatest film directors who has ever lived) not only within Arts, but also within the Wikiproject Japan, Wikiproject Biography and Wikiproject Screenwriters sections. And because this is the centennial year of Kurosawa's birth, the goal of myself and several other Kurosawa scholars is to have it appear as a Featured Article this year on Wikipedia's homepage. If it is too late for it to appear on his birthday (March 23rd), at least it can appear on the 60th anniversary of the Tokyo premier of Rashomon (August 25th).

Therefore, I'm requesting EXPEDITED peer review for this article.

Thanks, Dylanexpert (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi there. I'm not a very experienced reviewer so I hope more people will comment after me. I fully support your desire to have this as a featured article on the 100th Anniversary of his birth. I have wikified a few links and added a couple of citation templates to the Influence section.

I feel the ordering of the sections is a little strange. It seems odd to have discussion of his early films, then a gap where you talk about his influence and influences and then you return to mention his later films. I think that the biographical parts should follow each other and then you could place the discussions of influence/s after that?

I also felt that there could be more about his life whilst he was a film-maker. You mention all (I guess) the films he made during his best years. But you don't give us much about his personal life during this time. It starts to read like a brief trip over his output rather than telling us more about the man.

Many of the sections are rather light in references. You should aim, as a rough guide, to provide a citation for every assertion. Sections Youth, Directorial approach, Influences... all these sections make claims that are not cited.

All that aside, looks like a pretty good article. I felt I learned a fair bit. Good luck with your goal of Featured Article status! --bodnotbod (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Response from Wildhartlivie

Since your goal is featured article, this may seem a bit harsh, but to meet the goal, it needs to be done. The referencing is, as noted by bodnotbod, is very light. In the Youth section, each point of fact requires a reference. That may translate to each sentence. I would move the Personal life section down and expand it somewhat. When did he marry Yoko Yaguchi? Details about the courtship, marriage and family are helpful. There are entire paragraphs throughout that are unsourced, including a mention of a suicide attempt. These all need sourcing.

In the Influences section, I would like to see more specific content besides a listing of names with perhaps a quote. How Kurosawa influenced some film, scene or presentation would be of great interest, as you did with George Lucas. In sections dealing with specific films, the content would be enhanced by the addition of critical reception at the time or even today. I note some dangling participles in the prose ("the only film of Kurosawa's career that he received a "Best Director" Academy Award nomination for" should read "the only filmd for which Kurosawa received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Director"). In the external links section, we no longer use the succession boxes that are listed. The focus on these is to include the content in the article itself. Nominations and wins should be listed with discussion about each film.

I hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I just went through a good article nomination and it was quite difficult. Good luck. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Healthy in Paranoid Times

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like it to eventually reach GA or even FA if possible. I had been piecing this article together behind the scenes for several months and feel that it is finally in good form. I still think several things need tweaking, such as reference style, cohesion, prose style & whatnot. I need a second opinion of this.

Thanks, Publichall (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by GeeJo

• Images:
  • The fair use rationale on File:HealthyInParanoidTimes.jpg is a joke, and not a funny one. Rewrite it.
  • It would probably be a good idea to upload a version at a lower resolution, matching the dimensions used in the article.
  • Alt text for the album cover is needed.
• Lede:
  • "The disc was released on a standard CD as well as a DualDisc, with the DVD side containing a documentary on the making of the album." - Standard CDs don't have a DVD side, which this sentence layout suggests.
  • "The album fared well in both Canada and the U.S., but didn't match up to the expectations of their previous smash hit, Gravity." - The previous album didn't have expectations about the new one, expectations were raised because of it.
  • I'd drop the exact dates for the single releases from the lede, and shift them down into the main body, where they don't appear at all in the current version. Remember, the lede is supposed to summarise the article, it shouldn't give any details which aren't further expanded on in the main text.
  • "According to the album's liner notes, Healthy was recorded in 1165 days at ten different studios." - Again, not mentioned anywhere in the body of the text. If you do want to keep it, at least drop the opening half of the sentence.
  • Gigabytes can be abbreviated to GB. Use non-breaking spaces between numbers and units.
  • Decide whether you're going to abbreviate Our Lady Peace to OLP, and be consistent.
  • "The second single, however, "Angels/Losing/Sleep" has..." - Reads clunkily. Drop either however, or the single name.
  • "making the jarred, falsetto-like voice Raine Maida and Our Lady Peace was formerly known for" - Making isn't the verb you're looking for here.
  • "More songs, like "Boy"" - Other songs, not more songs.
  • Be consistent in italicising Gravity.
  • "also have a lighter melody and vocals, instead of the heavier sounds on Gravity" - I'd switch ", instead of" to "than".

I didn't go farther than the lead because, to be honest, there are too many problems with grammar and sentence structure in the current version to go through and pick out individual examples beyond this. Go over it again with an eye to writing better prose, or enlist the help of someone from a relevant wikiproject to lend a hand in this regard, then bring it back for another try. You may also want to have a look at other album FA/GAs to see how they arrange their information, and at the guidelines in Wikipedia:Lead section. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting, everything you just commented on is not my writing. I mostly included all of the old article in to the new article. Regardless, thanks for the start. Publichall (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

Theobald of Bec

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring this to FAC at some point, and it's one of the first articles I got up to GA status back in 2007. I've just recently considerably expanded it, and would like comments on the comprehnesiveness and context as well as how much sense it makes to the non-specialist. It still needs alt text for the pictures and some of the prose may be a bit rough, but those will be fixed before FAC. Right now I'm much more concerned that the article make sense and give enough background to help the reader understand the context of his life.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to be pretty clear to me. I'm certainly no specialist in this area. Fixed some spelling errors while I read; lots of American English was there. Likely more still there. Prose is well-written. My only suggestion would be to add another para to the lede. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Most interesting. It helps that I know a tiny bit about Thomas Becket and Henry II, and so the history of Theobald fits into a kind of continuum in my head. I'm always pleased to read things that expand my knowledge of history. I found and fixed a few typos and other small things as I went. I don't see any big problems, but I have a few suggestions nonetheless.

Lead

• "(c.1090-18 April 1161)" - Spaced en dash in date range for birth-death ranges?
• "The dispute of the primacy over the Welsh hierarchy... " - Wikilink "Welsh" to Wales?
• "Among other issues that Theobald faced was a subordinate bishop who contested his authority, Henry of Blois, who was Bishop of Winchester." - Slightly smoother might be "Among other issues that Theobald faced was a subordinate bishop, Henry of Blois, Bishop of Winchester, who contested his authority."
• "After the death of Stephen's son Eustace, Stephen recognised his rival Henry of Anjou as his heir." - It's not clear from this sentence alone who "his" refers to in "his rival Henry". Maybe just "recognized Henry of Anjou as his heir"?
• "Stephen named Theobald regent of the kingdom after Stephen's death." - This sentence is puzzling too until all is clarified in the main text. It sounds impossible on the face of it. How could Stephen name anything if he was dead? It should be easy to recast this for clarity.
• I'm inclined to agree with Mav that the lead might be better as a more-inclusive three paragraphs.

Family and background

• "Becket's family also came from the same area of Normandy... " - Wikilink Normandy?

Life at Bec

• "In 1127 Theobald was made prior of Bec,[6] when Boso succeeded William, and abbot in 1137,[6] after Boso's death in June 1136." - Missing word or words? Perhaps "and was made abbot"?

Appointment to Canterbury

• "and Stephen was present with the papal legate, Alberic of Ostia... " - Wikilink papal legate? It's linked in the next section, but should be linked here instead, I think.
• "Henry was absent overseeing the ordination of deacons" - Wikilink deacons?

Early years

• "They base this on a Vita, or Life of the 12th century mystic... " - Lowercase vita and life?

Civil war

• "Following King Henry's death in 1135, the succession was disputed between the king's nephews... " - The time gets fuzzy here. Perhaps "had been" rather than "was".
• "were required to declare fealty to Matilda as Henry's heir, but when Henry I died in 1135" - Should he just be Henry the second time rather than Henry I? If you stick with both forms, it might seem that these are two different Henrys.
• "Theobald contented himself with his possessions in France. Matilda, though, was less sanguine, and secured the support of the Scottish king, David, who was her maternal uncle... " - Consider wikilinking France and Scotland? I'm not sure everyone knows where they are or, for that matter, that Normandy was different from France. Maybe a little background geography early on would be helpful; for example, what was the relationship of England to Normandy in 1135? How come the clergy could go back and forth so easily? Lots of contemporary readers might not have much of an inkling about these matters.

Disputes with Stephen

• "During the council, Bethune died, and Eugene nominated Foliot as the new Bishop of Hereford... " - Who is Bethune? Is he mentioned before this?
• "and Theobald returned to his see" - Wikilink "see" to Episcopal see?

Relations with the cathedral clergy

• "the regular running of the cathedral was done by the prior... " - Wikilink prior?

Relations with other monastic houses

• "This was eventually settled by a papal mandate that the abbots should profess obedience in 1144." - Since he no doubt meant them to be obedient in other years too, perhaps this would be slightly better: "This was eventually settled by a papal mandate in 1144 that the abbots should profess obedience."

Patronage and household

• "two chaplains who were monks, a butler, sidpenser, chamberlain, steward... " I think that should be "dispenser", but I'm not sure what the word means in this context. Should it and any of the other terms in this list be linked?

Death and legacy

• with the historian Frank Barlow calling Theobald "an upright man, but quick tempered, and sometimes spoke far too rashly. - To make this entirely grammatical, maybe "with the historian Frank Barlow calling Theobald "an upright man, but quick tempered, ... [who] sometimes spoke far too rashly."

General

• The images need alt text.
• "Capetian" and "Robert of Gloucester" link to dabs.

Images

• File:Great Seal of King Stephen.jpg might need some license tweaks. PurpleHz isn't actually the copyright holder. He or she appears to have scanned the image from the acknowledged book. Some sort of PD-old license may be more appropriate.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

John Barbirolli

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I should like to get it up to at least Good Article standard, and have now gone about as far with it as I feel able without the views and suggestions of other interested Wikipedians. One kind contributor has gone through it informally for me, and input from others would now be greatly welcomed.

Thanks, Tim riley (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments

Overall, this is a well done article that reads clearly and presents its subject in an objective and comprehensive light, and I would eventually like to see it grace FAC. The points that I have are minor and, in at least one case, may be subjective.

• At the beginning of the article, you mention the names of operas without mentioning they are operas or, in one case, mentioning the composer ("his 1967 Madama Butterfly" instead of "his 1967 recording of Puccini's opera Madama Butterfly" in the lead section). Although this practice allows the prose to read more cleanly, what do I do if I don't know the works being mentioned and am not familiar to opera? (Use the link, some might argue.) I realize this is a subjective point, and my bringing it up might have some argue that there are limits to spoon feeding people information, but articles are supposed to be autonomous and readers not familiar with classical music should be taken into consideration.

Point taken. I've added "Puccini" before "Butterfly", and made sure "opera" is mentioned in close proximity to any operatic title.

Early Years

• Should "pit" in the opening paragraph be "orchestra pit"?

I've changed this to "orchestra" tout court.

• The following year, he won a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music, which he attended from 1912 to 1916, studying harmony, counterpoint and theory under Dr J B McEwen, and the cello with Herbert Walenn.[7] Should the last part of this sentence read "... and cello with ..."?

This is a difference of UK and U.S. usage. UK idiom calls for the definite article.

• During World War I, though too young to serve at the front, he became a lance-corporal in the Suffolk Regiment.[7] This is the beginning of a new paragraph, so "Barbirolli" instead of "he"?

Done

• Same with While in the army, he adopted the anglicised form of his first name for the sake of simplicity ...

Done

• ... under the baton of Elgar ... Sounds a little stilted. Would this read better as "under Elgar's baton" or "under the composer's baton"?

Done

First conducting posts

• Barbirolli had never conducted a chorus or a large orchestra, but felt confident that he could cope,[10]... Isn't "he could cope" a little informal for an encyclopedia?

Right-ho. I've changed it to "...but had the confidence to accept."

• In 1927, deputising at short notice for Sir Thomas Beecham, he conducted the London Symphony Orchestra in a performance of Elgar's Symphony No. 2, winning praise from the composer and from Pablo Casals, whom Barbirolli had accompanied in Haydn's D major cello concerto at the same concert.[7][24] A little convoluted as one sentence. Would it be better split into two?

Done.

• Although he later came to love Maher's music, in the 1930s he thought it sounded thin.[27] We've had a lot of "he"s since the beginning of this paragraph. How about "Although Barbirolli later came to love ..."?

Done

• In 1933 he was invited to become conductor of the Scottish Orchestra. New paragraph, so "Barbirolli" instead of "he".

Done

• Barbirolli remained with the Scottish Orchestra for three seasons ... I know it's not incorrect grammatically, but "for three" sounds odd, as though you have two numbers next to each other. Do you really need "for"?

I think this is another case of U.S. -v- UK usage. To an English eye "remained with the Scottish Orchestra three seasons" would seem strange' I'd say.

• Notwithstanding the favourable opinions, it caused a sensation in 1936 when it was announced that he had been invited to conduct the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in succession to Arturo Toscanini.[1] Two points. First, the phrasing sounds a little awkward—maybe the use of passive tense. Second, why did Barbirolli's invitation cause a sensation? A brief explanation would be good here.

Yes indeed. I've redrafted as you suggest. A decided improvement.

New York Philharmonic

• He also performed Serge Koussevitzky's Double Bass Concerto. Was Barbirolli the soloist? Coming as this sentence does right after the works he conducted, it's a little confusing. Maybe "He also appeared as soloist in ..."

Mea culpa! How blind one is to ambiguities in one's own prose. JB conducted. I have redrafted accordingly.

• He gave the world premières of Walton's second Façade Suite,[32] and Britten's Sinfonia da Requiem and Violin Concerto, and introduced pieces by Jacques Ibert, Eugene Goossens, and Arthur Bliss and by many American composers including Samuel Barber, Deems Taylor and Daniel Gregory Mason. This sentence feels a little long and rangy with all the "and"s. What about using a semi-colon and a different modifier: "He gave the world premières of Walton's second Façade Suite,[32] and Britten's Sinfonia da Requiem and Violin Concerto; he also introduced pieces by Jacques Ibert, Eugene Goossens, and Arthur Bliss as well as works by many American composers including Samuel Barber, Deems Taylor and Daniel Gregory Mason."

Good. Done.

• Barbirolli had also to cope with "a rough press campaign ... Would "Barbirolli also had to cope" sound a little smoother?

It would indeed. Done.

• Downes, and the critic and part-time composer Virgil Thompson ..." I'd drop "part-time"—either you are or are nor a composer. You could even say, "... and the composer Virgil Thompson ..."

Drat! Caught in the act! I was hoping to smuggle in a dig at Thompson, though I didn't think I'd get away with it. I have redrafted as suggested.

• His first reason for leaving New York ... New paragraph, so "Barbirolli's".

Done

• Link or redlink "Petrillo" and use his first name in brackets.

When adding this quote I wondered whether to replace the phrase in question with elliptical dots, and on reflection I think it would be better to do so, thus avoiding a link of – at best – tangential relevance. I don't think the dots spoil the flow of the quotation.

• The second reason ... It's been a long time since mention his first reason. What about "His second reason for leaving New York", or, if this seems too redundant, "His second reason"?

Indeed. Done.

• The orchestra was in danger of extinction,... You mention why later, but would a brief reference here be good?

It would. Done.

Hallé Orchestra

• Barbirolli's plane landed safely: Howard's was shot down.[10] Semi-colon instead of colon.

Quite right! Done.

• This is just a side note, but is there any mention of the Hallé's recording of Bax's Third Symphony, recorded during the orchestra's first years with Barbirolli? If I remember correctly, this was considered a benchmark recording of the work, as well as its first, so maybe a brief mention of it with review comments, if available, would fit here.

I'll look into this. Mention of Bax reminds me that I am fairly sure I have read that there is at least one Bax piece dedicated to JB. I'll enquire further into this.

The discography at the back of Michael Kennedy's biography shows (p. 362) that the Bax 3 was JB's first recording with the Hallé, made on 31 December 1943. I've added to the article.

• Barbirolli received invitations to take up ... The chronology of this paragraph is confusing, which makes the prose hard to follow. What about moving the mention of the Royal Opera house to the second sentence of the paragraph, so that the section reads like this: "Barbirolli received invitations to take up more prestigious and lucrative conductorships.[4] In the early 1950s he had appeared occasionally in opera houses, conducting Turandot, Aida, Orfeo ed Euridice, Tristan and Isolde, La bohème and Madama Butterfly at the Royal Opera House, 1951–53.[37] The head of the Royal Opera House, David Webster, wanted him to become the musical director there, but Barbirolli declined to be deflected from the Hallé.[38] His biographer Charles Reid wrote, "His Manchester kingdom is a kingdom indeed. He is not manacled or chivied in his choice of programmes. Broadly speaking he conducts only what he loves ... His kingdom approximates to a conductor's paradise." Nevertheless, in 1958, after building the orchestra up and touring continually, conducting up to 75 concerts a year, he arranged a less onerous schedule, allowing him more time to appear as a guest conductor with other orchestras.[36] At this time Barbirolli worked at the Vienna Staatsoper[2] and the Rome Opera House, where he conducted Aida in 1969.[39] In 1960 he accepted an invitation to succeed Leopold Stokowski as chief conductor of the Houston Symphony in Texas, a post he held until 1967, conducting an annual total of 12 weeks there in early spring and late autumn between Hallé engagements.[40] Also in 1961 he began a regular association with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, which lasted for the rest of his life.[36]"

Thank you for this. It is a definite improvement, which I have gratefully adopted.

• In 1968, after twenty-five years with the Hallé, Barbirolli was appointed Conductor Laureate for life.[1] Isn't Conductor Laureate a lifetime position? Sounds redundant.

I'm not sure, but have pruned anyway, as the shorter version stands happily on its own.

Repertoire and recordings

• Extra points for the cool composite image of composers at the head of this section, and for the one of artists below that.

Thank you very much! I stole the idea from your Tchaikovsky articles. At your service if I can be of help with any such in the future.

• His repertoire was not as wide ... New paragraph: "Barbirolli's".

Done.

• Many of Barbirolli's pre-war recordings for HMV were concertos. Do you mean "were of concertos"?

Indeed. Done.

Honours, awards and legacy

• This section reads well. No further comments.

Family

• His second marriage from 1939 to his death was ... A minor point: You use commas to bracket the dates in Barbirolli's first marriage ("... marriage, in 1931, was ...") but not with the second marriage. It would be nice to be consistent.

This was left from a previous editor's contribution, which I failed to proof-read carefully enough. Thank you for spotting it.

• Was Barbirolli's first marriage in 1931 or 1932? The New Grove lists it as 1932; you have 1931.

Another legacy that I ought to have spotted. The date was 18 June 1932. Very grateful for your picking this up.

• There were no children of either marriage.[4] Should this read "from either marriage"?

This is standard UK obituary-speak (a touch old-fashioned and pompous, but I am in no position to object on those grounds).

Hope these comments help. As mentioned earlier, this is overall a first-rate job. Jonyungk (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

These comments do indeed help – tremendously. I am greatly obliged for them and have acted on them all, except for the ones that are just UK -v- U.S. usage. Very many thanks, Jonyungk. – Tim riley (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I have struggled a bit during the last week, but here are some comments on the Early years section. I will do my best to add more as soon as I can:-

• Early years
  • Some clarification needed re Barbirolli's schooling. "His education at St Clement Danes Grammar School overlapped, from 1910, with his scholarship at Trinity College of Music". Did he attend the two at the same time? How did he manage that?
    • Kennedy's authorised biography doesn't throw any light on this point (the relevant pages are 26–30) The same author's ODBN article about JB says just, "He was educated at St Clement Danes Grammar School and, at the same time, from 1910, was a scholar at Trinity College of Music." As (i) Barbirolli himself (interview with Alan Blyth in The Gramophone, December 1969 p. 34) said "I left school at 14 — an excellent finishing age, I think, unless you're going into medicine, the Law or the Church," and (ii) all sources are agreed that he was at Trinity College from 1910, I don't think there can be much doubt that he attended both the grammar school and the college between 1910 and 1914 – but no source that I can find explains quite how he managed it.
  • Tiny format point: references should be in sequence, e.g. [1][6] not [6][1]. Check for other instances.
    • Good - thank you: I'll do so.
  • There is a tendency to overuse commas, for example in the sentence: "The following year, he won a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music, which he attended from 1912 to 1916, studying harmony, counterpoint and theory under Dr J B McEwen, and the cello with Herbert Walenn." Personally I would delete the commas after "year" and "1916". I know comma usage is often a matter of personal choice and style, but prose flow is important, and a general comma audit might be worthwhile.
    • Quite so. It's all too easy to overdo the commas, and I'll institute a purge.
  • "and by 1916" → "and in 1916"
    • Not quite the nuance I was aiming at, but I'll change it.
  • The phrase "his regular partner Ethel Bartlett" has a different nuance in 2010...Perhaps she should be called his regular playing partner?
    • Ahem! Quite so.
  • The Ethel Bartlett sentence, incidentally, has three "ands" in it. Needs breaking up, or rephrasing.
    • Good - just the sort of thing one never spots when checking one's own prose. Will do.
  • "During World War I, though too young to serve at the front, Barbirolli became a lance-corporal in the Suffolk Regiment." It would be best to mention, first, that he joined the army. Thus: "During World War I Barbirolli enlisted in the army and, though too young to serve at the front, became a lance-corporal in the Suffolk Regiment." (Also, why was he too young? My grandfather, born 1900, served in France in 1918)
    • First point: will do. Second point: I don't know. The statement is taken from an article in The Gramophone in 1929. I suppose that publication was not and is not an authority on military rules of the First World War. I'll delete the age reference, as it is not crucial to the section of the article.
  • Perhaps "back-desk" is a bit jargonistic for non-musical readers?
    • I wondered that when writing it, but couldn't think of a satisfactory alternative. Would "rank and file" do the job, do you think?

More to come. Brianboulton (talk) 11:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Greatly obliged for what you've added so far, and looking forward to more when you can fit it in. Tim riley (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the rest:-

• First conducting posts (I have made a few minor tweaks)
  • Turandot is listed, and linked, twice in the list of opera performances. The second mention refers to an English-language performance, but the sentence still reads oddly. It might be possible to get round this by inserting in the list thus: "...Lohengrin, Turandot (with the first performances in English), La bohème..." etc and finishing the sentence on Il trovatore.
    • First mention of Turandot removed. I think the second ref, including "1st perf in English" comment probably sits all right at the end of the list.
  • "He conducted the Royal Philharmonic Society's concert at which Ralph Vaughan Williams was presented with the society's Gold Medal..." Suggest "a Royal Philharmonic Society concert" ("the" suggest that there is only one RPS concert).
    • Indeed. Done.
  • It seems to me that there is a logical paragraph break after the reference to Mahler's music sounding thin. The rest of the paragraph goes better with the final paragraph - I've tried it. See what you think.
    • So it does. Thank you! Done.
  • "full-time permanent" - are both these adjectives necessary? I imagine one would do.
    • I have dithered over this, but have pruned as suggested.
• New York Philharmonic
  • "The management of the orchestra nevertheless renewed Barbirolli's appointment in 1940, but by 1942 he had decided against any further renewal of the contract, if it were offered." Citation necessary.
    • Now expanded and referenced.
  • Link are not normally given in quotes, and I wonder about the need for some of these anyway - Churchill, Northern Ireland, U-boats.
    • Pruned accordingly.
• Halle Orchestra
  • "This had been mutually beneficial in the years of the depression, but spurred by the success of the Hallé's former guest conductor Malcolm Sargent in transforming the Liverpool Philharmonic into a full-time, permanent orchestra, the Hallé board had now resolved that its orchestra must follow suit." I am looking for ways in which this rather long, multi-clause sentence cn be simplified, perhaps split. Suggestion: "This had been mutually beneficial in the years of the depression. However, the Hallé board had now resolved that its orchestra must follow the example of the Liverpool Philharmonic, which had been transformed by the Hallé's former guest conductor Malcolm Sargent into a full-time, permanent orchestra." For consideration.
    • Much better - thank you. Done.
  • Perhaps, rather than "the shared players", you should specify "the Northern Orchestra players"?
    • I've changed it to "the players shared with the BBC".
  • I've not heard the word "trainer" used in this context before (I'm trying to block the image of Barbirolli in a tracksuit blowing a whistle). If this is common usage, fine, but "teacher" seems more appropriate. But anyway, isn't the sentence rather out of the chronology - we've suddenly jumped from Barbirolli's assuming control in the 1940s to the 1960s.
    • JB adored cricket and was deeply knowledgeable about it, but I don't think he donned a tracksuit much, if at all. I have expanded and recast this part of the section, making the inclusion of the RAM sentence more integrated (I hope).
  • "...a tour of the U.S." I think "United States" should be spelt out.
    • I find that my frequent American Wiki-colleague feels quite strongly to the contrary on this point. I have altered the first U.S. to United States, but left the later ones unchanged.
  • "twenty-five years" - other values have been given numerically.
    • Indeed. Thank you. Done.
• Repertoire and recordings
  • There is a tendency in this section to use long verbatim quotations. The second paragraph ends with one from an anonymous contributor to the EMI Classics site. Since the prose is unexceptionable, and can't be attributed, it would be better if this quote was paraphrased. Paragraph 3 ends with an even longer quote, attributed to David Bicknell, but again this should be largely paraphrased, with just the odd memorable wording enclosed in quotes, e.g. the description of Barbirolli as a "treasure".
    • Done.
  • Does the word "prove", immediately before the Kennedy quote, actually belong within the quote? It reads as though it does.
    • Slight problem of syntax here: the original quote reads, "The issue by the Barbirolli Society since his death of transfers to CD of recordings he made in New York proves that the orchestra played superbly for him and that the criticism of him was largely unjustified." I have now embraced the "prove" into my quote even though it was "proves" in the original. Is this within the bounds of transcriber's licence?
  • "U.S." again, full name preferred.
    • As above.
  • "In 1962, EMI records persuaded Barbirolli to return to them." It's not clear when he was actually with them, before this return.
    • HMV is part of EMI, a distinction I omitted to make clear. I have changed to HMV throughout, as that was always the EMI label for which JB recorded.
  • A "Sibelius cycle" is presumably a Sibelius symphony cycle.
    • It is. Done.
• Honours, awards and legacy
  • The inclusion of "legacy" in the heading of this short section is slightly misleading, since one would expect it to deal with Barbirolli's musical legacy rather than bricks and mortar. The musical legacy has been amply dealt with in the earlier sections; I suggest, therefore, you alter the word "legacy" to "memorials".
    • Good point. Done.
  • "...of which Barbirolli was a student" → "at which Barbirolli was a student" (student "of" a discipline, student "at" an institution)
    • Thank you - done.

Final note: "Virgil Thompson" links to a disambiguation page (there were two Virgil Thompsons, apparently).

quandoque dormitat Homerus (though that's Horace, not Virgil) – the chap's name was "Virgil Thomson" not "Virgil Thompson", and the dodgy link was entirely my fault. Now mended.

Also, alt text is required on all images.

Done.

That is it, apart from my bits of copyediting which you should review. In my opinion this has more the stamp of FAC than GA, but please let me know where you decide to send it. Brianboulton (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! Thank you so much. I'll go through point by point over the weekend. Very much obliged for this. – Tim riley (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Later: all above suggestions reviewed, and (apart from U.S. -v- United States) all acted upon. I am exceedingly grateful for your review – thank you so much. I note what you say about FAC -v- GA and will ponder. – Tim riley (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

---

List of Watford F.C. players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I want to take it up to Featured List status, as part of a possible featured topic drive. Any feedback is welcome, in particular for the lead. I will steadily reduce the redlinks: my aim is one a day, with a focus on quality rather than quantity (examples 1 2), but I'm interested in opinions on whether the "proportion" is too high for an FLC.

Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:-

• A number of suggested tweaks in the lead:-
  • The prose flow is better if the first two sentences are combined (this also allows you to lose one of the repetitive "Watfords"): "Watford Football Club are an English association football club, based in Watford, Hertfordshire, and formed from the 1898 merger of West Hertfordshire (previously Watford Rovers) and Watford St. Mary's."
  • Remove the inappropriate italics
  • "They play their home matches at Vicarage Road, since moving from Cassio Road in 1922." Sentence needs rephrasing, and also it should be clear that Vicarage Road refers to a stadium. Thus: "Since moving from their former ground in Cassio Road in 1922, they have played their home matches at the Vicarage Road stadium." (or similar)
  • "For the 1920–21 season" → "At the start of the 1920–21 season"
  • Probably better to say they joined "Division III (South) of the Football League" and to follow by saying that "They have played in the Football League or Premier League ever since, their highest ever League finish being second in the top division in 1982–83" I am not sure that their appearance as beaten cup finalists is worth a mention; the focus of this article is the list of players, not the club's achievements.
  • The last paragraph should be promoted to be the firat paragraph, as this is the declarative statement of the article/list's purpose. The wording should be changed from "the club" to "Watford Football Club."
    • I think I've addressed all of these suggestions. WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding the chart (which on the whole is very impressive - congratulations):-
  • The green symbol and its explanation are somewhat confusing. I've worked out (I think) that this means former Watford players who were still active in the game for other clubs in the 2009-2010 season. I'm not sure if this classification is particularly relevant to this list, but if you think it is, can the explanation be clarified?
    • Reworded. WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The purple symbol indicates holders of club records. While most of these are OK, can individual players really be said to hold records relating to their transfer fees? Surely these are club, not individual records?
    • Removed transfer records, this is more relevant to the club's history, or a future records and statistics list. WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the basis for redlinking? Some names with equivalent credentials are not redlinked. I note your intention to supply articles for some of the redlinked names, but it doesn't seem feasible to do them all. Personally I would look again at the redlinking policy, and probably reduce these to a handful where there is a realistic prospect that articles will be written.
    • It's a complicated situation. My understanding is that:
      1. Southern League players fail WP:ATHLETE, and should not be linked at all unless they have played in the Football League.
      2. Making one Football League appearance passes ATHLETE. While this alone does not guarantee eligibility for an article, my understanding of the relevant MoS section is to redlink an article that is probably worthy of inclusion. It's important to remember that a lot of the players whose Watford careers were mundane will have done things elsewhere.
      3. There are six or seven unlinked players from post 1920 who should be linked for consistency. In these cases, there was no clear destination under the naming conventions. It would be bad practise to guess the future article name, knowing that there is a good chance that someone else could create an article on that person with another title. WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The list appears to include appearances in the makeshift regional leagues that operated in the Second World War. I can't see this reflected in the lead where you list the leagues from which appearances are drawn.
    • The statistics do not include these competitions, but the dates are an issue. Some players played competitively on both sides of the war, and played wartime football during it. It would be misleading to suggest that they left in 1939 and rejoined in 1945. But if their time at the club is treated as one period, it would then be inconsistent not to give the accurate year of departure for players who left during the war. WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The list looks comprehensive and has very few blanks or "unknowns". I am sure it will fascinate the legions of Watford fans. Please note I am not watching peer reviews at present but can be contacted via my talkpage on anything arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I'll leave the peer review open to see if anyone else can offer opinions on the issues identified with redlinks and dates. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As no other editors have offered their opinions, I'm closing the peer review. Brianboulton's comments were very helpful. The linking situation would have benefitted from additional editors' input, but as an FLC criterion I guess it can be discussed at length there. WFCforLife (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

British Library

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate it for GA status and I need help finding some issues to correct before the nomination.

Thanks, Mephiston999 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit comments Just a few brief comments about sourcing.

• I noticed that huge swaths of the article are unsourced. At the very least, each paragraph should have an inline citation.
• I also noticed that the bulk of your information comes from the British Library itself. We should avoid taking information from the institution itself, and aim to take information from uninvolved, third-party sources. They would not have an interest in putting a "spin" on the information.
• I also noticed that all of your sources are from the internet. More than likely, there are some excellent histories of the British Library published in book form - you should go to your local library and search for these, as they will be more detailed than a website.

I hope this helps! Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments As Awadewit says, this article needs a far greater number of citations. Certainly each paragraph should end with a citation, but I would argue every sentence should and some sentences would require more than one; if a sentence contains three different (for example) sums of money (for budgets or what have you) it may be necessary to put a source next to each if the figures are not available from one source.

Aside from that important point, the article reads reasonably well. I had no idea that the library had only been created in the early 70s, I would have assumed its age to be much older, going back at least to the 19th century.

I don't recall anything in the article relating what the experience is like for the researcher. It would be quite interesting to know what one does when one is in there; for example, how do you request items from staff? How long do you have to wait to be brought the item? What restrictions are placed on you as reader? Do you have a time limit or can you read one item from opening til closing? What is the security like to ensure people don't enter with bombs or leave with books? Some sort of "Visiting the library" section which describes that stuff I think would be quite enlightening, although one would have to be careful not to make it too much like a tourist guide. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Missy Higgins

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get it to GA and would like other opinions of what else needs to be done to it. Ideas on prose particularly welcome.

Thanks, BelovedFreak 17:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Periptus

• Too cluttered with in-text citations in places. This makes the text unnecessarily difficult to read (see the effect of eg:
  • does "At weekends she performed in her brother's jazz group" need two citations ?
  • Why is cite [7] repeated for three sentences (in at least two places).- just have it at the end of the material it is covering. Same issue at least with [46] [56], [64] etc...
  • review each place with 2,3+citation ,marks in the same place. Is this truly necessary or could one reference cover all of the material.
    • I do have a tendency to over-cite I think. I'm in the process of trying to sort these out.--BelovedFreak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Do you really need a "Nominations" section given that lots of them are duplicates of the Awards section ? Perhaps cull the list to only those nominations that failed...or consider if it is needed at all.

• Culled. --BelovedFreak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• "In June 2008 Higgins was voted #48 in The 2008 AfterEllen.com's Hot 100" - I cannot tell what this means and it needs explanation. Was she voted the 48th most "Hot" person or was it related to the music ?

• I've changed this a bit, hope it's clearer now. --BelovedFreak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is overlinking eg: I can see that "The Sound of White" is wikilinked in almost every place it is used. If reader's are progressing from the top then the later links serve only to make the text difficult to read.

• There is some overlinking, I agree, and have tried to deal with this, but I'm not sure about The Sound of White. It's linked once in the lead, once in the paragraph about the album and once in the awards list. Are these not appropriate? There is also a song of the same name that is linked once.--BelovedFreak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• There is a fair amount written about her personal life—an appropriate thing for a biography, but the material has not made an impact on the lead. The lead needs to summarise all of the material and, for a biography, words about the person (rather than simply their profession) are needed.

• Ok, fair enough, I'll expand the lead.
• I've added some more personal stuff to the lead, not sure if it still needs more. I think it pretty much summarises the article now, don't know if you'd agree. --BelovedFreak 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

All up a good enjoyable read. Rather than listing more issues I see, I'll edit a few sections that'll show the type of things I would do with this article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks so much Peripitus for your helpful comments & edits. I've never seen anyone do that with references before - moving the citations down to the bottom of the page. I can see how it helps readability in the edit box though.--BelovedFreak 22:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Most welcome - I've had a quick scan through and apart from some overcitation (eg: ref [6]), the things I pointed out are much better. From what I've read online, and what I know, the article appears to be adequately broad. I should have time in the next day or so to go through the prose - not my strongest suit but a second set of eyes usually is helpful - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Paramore discography

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had a lot or work with it recently and I think - based on past experiences as a nominator of discographies for FAC - it's ready to be promoted. But, before nominating it for FAC, I wanted to start a peer review for it. Also, there's only a thing I need help - I'm not good on doing the alt text main image of the article.

Thanks, Decodet (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I have reviewed the article and there isn't much wrong with it that I can see. The only major problem I have found is that the introduction contains information which is not referenced. This is an important part of the article therefore it should be referenced. Another (very minor) thing is that where it says ""—" denotes singles that did not chart or were not released in that territory", it should be part of the chart tables placed at the very bottom rather than in the "Notes" section. See the Bon Jovi discography article to see what I mean.

Good work! :) Savvi72 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added references to the lead. About ""—" denotes singles that did not chart or were not released in that territory", some FAC have told me in the past that it could be in the table itself or in the "Notes" section, so I don't think it's a major problem. Thanks a lot for your review! Decodet (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 22 has the date with the year at the end instead of the beginning
• Image needs alt text

CrimsonFox ^talk 00:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: I added the missing alt text. It's just a matter of describing the essence of the image to someone who can't see it. WP:ALT has details. Otherwise, I have only three suggestions.

Thanks for your support! My first language is not English and I'm still not fluent on it, so description for me is something a little bit difficult. Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "In 2009, the band released their third studio album Brand New Eyes, which ended to debut and peak at number two in the US" - "Which ended to debut and peak at number two" doesn't seem to make sense. "End" and "debut" are usually opposites.

Switched "ended" to "managed". Does it sound better? Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads

• Instead of repeating "albums" in the subheads under "Albums", I'd shorten two of them to "Studio" and "Live".

Done! Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

References

• The date formatting in the citations needs to be internally consistent. Either yyyy-mm-dd format or m-d-y is OK but not a mixture of the two.

Done! Decodet (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your review! I think I'm now ready for a FAC. I'll nominate it after the end of this peer review. Decodet (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Be sure to nominate it as a Featured List and not a Featured Article. Discography pages are considered to be lists. :) Savvi72 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  

---

What More Can I Give

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to take this article to FA status in the near future, but would like some input beforehand.

Thanks, Pyrrhus16 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the references/citations should have publishers (i.e. |work=ABC News |publisher=Walt Disney Company, or |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company), but other than that I think that this article is FA material. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Pyrrhus16 21:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article and generally well done, but I think the language needs some work before it would pass FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The hardest criterion for most articles to meet at WP:FAC is 1a, "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" - I think the language needs some polishing. Some examples follow:
  • There are lots of places where the passive voice is used that would read better in the active voice. For example It was to be premiered at a Jackson concert, but failed to be performed by the singer. might read better as something like The song was to be premiered at a Jackson concert, but the singer failed to performed it.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Or this is just awkward Following a year of being unreleased and unaired, "What More Can I Give" was played on the radio for the first time in late 2002.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Would Ultimately, the song failed to appear at the concerts and remained unreleased.[3] read better as something like Ultimately, Jackson did not perform the song at the concerts and it remained unreleased.[3]?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• • More passive voice Jackson's intentions for the release were revealed in an interview with the British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror. could be Jackson revealed his intentions for the release in an interview with the British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror.

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, moving on to other points (assume you can find more passive constructions and flip them to active). There are some WP:MOS issues too - for example the use of italics in "In addition, a Spanish language version of the song was recorded." does not seem to meet WP:ITALIC

 Done

• The article uses blockquote in at least two places, on my monitor there is a one and half line quote in the Background and writing section, and a one line quote in the Airplay section. WP:MOSQUOTE says that block quotes should be "more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines"

 Done

• Or could The new version of the song was recorded shortly afterward by Jackson and other artists ... be something like Jackson and other artists recorded the new version of the song shortly afterward; the others included [names]...

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any more information on what the original version of the song was like (before 9/11)? How did it change when Michael Jackson rewrote it?
• There seems to be almost too much detail on the September 11 attacks - what does it have to do with the song? Could it just be something like:

Hours following the second concert, Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed four commercial passenger jet airliners as part of a coordinated sucide attack on the United States.[8][9] The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon outside of Washington, D.C., and a crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, resulted in the loss of 2,993 lives.[11] Please see WP:WEIGHT

 Done

• Again is more detail available on the recording process? I tend to think of the We are the World model - everyone in a room singing together - but this sounds like it was recorded in many sessions in different places over an extended time period - this needs to be stated more clearly and details would help, if they are available.
• We are the World is a FA and might be a good model article with ideas and examples to follow here.
• The table of artists involved needs at least one reference
• The Live performance section is from 2001, before three other sections (Planned release, Airplay, and Release as a digital single). Would it make more sense to put it in chronological order?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why no image of Jackson?

 Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:38, 13 February 2010 (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 _><>°^° 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. You've given me a lot to work with. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 03:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Slipknot concert tours/archive2

---