Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/February 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Hammersmith & City line

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because having worked on this (and the similar Circle line (London Underground), Metropolitan line and District line articles) and I would like feedback before taking one of these articles to GA.

Thanks, Edgepedia (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{doing}} Ping me on my talk if I haven't posted a review within two days. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the late reply... lost my previous unsaved tab of comments :| Anyhow, overall I'd say this is an excellent start of an article. The biggest issue I had was with comprehension. As an American, I don't know much about London, and even less about its metropolitan transit, but I felt like I was missing important details in general that would make the article more interesting and more comprehensible.
    • Starting from the lead "The Hammersmith & City line is a London Underground service...", I'm not sure what a "sub-surface network" is beyond the apparent meaning, which leaves me confused as to why it's necessary (wouldn't the London Underground be subsurface by default?) Perhaps you should just start out by saying it's a rail line that's part of London, England's transit system to start with.
    • You've got a lot of links to things I don't really find that useful due to a lack of familiarity, namely fare zones. I've got a nifty gadget which allows me to get popups telling me what each wikilinked item is, but most readers won't have that enabled and thus would have to click away from your article to figure out what it is. Generally, it's a good practice to try and make everything comprehensible without any additional clicks; leave the wikilinks for adding more context beyond what is strictly needed.
      • On the subject of the fare zone elements, a much more useful description would be telling me in runs from west to east London; save the fare zone stuff for later on.

 Done I've tried to explain these terms in the first para, and taken out the fare zones.

    • "The first line built by the Metropolitan Railway (Met) was beneath the New Road using the "cut-and-cover" method between Paddington and King's Cross and in tunnel and cuttings beside Farringdon Road from King's Cross to Smithfield, near the City"— remember that the lead summarizes what's in the article; you shouldn't start the body of the article without explaining what the Met is, and where the heck it is (I assume "City" is London, though it's not made clear and I'm not sure why it's capitalized.)

 Done I've tried putting the City in context. The Metropolitan Railway is the company that built the line and Met is the abbreviation that is used later. Trying to think how to clarify this.

    • Ok, I know something about trains, but casual readers might wonder what all the fuss is about standard/broad gauge trains, and likewise the differences from O stock, etc.

 Doing... I've removed a little of the technical detail and added information that would be of interest to casual reader about the changes in the trains used on the line. Not sure whether to just remove the standard/broad gauge thing; there is some romance in the GWR broad gauge, although these trains only ran for a few years. Edgepedia (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Plans" is a bit vague for a heading. Indicating it covers future events might be useful.

 Doing... I don't like Future plans. Thinking of suitable term.

  • The geographic map of the line is somewhat less than useful considering it only shows real distance but not with any overlay of the city, etc.

 Doing... I'm thinking of using the central section of File:Greater_London_UK_district_map_(blank).svg; however this is going to have to wait until I return home this weekend. Edgepedia (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think moving the services and route before the "stock" and "future plans" sections. It seems to make more logical sense to discuss the "present" before the future.

 Done

  • More granular stuff forthcoming.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, very helpful getting another perspective. I'm currently on a business trip (in Texas - hence the {{busy}} on my talk page), so it may be a few days before I get to make changes to the article. I'll work on a printout to start with. Edgepedia (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wikilinked sub-surface network, because on the LU, "sub-surface" has a distinct meaning - it's those lines which are not tube lines. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also wikilinked City. Regarding capitalisation of "City": in the London area, the term "City", when used alone, refers to the City of London, as distinct from the City of Westminster; it's capitalised because it's a proper name. The City of London has a defined meaning: when the conurbation is meant, the general term "London" is used. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The city is described in the Metropolitan Railway article as the capital's/London's financial heart, and this easily be added to the article. It probably also needs to go in the lead to explain the line's name.
We also need to explain the sub-surface railway; not sure if these needs to go in lead. Edgepedia (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Progress above. Edgepedia (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript

I was annoyed that a bot archived this review while I was travelling. I have removed references to broad and standard gauge; this is more relevant to the Great Western Railway#The "gauge war" and there is no room in this article to explain GWR's broad gauge railway,how this was incompatible with the rest of the railway's built etc..., I have renamed plans Upgrade programme and I constructed a new map showing the route of the line superimposed on London's boroughs. Thanks for the comments, I guess if anyone has any further comment they can use the talk page.

Kenneth Widmerpool

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

One literary reviewer said that Kenneth Widmerpool was "the most fearsome solipsist in modern fiction". Yes, I had to look it up, too. In colloquial terms it means that Widmerpool was an self-centred egregious *@!* (this is a family page). Nevertheless, he has been a source of deep fascination to readers and critics alike; Evelyn Waugh couldn't get enough of him, and Powell's contemporaries vied with each other for the honour of being the real-life model. Many will remember Simon Russell Beale's portrayal in the 1997 TV series; Beale made Widmerpool almost worthy of sympathy. As other commentators have observed, we all encounter Widmerpools in our lives; this is a chance to measure these monsters against the original. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very well done, a few minor things.

  • Lede
"Regarded critically as one of the most memorable characters of 20th century fiction," I suppose, if you've read all twelve volumes, he'd better be memorable. Since this, as I understand it, is one person's view, perhaps tone it down slightly, since it seems to be an outlier.
Not just one person's view; I have added to the text those of another critic who says much the same thing. There is also Christopher Hitchens's " the most dogged and fearsome solipsist in modern fiction", which I don't want to quote because of the elitist language. So I feel pretty comfortable with my phrasing, though I have moderated the "most" to "more". Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid the double use of "sinister" in the first pp.
Suggest an "and" in the list in the first sentence of the second paragraph but won't push it if you feel otherwise.
"At the same time they observe his capacity to rise above the many insults and humiliations that beset him, to achieve his positions of dominance and through sheer industry and self-belief." While the sentence is powerful indeed, I'm not sure about the multiple "ands" towards the end.
"Some of Powell's distinguished contemporaries " I do consider Heath to be distinguished, so I'd change this to "Others ..."
  • Context
"every one of the twelve volumes" I'm not sure the rhetorical emphasis is needed. "each of the twelve volumes" seems sufficient to me.
I think you are going to have a problem with this image per here with the key language being "In Hensher -v- Restawhile, some examples were given of typical articles that might be considered works of artistic craftsmanship, including hand-painted tiles, stained glass, wrought iron gates ... " (incidentally, when you change your username to Ulric Stonewall Jackson Dunbar, I'm changing mine to Restawhile)
  • This was the least useful image in the article (depicting a sign for a village that was not the source of the subject's name). Rather than seeking to defend it I have removed it, and will repace with an appropriate quote box in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Mother and son live together, from Widmerpool père's death in the mid-1920s until Widmerpool's marriage in 1945." I'm not sure the comma's needed.
  • Career
"He has also acquired a commission" This implies a lack of merit ("acquired") in gaining what was normally an honourable position. Is the phrasing justified? And congrats on avoiding "an articled clerk he soon became"; I am uncertain I would have had the same restraint.
  • I think the phrasing is justified. The British Territorial Army was/is a volunteer force of amateur soldiers. Certainly in the early 1930s aomeone in Widmerpool's position (Etonian, making his way in his profession etc) would have had no difficulty in obtaining a Territorial junior officer's commission. It was not considered a particular honour.
Donners Brebner is given to us both with, and without, hyphen.
"Widmerpool is embarrassed by his presence, and engineers his transfer to a mobile laundry unit which is being sent to Singapore, where Stringham meets his death." If this is not David and Uriah, I'd distance the death from Widmerpool's action, especially in view of the "complicit" language a few sentences later. I'm not sure the "complicit" is justified, on the facts presented (I know nothing about these books and am working principally from your article).
  • Actually I think the current wording is justified in relation to the novels. In his treatment of Stringham and Templer, Widmerpool displays not so much deliberate vindictiveness as a cold disregard for their fate. He doesn't deliberately send Stringham to his death in Singapore, but he is indifferent that his old schoolmate is being sent to a dangerous place. In the case of Templer he is more culpable. Again, he doesn't contrive Templer's death, but he instigates the order that leads to Templer being abandoned in another dangerous place. Unfortunately there are limits as to how much background information is appropriate for a summary encyclopedia article, or I would explain more. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"becomes a Labour Member of Parliament in the postwar Attlee government" Surely all Labour MPs were not members of the government, which is at least implied in this somewhat loose phrasing? Especially with such a thumping majority as in 1945? Perhaps "becomes a Labour Member of Parliament at the 1945 election, and eventually gains minor office in the Attlee Government" (combining this with the mention a couple of sentences later".
"now she publicly accuses him of voyeurism" Even though this is written in present tense, I'm not that thrilled about "now".
"He is last seen late in 1971" The "last seen" seems rather unnecessary in view of the event described in the remainder of the sentence, unless Ken was going to follow in the great British character tradition of Banquo and Jacob Marley?
  • Love life
"inability to perform during an attempted premarital sexual union." Perhaps phrase more succinctly? I shall not essay, though.
Could blackout be linked for us Yank types?
"Murtlock" was previously spelled "Mortlock"
"from her sexual activities with others" Perhaps insert "observing" after the "from".
  • Critical reception
I think you should inline state who considers him the "most memorable character", especially since you mention it in the lede.
  • The quotation comes from an anonymous article in the Oxford Companion to Literature; I am reluctant to attribute it to Margaret Drabble, the book's editor, as the words may not be hers. But I have now paired it with a similar quotation from John Bayley. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Real-life
  • "Ackworth" Given that this is the character's sole mention, is it worth mentioning him by name?
  • "Powell admitted" Perhaps I am unduly sensitive, as a lawyer, to the word "admitted" and its forms, but I would use a more neutral term. The quote, I think, speaks for itself.
  • Dramatic
I think Billy Bunter worth a link.

I like it. The article seems mildly tongue in cheek, yet thorough. I don't see anything that can't be rather readily ironed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All fair comments, which will have my full attention, but maybe not until tomorrow as I have taken on a couple of peer reviews which I am working on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second pass. I don't see anything worth following up on, so I'll leave it at this and await the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TK's comments

I've only read about half of this and really like it a lot. It's a good model for a literary character. These comments are all of the nit-pick variety; in terms of structure or context, I haven't seen any problems.

  • Lead
"Literary analysts have noted Widmerpool's main defining characteristics: his lack of culture, his small-mindedness, his capacity for intrigue, his embodiment of many of the worst aspects of the British character." > yeah, I know parallelism, but maybe more succinct without the repetition of "his"?
"In this respect he is thought to epitomise the meritocratic middle class's challenge against the hegemony of a declining "establishment", which is revealed to have few defences against so determined an assault." > I can follow this but it is a little difficult to parse for the uninitiated and if possible might benefit if written in plain English. The only problem is that I haven't any suggestions on how. Also, maybe link meritocracy.
  • "Context"
I wouldn't mind seeing the image of the nice painting boosted a bit.
Ive left aligned this, there are strong diagonals falling at the right hand corner, it doesnt really work right aligned. Size seems fine to me. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. Something about it didn't seem quite right. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In a 1971 study of the novels, Professor Dan McLeod summarised the overall theme of the sequence as that of a decaying establishment confronted by "aggressive representatives from the middle classes elbowing their way up". > ref after the direct quote?
  • I don't like having two identical citations in sequence. I think it is understood that everything before the reference is included in that citation (ther are probably other examples of this in the article). Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
watch the international situation anxiously" > "anxiously watch" to combine modifier w/ the verb?
  • "Origins"
"Encountered a few years later" > prob okay to do w/ out the "encountered"
"smarter spectacles" > different meaning in Am Eng than Br Eng. - (Intelligent eye-glasses?) - have no clue how to suggest to reword or even if it's necessary. Just mentioning
Consider linking music hall for the Yanks?
Link The Acceptance World > another not-great article, but we have it.
  • "Love life"
"In his mid-twenties, Widmerpool confesses to Jenkins his love for Barbara Goring, a girl whom he had known for years, since their families lived close together and his father sold liquid manure to her father." > a bit awkward after all the nice prose I've read through to get here. Can't suggest a fix though
"Stephen McGregor of the Spectator described him as "impotent", "another commentator used the words "sexual incompetent", "In his analysis of Powell's works, Michael Birns writes" > tense shift.
  • Reception
Tense shifts in the first para: "has been described", "is as ... ", "Mizener ... saw Widmerpoole".
"Ali positions Widmerpool as "in many ways a more inspired creation than Charlus"; the circumstances of Widmerpool's death, whereby he is transformed from a believable person into "a sub-Dickensian grotesque" is, says Ali, a cause for much regret. > I had a bit of trouble getting through this sentence
  • I did not write "Ali positions Widmerpool as ..." I have reverted it to what I did write: "Ali asserts that Widmerpool is..." And I've split the sentence, too.
"Some readers and critics found Widmerpool particularly compelling; Evelyn Waugh, who reviewed the early novels as they appeared at two-year intervals, wrote to Powell after reading At Lady Molly's: "In the opening pages I felt the void of Widmerpool really aching – I could not have borne another page's delay for his entry. Did you intend him to dominate the series?" > I think this could be split with a simple sentence for the first part and perhaps change the "some" to something stronger. Certainly reading this article, he's very compelling.
  • I've removed the first bit. The para is really about Waugh's reactions to Widmerpool. Brianboulton (talk)

I'll try to get the next batch up fairly soon. PS - this is hilarious and extremely well done! I'm having a hard time finding anything to comment about. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these very helpful comments. I'll look forward to receiving the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Real-life models
"an action reflected in the novels when Widmerpool instigates the sacking of Akworth in similar circumstances" > probably okay to drop "an action"
Third para consists almost wholly of a long quote. It doesn't bother me that much, but might be mentioned. Can it be shortened at all? I've read it a few times and can't think of much to snip from it.
  • References
My eyes are bad, but check that all the retrieval dates have been added. Looks like current FN 75 and 78 is missing. Also, don't know it the "Art of Fiction" requires a retrieval date.
  • Retrieval dates are given when the original source is online. If it is originlly a printed source hat has found its way on to the publication's website, as with 75 and 78, I don't add retrieval dates. This is, I think, established practice. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done image review - no good at it. All the comments above are taken care of; I've only replied to a few. This is one of the better articles I've read in a while. Very interesting and I'm tempted to go the library to find these books. Also, it will serve well as a model for literary characters - we have a lot of articles about them and none done at all well. Thanks a lot for writing it, and for inviting me to review. I found myself laughing aloud a few times which rarely happens here. Good luck with it. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the trouble you have taken with the review. If you feel like tackling the novels, I'd definitely read A Question of Upbringing first (it can be got for $1 or less via Amazon). The whole of Casanova's Chinese Restaurant is available online, here, but there's not a lot of Widmerpool in that - more than Waugh's "three pages" though still not a lot. But it has this gem (Widmerpool has been invited to lunch with Jenkins): "Tuesday? Tuesday? Let me think. I have something on Tuesday. I must have. No, perhaps I haven't. Wait a minute. Let me look at my book. Yes...Yes. As it happens I can lunch with you on Tuesday. But not before half-past one. Certainly not before one-thirty. More likely one-thirty-five". Graciousness personified. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I've added to titles of books to read. Again, very nice page. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley

An embarrassingly small batch of comments from me:

  • Origins, appearance, personality
    • "a great admirer of Stalin, whose single passion is her son's career" – someone determined to find ambiguity (e.g. me) might affect to construe this as saying the passion was Stalin's rather than Mrs Widmerpool's. Perhaps "…of Stalin; her single…"
  • Career
    • "Among the other ranks…" – probably an Anglicism, I imagine. Perhaps blue link? There is a brief but adequate article to link to.
    • " …and he is appointed an OBE. In this post he… " – the post referring to the Cabinet Office job, but the intervening sentence about promotions and gongs slightly obscures this point.
  • Real-life models
    • "attorney general and Lord Chancellor" – rather hard on the learned Attorney to be denied his capital letters when the Lord Chancellor gets them.
    • It seems most common UK practice (excluding the Guardian) to use initial capitals for both of these offices, and I have now done so. Brianboulton (talk)
    • "Widmerpudlian" – no quibble here: just to record, as a Scouser, that I much relished this coinage.
    • "Lord Chancellor" is blue-linked twice in this section. I'd be inclined to remove the link at Lord Irvine's mention.

And that, I blush to say, is all I can find. This is a splendid article. Loud applause! – Tim riley (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I'm glad you enjoyed the article. It was more fun to write than most, but it did involve a hell of a lot of reading – I had read the first seven or so novels in the 1970s and 1980s before giving up, saw the TV films in the 1990s, but hadn't given much thought to the books since. So I had to start from scratch; it was, however, time well spent. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have without malice aforethought prompted me to look at the WP article on Powell himself. I may well beef it up a bit, though with no ambitions to GA or FA. I have emailed you my haul of references lest any of them should be of any use for your Widmerpudlian enterprise. Tim riley (talk)
Your example (and format) may get me to do Flashman one of these days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I searxched for gripes too but came up empty. We seem to have a very talented writer in our mists. These articles are a joy to read, and very instructive. Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In our "mists"? Ah, the Celtic romanticism brings serendipitious joy! But thank you for these most kind words, and for your behind-the-scenes tweaks and fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor comments from SchroCat

"Origins, appearance, personality"

  • "giving his face as usual an aggrieved expresion ..." Should that be "expression", or is it part of the quote?

"Career"

  • "whose sex life is rumoured to be "gladitorial".[36][37]" Is that as per the original source, or should it be " gladiatorial"? If it's as per the original, would {{sic}} help?

"Love life"

  • "a diseased organism under a microscope.; although I found" Does the original have a full stop and semi colon?

"Critical and popular reception"

  • "Waugh ... found Widmerpool paricularly compelling" -> particularly?

Very nice—as always! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These were all my typos, well spotted by you and happily fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biscayne National Park

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for FA, having expanded it over the past two months. Thanks, Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Unfortunately I don't have time for a detailed review of the prose. From what I have read this looks in pretty good shape. Mostly I've concentrated on the kind of niggly things that are often picked on at FAC, and it's as well to get them out of the way here:

  • Location map: at present this isn't particularly informative – a blob in the general area of southern Florida. Would it be better to use a map of Florida, where the location on the south-eastern coast could be more precisely indicated?
Could be: I was working from the precedent of the other eight US national parks that are FAs. It would probably need a consensus to recast the infoboxes from participants at WikiProject Protected areas. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although in general citation looks thorough and comprehensive, I noticed the odd uncited statement; these are particularly noticeable when they fall at the end of a paragraph. See third paragraph of "Proposed development" section, last sentence of "Shoreline and mangrove swamp" section, first paragraph of "Climate".
Resolved, checking for missing cites internal to paragraphs. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your citation formats, page ranges should be dashes not hyophens, per MOS.
Fixed. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you should use short-style citations for all references that are listed in your bibliography, e.g. refs 5, 6, 14, 35 etc. I think you are using the long citation for the first mention of a source, but that is not necessary when the info is given in the bibliography
Some of the cites are for "online books", as the Park Service calls them, with separate links by chapter whose pagination resets with each chapter. Since the bibliography just links to a title page, it's probably more useful to remove the bibliography link and keep the individual chapter references in the notes. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval date formats should be standardised. See, for example, refs 1 and 2 versus 3.
Resolved. Acroterion (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some citations look incmplete. Two examples: 104 and 117. 104 appears to be from the journal Flora of North America, Volume 4 page 150, date not given. No publisher or retrieval date is given for 117.
Fixed, though I'm having trouble formatting the Flora of North America ref. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check thoroughly for minor format errors in the refs, for example in ref 87, "p.1" should be "p. 1"
Checked and fixed. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct and experience tell me that this is not far from being a FA, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been away from the article for a little while and I see a few minor prose issues now: I'm prone to repetition and the occasional singular/plural goof. I'll get to work tidying, I appreciate the review. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO:

I've done some minor work to the page so my comments are not going to be as helpful as a neutral editor....

  • Watch for overlinking...also avoid linking to obvious things.
  • Concur with Brians assessments above, so not much more to add...hope to see this at FAC next week!--MONGO 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to go ahead and close this in a day or so if that's OK: the only unresolved issue is the map in the infobox, and precedent appears to go both ways, with recent FAs favoring the national map. Acroterion (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get feedback for general improvement with an eye toward FA. in preparation for GA nomination It's GA nominated now

Thanks, Zad68 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

[edit]

Some notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ensure that specific terms are linked at first instance, and not linked more than once in the body of the text (i.e. do not count the lead)
  •  Fixed What a useful tool!! Sometimes it makes me angry that there are all these secret tools floating around out there and you just have to stumble across them to find them! Zad68 15:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An analysis of study data found "some evidence" of an association between adult circumcision and an increased risk of invasive penile cancer - some evidence in quotation marks looks to me sarcastic. To avoid paraphrasing try and reword what the article says. i.e avoid quotation marks if possible
  • Some discussion in prevalence on why rates are different between (say) the USA and Canada. Rates have also fluctuated over the past few decades. If there are any sources discussing this then that would be good to insert.
  • This is touched on in history and a little elsewhere... let me know if you still think it's a serious impediment to GA after reading the whole thing, but will clear that up for FA. Zad68 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

From Biosthmors

[edit]
  • In Indications and contraindications, can "needed in the future to effect a repair" --> "desired for a surgical procedure"? The current wording seems to imply ambiguous genitalia are prone to break and need a fix. Is that true? Biosthmors (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm "prevent HIV" isn't supported by sources as circ reduces the risk rate of but doesn't prevent transmission... "against HIV" is general enough to be in line with sources and not give the impression circ prevents HIV, and it's wording terse enough to be appropriate for the lead. If that's not a convincing enough argument, let me know, I'll think of something better... maybe Casliber can break the tie? Zad68 20:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Mark Arsten's comments

[edit]
  • Comments: I'll try to post some comments here and do some copyediting. Overall this looks pretty good.
  • Check for compliance with MOS:CAPTION, specifically the bit about complete sentences.
  • You might want to double check for consistent use of the serial comma.
  •  Done
  • Also, check year abbreviations against MOS:YEAR.
  •  Done
  • "For infant circumcision, devices such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen clamp are commonly used.[5] With these devices," You might want to avoid repeating "devices" like this, maybe use a different word for one.
  • ? "Devices" is used repeatedly for clarity and continuity... is it really worth it here to vary the wording at the possible expense of clarity/explicitness?
  • "(The model for these images has shaved the pubic hair.)" I'm not sure this note is needed, since the reader will likely realize that.
  •  Done
  • "The WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention, but should be carried out by well trained medical professionals and under conditions of informed consent.[1][24][38] Circumcision has been judged to be a cost-effective method to reduce the spread of HIV in a population,[1][39] though not necessarily more cost-effective than condoms.[1] The joint WHO/UNAIDS recommendation also notes that circumcision only provides partial protection from HIV and should never replace known methods of HIV prevention." You switch tenses here, might want to standardize.
  •  Done Think I got it
  • "Circumcision has been judged to be a cost-effective method to reduce the spread of HIV in a population" I'd change this to avoid the passive here.
  •  Done
  • Just a thought, but for "A Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa", "A review of literature worldwide found circumcisions" & "A meta-analysis of data from fifteen observational studies" you might want to note which years these were carried out (i.e. A 2010 meta-analysis).
  •  Done
  • "A randomized controlled trial in Uganda found that male circumcision did not reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV," Might want to double-check that you're MEDRS compliant here, in terms of primary/secondary sources.
  •  Done inadequate source removed, content revised to use newer sources
  • "Among men who have sex with men, reviews have found insufficient evidence of an effect against sexually transmitted infections other than HIV" Insufficient for what?
  • ? not sure why this is unclear, can you explain?
  •  Done
  • "The foreskin is opened via the preputial orifice to reveal the glans underneath and ensure it is normal" Perhaps you should note who is verifying its normality, or put something like "allowing its normality to be verified". Not sure.
  •  Done I changed this whole bit from passive to active, "The circumcision practitioner opens the foreskin..."
  • "The circumcision procedure causes pain,[5] and painful procedures have been shown to cause an increase in pain response in infants with later painful procedures" Is there a good way to cut down on the repetition of "pain" here?
  •  Done I just removed the "and painful procedures..." clause, it was unnecessary
  • "While most HPV infections cause no symptoms" would "While most HPV infections are asymptomatic" be an improvement here?
  •  Done
  • Ok, finally finished my read-through. I'll post the rest of my comments in the next couple days.
  • "Medical organization such as the BMA state" & " Even the KNMG," What are the BMA and KNMG? I'd recommend something like "The British Medical Association (BMA)" on first occurrence then just BMA on second.
  •  Done
  • "As these bacteria are a risk factor for UTIs, circumcision is thought to reduce the risk of UTIs " I'd prefer to avoid the passive here.
  •  Done
  • In "Adverse effects" you briefly mention psychological risks. Could you go into any more detail about what the purported psychological harm would be?
  •  Done in that the mention has been removed. I've been scouring sources trying to dig up more information on this but haven't found anything useful, the only thing the few secondary sources that do mention this say is the possibility of "psychological risks" with no detail. The BMA sources are the only peer-reviewed sources that seem to be making this "psychological risks" point, but no detail is provided. I think they might be pointing to some advice I've seen somewhere that circumcision is to be avoided during the phallic stage due to concerns over castration anxiety but I have not seen this repeated in any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. I have also found sources stating that there are psychological concerns over not circumcizing for certain religious, cultural and ethnic groups, e.g. Muslim boys might endure psychological trauma if they are not circumcised due to social and religious pressures. Again I haven't found suitable sources to put this in the article yet, and as it's only mentioned briefly and only in a minority of sources, I'm taking it out until such time as it can be sourced properly. Zad68 21:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British Medical Association (2006) state that circumcision has psychological risks.[29] Hirji et al. (2005) state" Also, some repetition here, try to avoid repeating "state" twice like this.
  •  Done as removed per explanation in previous point.
  • I'd suggest re-considering the paragraph breaks in the Prevalence section.
  •  Done
  • You might want to note Grafton Elliot Smith and Peter Charles Remondino's qualifications (are they doctors, historians?)
  •  Done
  • "Less verifiable evidence exists for the history of circumcision among the Aboriginal Australians and Polynesians" Less than what?
  •  Done
  • "the circumcision of Abraham and Abraham's relatives and slaves, making Abraham the first named individual" Can you avoid the repetition of "Abraham" like this?
  •  Done
  • "For the Jews of the time, circumcision wasn't" Just a reminder, you're not supposed to use contractions.
  •  Done somebody got to this one before I did!
  • "Circumcision was thought to prevent or cure an enormous and wide-ranging array of medical problems and social ills, including masturbation (considered by the Victorians to be an enormous problem)" Some repetition of "enormous" here.
  •  Done
  • "Circumcision was thought to ameliorate" & " Circumcision was thought to prevent or cure" I'd suggest avoiding the passive here.
  •  Done much better now with a rewrite of the end of that paragraph
  • "Among these groups, even when circumcision is done for reasons of tradition, it is now often done in a hospital setting" & "make up the majority of procedures performed today" You should try to avoid "now" and "today" and use more specific terms.
  •  Done

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the foreskin was seen as harboring infection-causing smegma." This is the first we've heard of smegma, perhaps a brief explanation would be helpful?
  •  Done
  • "There is also evidence that circumcision was practiced in the Americas, but little detail is available about its history." Practiced in the Americas when?
  •  Not done The sources don't say so I can't specify :( ... although in detail section it is mentioned Columbus found it in practice by the native Americans, that's all I've got.
  • "the sun god Ra was described as having circumcised himself." I'd suggest avoiding the passive here.
  •  Done
  • "Abraham's descendants are commanded to circumcise their sons on the eighth day of life." I'd suggest specifying that it's the eighth day after birth here.
  •  Not done "Eighth day of life" is a specific religious injunction that can't be reword in that way
  • "Due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic there, sub-Saharan Africa is a special case." I'd note the region before referring to it as "there".
  •  Done by you
  • "Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East in the 4th century BCE, and in the following centuries came ancient Greek culture and values." Might want to specify that Greek culture came to the Middle East.
  •  Done
  • I'm wondering if you could say any more about the adoption of circumcision by Islam, specifically, when did they adopt it? While Muhammad was alive? Within a generation or so?
  •  Done added everything the sources provide... I don't have dates or generations, but I did add that the tradition was started with Muhammad directly, which is all the sources say
  • "the Jews "having settled there after one of the many expulsions from European countries, the Moors settling in North Africa or fleeing from Spain in 1492."" I'd suggest paraphrasing this quote.
  • I feel like the section on Christianity kind of jumps around, could it be expanded/summarized a bit better?
  • If you can, try to cut down on the repetition of the word "circumcision". Some of it is impossible to get away from, but see what you can do.
  • The last paragraph of Ethical and legal issues uses two sources might have WP:INTEGRITY issues.
  • "The mitigating effect circumcision has on the risk factor introduced by the possibility of phimosis is secondary, in that the removal of the foreskin eliminates the possibility of phimosis." I find this sentence somewhat confusing.
  • Check for tense consistency and overuse of "estimates" in the Prevalence section. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/San Antonio de la Eminencia castle/archive1

Video Games (song)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive ideas on how to improve this already decent article.

Thanks, teammathi (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Feller

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, now that I've rewritten some of the article post-GA, I think it's ready for one more look before an FA run. It's the one article I've wanted to see at FAC for years, and it's almost there.

Thanks, Wizardman 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – Haven't gotten to review much of the article yet, but in the early sections I see some room for improvement. I'm sure you're up to it, though.

  • No need to link American in the first sentence. The FAC reviewers will probably take a dim view of that.
  • "He helped the Indians to a World Series title in 1948 and in 1954 an American League-record 111 wins and the pennant." Would read better if "in 1954" was moved to the end of the sentence.
  • "a total not bettered for 27 years until 1983." Since the year he recorded the statistic is given in the sentence, the end of the sentence is redundant. Elimiating "for 27 years" leaves it perfectly understandable.
  • Sporting News needs an apostrophe at the end. Also, that sentence is a run-on and could stand to be split.
  • Early life: "Originally the Feller's were Roman Catholic...". Remove the apostrophe from "Feller's".
  • Page range at the end of this section should be pp.25–26, with an en dash and extra p.
  • As a general comment, a bunch of these paragraphs are starting with Feller. It would be nice to see a couple of them changed to give the writing more variety. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressing issues. I'll cleanup the variety a bit, and I'm still gradually adding pieces and parts as I re-read his bio (there was nothing for 1939, for example). Wizardman 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to go through the article and clean it up a bit when I get time. In the meantime, I see that reference 1 is missing a date for the magazine. I happened to be looking for a similar citation for another article and found that the correct date is April 26. The page in that issue has a sidebar with the greatest player listing.
      Ref 61 has a bare link. Might be a formatting issue in there.
      Not sure if Efastball.com (ref 79) is reliable. That's the only site in the references that struck me as questionable.
      The lead could still use more sentence variety; many of the sentences start with "He" or "Feller".
      Teenage phenom: "when he struckout Detroit's Pete Fox...". Shouldn't "struckout" be two words? A similar issue occurs later in the sentence.
      "He won the match, 5-1, after allowing three hits." En dash needed, and "match" should likely be "game" instead.
      In the Sporting News award, the magazine title should probably be italicized. I've seen the Wisden cricket awards handled in this fashion in other FAs.
      Military service: Space needed in "After returningFeller...".
      World Series champion (1948): First paragraph of the section could use a couple of citations. Fortunately, this is mostly material that should be easy to find sources for.
      "Cleveland fans contributed to the largest attendance to witness a baseball game until that point in the sport's history...". Feels like it would read better if "to witness" was replaced by the smaller "at".
      Redundancy in "Lemon earned the win in Game Six and the Indians had earned their second World Series championship." Getting rid of one of the two "earned" uses would be good.
      Later years: "In a win over the Detroit Tigers in the second game of a doubleheader, Feller helped the Indians win the game and in doing so, became the 53rd pitcher to win 200 games." With the win indicated early in the sentence, you should be able to drop "helped the Indians win the game and in doing so" entirely.
      "to honor the franchise's winningest pitcher." I've seen reviewers complain about "winningest" before; perhaps "leader in career pitching wins" would work?
      Red link for what I presume was meant to be a Hall of Fame balloting article.
      Remove second word from "Feller and was elected along with Jackie Robinson".
      Later life: Some of the text on his wife's anemia is repeated from an earlier section, and doesn't need to be stated twice.
      Should be clarified that Anne was Feller's second wife.
      See also should come before the one footnote. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Addressed through 1948. Will address the rest as I fill in a few final gaps. Wizardman 22:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: Just the lead for the moment, and some copy-editing done. More to come, maybe tonight, and revert anything I've messed up in my copy-edit.

  • The first paragraph of the lead seems a little short. I've done a little re-arranging, but feel free to undo it.
  • Does WW2 need linking?
  • Is the Time magazine appearance important enough for the lead? Unless there is some grand reason to include it, I'd be inclined to take it out.
  • The second paragraph is quite list-y: he did this, he has that record, he won this award... And it's quite stats-driven. Maybe this could be improved.
  • "Feller became the first pitcher to win at least 20 games in a season before the age of 21": Too much uncertainty here with "at least" and "before". What about "Feller was the first pitcher to reach 20 wins in a season before the age of 21"?
  • "The Indians won a World Series title in 1948 and an American League-record 111 wins and the pennant in 1954 thanks to his efforts.": I'm sure the rest of the team played a part! Maybe "Feller helped the Indians to win..."?
  • For the uninitiated, and for those of us too lazy to click, maybe say who Ted Williams was, or why his opinion matters. Ditto Stan Musial.
  • "only Ty Cobb (98.2%), Babe Ruth (95.1%), and Honus Wagner (95.1%) had a higher percentage of ballot votes": For the lead, this could be cut to "only three players had recorded a higher percentage of ballot votes".
  • "and participated in barnstorming exhibition games": Even with the link, I wasn't crazy about this in the GA review; I'm even less crazy with FA in mind. Could this be put into non-sportspeak? Or just left at "exhibition games"?
  • The Tom Hamilton (again, who?) quote does not seem to make sense. I just don't see what he's getting at. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

  • The family section gets repetitive: his father ... his mother ... his sister. Less importantly, I also wonder if all the information is needed, such as the size of the farm, and his sister's ping-pong achievements.
  • Do we need the number of oak trees felled? I've reworded this a bit, and was tempted to take this out, but thought I'd check.
  • "he also continued to play on the Farmers Union team in the American Amateur Baseball Congress, going 25–4 for Farmers Union one season": This seems out of place in the middle of his high school summary.
  • "going 25–4 for Farmers Union one season": I never like this "going", but don't know the best way to convert it from baseball-speak.
  • "offered signing bonuses": What are signing bonuses? Bonuses for signing? Or something else?

Teenage phenom (1936–1941):

  • Is there any reason for "phenom" in the title? It seems a little over-the-top, when "phenomenon" would be a more widely-recognised alternative.
  • "While scouting Feller, Slapnicka said, "All I knew was...": Presumably he did not say it while he was scouting, but later on.
  • "Feller was assigned to Fargo-Moorhead": Assigned to what? This is linked on its second mention, but I think a word or two to say what it was would help (i.e. their connection to the Indians)
  • "without visiting either farm club, in a move that would be in violation of Major League Baseball's (MLB) rules as only minor league teams could sign amateurs to contracts": Sorry, don't get this.
  • "Feller joined the Indians without having played in the minors...": Now, I may be missing something, but is this not what the whole of the previous paragraph was about? And yet it never explicitly states that Feller (if I understand it correctly) was made a free agent so he could sign for the Indians and play in the majors. So either this sentence could be cut (it's almost like it's only there to include the link), or it should be made more explicit and moved to the previous paragraph.
  • "Two weeks later, he struck out 17 batters, tying a single-game strikeout record previously set by Dizzy Dean, in a win over the Philadelphia Athletics.": An outright record for anyone? Or with some kind of qualification?
  • "His record-setting rookie year made him "the best-known young person in America, with the possible exception of Shirley Temple."": Said who?
  • "considered shutting down Feller for the season": Jargon-y.
  • "He went on to win the game, while she walked away with seven stitches and a black eye.": Not entirely sure this is encyclopaedic.
  • "The Bob Feller Bar, a chocolate candy bar, was named after him and sold during the late 1930s": This seems a bit tacked-on, and a little like trivia.
  • " Lefty Grove had a no-hitter through seven innings on Opening Day, and said in response to Feller's performance to the Tigers, "I'm not sorry I didn't get a no-hitter. Those things are unlucky."[": Struggling to see the relevance to Feller.
  • As I said at the GA review, I'm not convinced about the motorbike speed test; although the speed thing was undoubtedly a big deal, this does not make that point and just seems to be trivial. If it is to be kept, some context needs adding.
  • Just a general comment: This part of the article is quite stats heavy, and some analysis to offset the strings of numbers. Not a huge deal if this is not possible, but it would make the article a touch more reader-friendly.
  • More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military service:

  • Is there any way to prevent the repetition of details such as birthdate in both infoboxes?
  • "He also pitched in baseball games hosted by the military in order to help sell war bonds.": Important? If so, maybe reword this as it is a little clumsy; did he pitch to sell war bonds, or did the miliyary host the games to sell war bonds. And sell how? As advertising publicity? And hosted how? Were they military teams, or "standard" teams using military facilities?
  • "After returning, Feller served ..." Returning from where?
  • "Feller's first taste of direct combat was at Operation Galvanic in November 1943, and the Alabama also served during Operation Flintlock while primarily being used as an escort battleship in 1944. ": This may be better as two sentences, split at "and". "While" suggests that the ship was used as an escort during Operation Flintlock. Whether true or not, perhaps this should be made clearer.
  • Perhaps the "wins but for the war" section needs some clarification and attribution ("according to X"...) to prevent this looking like editorial opinion. And this seems slightly odd: surely there are others who may have had even better records but for the war, but this kind of exercise is not done. For example, there are many cricketers with stupendous records (e.g. Jack Hobbs, Wally Hammond, Don Bradman) who would have had even more amazing records had a world war not interrupted. But I've never seen this done in this much detail, or much further than "their record would have been even better".
  • " Each year, American Legion Baseball presents the "Bob Feller Pitching Award" to the pitcher "with the most strikeouts in regional and national competition."": It's not too obvious (to me, at least) why this is in the military section.

Return to Cleveland:

  • "Upon arriving in Cleveland": Where had he arrived from? This should be clarified for the start of a section.
  • "Feller pitched a 4-hit game": Jargon-y?
  • "including a bonus for attendance": A what?
  • "At one point during the season (as Feller thought he may be nearing Rube Waddell's AL record for strikeouts), Feller confirmed Waddell's mark with the AL office that the mark was 344 strikeouts, not 349": Way too much going on here in one sentence, and too many "mark"s.
  • It gets quite stats-heavy again around this point.
  • "Feller began 1947 by setting up a barnstorming tour": As in the lead, I'm not sure about the use of barnstorming without more explanation.
  • "each player had made nearly as much as the St. Louis Cardinals made as a team for their 1946 World Series win": Made as much what?
  • There are a few instances before the one in this section, I think, but I'm not too keen on "match-up" as it seems like journalese.
  • "By the late 1940s, Feller, who had obtained his pilot's license in 1939 at the age of 20, began to fly his Beechcraft Bonanza during home stands from his home in Gates Mills to Burke Lakefront Airport and then utilize a collapsible scooter to get to Municipal Stadium.": During home stands? And this seems like trivia, and an odd thing to tack onto the end of a section.
  • More to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Series Champions (1948):

  • "The 1948 Indians had one of their finest seasons but for Feller, the results were mixed": A few things here. First, as written, this sounds like there was a team called "1948 Indians", and does not make much sense. Perhaps "In 1948, the Indians..." or "The Indians, in 1948..." if you want variety. Then, "results were mixed" does not really follow as this has nothing to do with the team's finest season, and what does "results" mean? Wins and losses? How effective he was? His stats?
  • "Babe Ruth used Feller's bat for weight support when Ruth appeared for the last time in public at Yankee Stadium in June.": I mentioned this in the GA review; for a prospective FAC, this seems utterly trivial, and if there is some relevance for Feller, it needs to be spelt out.
  • "Feller was selected to represent the AL All-Stars for the seventh time in his career in the 1948 All-Star Game": More potential (if nit-picky!) ambiguity: for the seventh time in 1948? Or the seventh time overall?
  • "he went one month without winning a game": Would "he was winless for a month" work in baseball-speak? It would be tighter, but may be the right terminology.
  • "The player-manager Lou Boudreau...": Is there a way to avoid consecutive blue links?
  • "and Feller went 10–3 in the remainder of the season. He finished the regular season": I've reworked this a little (and possibly messed it up, so please check!) but can't find a way to avoid the repetition of season. Is there another way?
  • "Feller started Game One...": Presumably the capitalisation is normal?
  • "In the eighth inning, Feller and Boudreau appeared to have picked off the Braves' Phil Masi's stolen base attempt but umpire Bill Stewart ruled he was safe.": Lost me slightly here, but that may be unavoidable.
  • Are the quotes necessary on this incident. I'd be inclined to cut them.
  • "The Braves put up three runs in the top of the first inning. The Indians came back to tie the game and take the lead 5–4 after the fourth inning but the Braves tied it in the fifth inning": We're into journalese here, I think.
  • "By the seventh inning the Braves took the lead for good and Feller was pulled before the inning was over.": And here.

Later years:

  • "he finished the year with 15 wins, 14 losses, and a 3.75 ERA": Why are we spelling out wins and losses here, rather than 15-14 as earlier?
  • "Before the 1950 season, Feller suggested to Indians management he take a pay cut. Indians general manager Hank Greenberg said, "He himself made the suggestion. In fact, he offered to take more than the 25 per cent maximum pay cut allowed. There was absolutely nothing to it. We all agreed quickly on the figure after Bob showed up yesterday."": So, did he take the pay cut?
  • Ref for pitcher of the year award?
  • "shut Feller down for the season": Journalese?
  • "a 4.74 ERA, and a rating of -3.1 in wins above replacement, worst in the major leagues": Something missing here: not a full sentence.
  • Is there a more elegant way to say "went 13-3", as "went" seems to come up a lot.
  • "The Indians, who had won the 1948 Series despite an 0–2 record from Feller,": The information about Feller's 1948 record seems misplaced here.
  • "He won and lost four games each in 25 games, 11 of them starts": This is rather inelegant, and should be reworded.
  • "whether Feller, who was also president of the Baseball Players' Association, would retire as a player": How does his role as president fit with the rest of the sentence?
  • "Feller shares the Major League record (with Nolan Ryan) for one-hitters with 12,": Is there a way to do this without ending slightly limply "with 12"?
  • "He ended his career with 266 wins, 2,581 strikeouts and 279 complete games, led the AL in strikeouts seven times and bases on balls four times": As written, this is reading "ended his career [...] led the AL in strikeouts", which doesn't quite make sense.
  • "and bases on balls four times": ????
  • "Feller attributed his stamina and ability to pitch late into games to the manual labor he engaged in as a farm hand.": Why repeat this information from earlier in the article?
  • "In 1962, Feller was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in 1962, his first year of eligibility, along with Jackie Robinson—the two had traded criticisms at one another on and off over the course of several decades—both were the first to be elected on their first ballot appearance since the original induction class of 1936.": Very long sentence, and the grammar is off. You can't have two dashes like this in one sentence. Also, why the aside about the sniping between Feller and Robinson? It doesn't fit here. We then go onto more about the "feud", but why include any of this in a summary of his playing career? It jars a little.
  • More to follow, hopefully to finish tomorrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Commissioner Chandler:

  • Barnstorming again.
  • "the league's 10-day limit on games that could be played": Lost me here.
  • "but Commissioner Chandler ruled no major leaguer could play in Cuba during the winter": Just in the winter, or at any time? If the latter, I'd suggest removing "during the winter".
  • We leap from his wife's medical problems to his lost earnings. Maybe could be smoothed.

Legacy:

  • "to speak on the length of baseball's reserve clause": Lost me again.
  • "and was interviewed by Mike Wallace for an episode of The Mike Wallace Interview in 1957.": Why is this important?
  • "Feller was the first player to get a franchise to agree to a share of game receipts when Feller was the starting pitcher for Indians' games and earliest player to incorporate himself (as Ro-Fel, Inc.)": A lot going on here; the two parts of the sentence seem disconnected. Also, two Fellers. And "to incorporate himself" means what exactly?
  • The second paragraph seems to repeat what we have already read. One or the other mention should be cut.
  • "Feller said a 1974 test involving Nolan Ryan would have no such restriction": What restriction?

I think that is everything. Ping me if you want me to take another look before FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'll address all the above over the next few days and let you know if I have any questions about them. I'll then do another read through myself before FAC, seems like everytime I read it I find a few things to tweak. Wizardman 03:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Johnson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm listing this article for peer review because I'd like to see it given the chance to reach GA status, but believe it has several issues standing in the way of this, and needs an in-depth analysis. I recently failed this as a GA nomination because a significant proportion of it is unreferenced, not to mention there being problems regarding neutrality and undue weight in some sections. Ideally it needs an editor with a lot of experience in both BLPs and British Politics to almost take it apart and examine each section thoroughly. The subject is potentially a future leader of the British Conservative Party, and would either be Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition at that point, so this should be of GA quality. Cheers, Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paul, I am happy to give a few comments and see if I can highlight any areas which need improvement if this is to reach GA! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basic comments:

  • Check out Ken Livingstone; the first half of that article (up to the elimination of the GLC) has been written by myself. I think that you could compare the two articles for ideas on structure and substance. Don't necessarily look to other British politicians for examples all the time (the David Cameron article is *not* a good example of a GA article), expand to examine the articles devoted to other world political figures; see for instance the pages for Muammar Gaddafi or Fidel Castro, neither are perfect, but both are comprehensive. Avoid a parochial bias – remember that many, if not most of those reading the page will not be British or aquainted with the British political system!
  • In the introduction, it's not enough to simply state which political party Johnson belonged to, but you should also describe his particular ideological position within that party.
  • The whole introduction could be lengthened a little; BoJo is a major figure in British politics after all.
  • Why no mention of his class background in the introduction ? Many historians, and not just those of a Marxist bent, would recognise this as a factor of particular importance.
  • There is also no mention of his policies in the introduction, something which is strange considering that they are arguably the most important thing about him.
  • The use of sources in this article isn't ideal; many books and biographical accounts have been published that discuss BoJo, and yet this article relies almost entirely on magazine and newspaper articles found online (see the Ken Livingstone page for how biographical accounts have been used to flesh that page out in a methodical manner). If you have the free time, I'd really recommend that you obtain a few of these from the library and use them to methodically re-write this article from the top down.
  • Furthermore, the references that are used aren't uniformly formatted of preserved at WebCite.
  • The "Controversy" section isn't really necessary, and acts far too much like a trivia section; major controversies should be incorporated into the main body of the article.

Apologies if I've seemed a little too critical here Paul, but I do hope that these steps would ideally lead to this article reaching GA status; in its current status, it really could not attain that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a suggestion for what a future fleshed introduction might look like, may I suggest:

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (born 19 June 1964) is a British Conservative Party politician, who has served as Mayor of London since 2008. Initially coming to public attention as a journalist, he was previously editor of The Spectator (1999–2005) and served as the Member of Parliament for Henley from the 2001 to 2008. A liberal conservative, he considers himself on the One Nationist wing of the Conservative Party.
Born to an upper middle-class family in New York City, Johnson was educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, Eton College, and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics. Beginning his career in journalism with The Times and then The Daily Telegraph, he became Assistant Editor from 1994 to 1999 before taking editorship of The Spectatpr. Joining the Conservatives, he was elected MP for Henley in 2001; during his period in the House of Commons, Johnson became one of the most conspicuous politicians in the country, authoring books and making regular television appearances. Under Conservative leaders Michael Howard and David Cameron, Johnson served on the opposition front bench, first as Shadow Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries and then for Higher Education.
Selected as Conservative candidate for the 2008 London mayoral election, he defeated Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone to become Mayor, resigning his seat in parliament. During his first term, he banned alcohol on public transport, implemented measures to encourage business, and oversaw the 2012 London Olympic Games. In 2012, he was re-elected, again defeating Livingstone.[1]

That's great. Thanks for the feedback, and don't worry about being too critical as the article needs a lot of work. I like the layout of the Livingstone page so I'll definitely consult it for this one. I also think your lead is much better than the one we currently have so I'll replace it. In the short term I should be able to work through the text and at least get it into a more presentable format, and hopefully get a few people from WPUKpolitics interested. Thanks once again for your thoughts on this. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield United F.C.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering nominating it for Good Article status, and would be interested in knowing what needs to be improved. It has previously been rejected for GA twice in 2006 & 2007, but I feel it's in far better shape now than it was a relatively long time ago.

Thanks, Half past formerly SUFCboy 11:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Had a quick look through the article and think that the main problem is in the referencing of the material.
    1. There are a number of cite needed tags in the text that need addressing.
    2. Some sections are unreferenced such as "Shirt sponsors and manufacturers"
    3. There are a number of dead links in the references that should be addressed
    4. Ref 48 is a bare link and needs some detail such as title, publisher, date of publication & accessdate adding
    5. On the book references some use pp. for a single page rather than just p.
Keith D (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barfi!

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because both me and Prashant! feel that the article is a strong candidate for a FAC. But before the FAC, I like to list the article for a peer review to improve the quality of the article. Thanks, --Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cher

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
With 25 studio albums released, plus 18 movies and three TV shows, Cher is an all-around entertainer who rose from an often impoverished and disrupted childhood to stardom. I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to soon take it to FA. I've made some profound research and I believe it fully covers all the relevant aspects of the life and career of the media icon without getting into too much detail. The main points raised on the previous FAC were the prose inconsistencies and the formatting of the references. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part.

Thanks to all. Lordelliott (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this one. I'm pretty busy in real life, but I should be able to get to it wihin the next few days. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Lordelliott (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

[edit]

Begin comment from Noleander:

  • First thing: can you post a note here explaining if you have addressed all the items raised at the prior FA nomination? Are there any issues you did not yet address? If not, why not? (it is okay to not fix things if you disagree with the FA reviewer's criticism, and your reasoning is good).
    • Yeah, I've addressed all the items. The only exception is the Goldmine quotation on the lead. One user thought it was too much detail to the lead, but I thought the lead must contain a little bit of approach on her influence, as on the David Bowie and Madonna articles. Also, I kept three sources that were questioned as unreliable by one user with no explanation (33, 173, 240).
  • Footnote #280: an anonymous phone call: need a source that says that Cher was the caller.
The self-identification could be a hoax. If Cher, in person, confirmed her identity 3 years later, then that should be the source for the assertion that she was the caller. The 1st call itself is not an adequate source. --Noleander (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Lordelliott (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: every thing in the lead needs to be repeated (okay to use different wording) with citation in body. I dont see the following in the body: ", she is often referred to as the Goddess of Pop for having first brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry."
    • It is on the Legacy section. The excerpt "... for having first brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry" is a resume of the scholar opinions presented on the Legacy section.
The term "self-actualization" has very specific meaning; for it to be in the lead connected to the title "Goddess of pop", then that connection must be (1) stated by a source; and (2) the connection & cite needs to be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A major figure for over five decades in popular culture, she is often referred to as the Goddess of Pop and is recognized for having first brought the sense of female autonomy and self-actualization into the entertainment industry." - Reworded. Lordelliott (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: WP:PEACOCK - " became one of the most acclaimed film " - "acclaimed" is a bit promotional; better to just stick to the facts. If she starred in ten major movies, that fact speaks for itself.
  • Peacock: The following would be better in the body, in a "reception" or "impact" section: "Biographer Mark Bego says: "No one in the history of show business has had a career of the magnitude and scope of Cher's"." Putting it in the lead is too fan-ish. The lead should be utterly factual & objective. Think boring BBC newscasters.
  • Lordelliott: Cher is a huge article. For me to review it here in this PR, you'll just have to go with the flow and basically do everything I say. If you have a compelling reason for ignoring my advice, fine, state your reason. But you are already pushing-back on about 50% of my recommendations. Your arguments may have some merit, but my time is limited, and I just don't have time to post 2 or 3 comments in reply to you on every recommendation. My review style is very fast and mostly 1-way. So, if you would rather wait for another reviewer who has more time to engage in dialog, that is fine .. I'll take no offense. Let me know if you want me to continue or not.
Yeah, I want you to continue. I'm in no way ignoring your advice; I was just trying to achieve a consensus. But since your time is limited, I'll try my best to do everything you say. Thanks, Lordelliott (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: adjective: "..she starred in hit films ..." - word "hit" is a bit promotional; how about " ..she starred in films such as ..."
  • Lead: slang: "She is the only artist to have notched a number-one single .." - "notched" is too slangy; wording must be very professional. Try "She is the only artist to have a number-one single .."
  • Lead: grammar: ".. which dealt with unusual subjects in mainstream popular music." - Try "which dealt with subjects rarely addressed in American popular music."
Early life
  • Age; "Cher's family noticed her creativity when she produced the musical Oklahoma! in school .." - need her age at this event.
  • Wording informal: "truck driver riddled with drug " - "riddled" is too informal; remember that many readers will be persons with English as not their native language; so use plainer wording. Just remove the word "riddled".
  • grammar: "...and model with Irish, English, German and Cherokee descent." - Either (1) change "descent" to "ancestry"; or (2) change "with" to "of"
  • Uniformity: "Holt and John married and divorced ..." - Dont mix 1st and last names. Say "Georgia and John" or "Holt and Sarkasian".
  • key detail: "At one point, Holt had to put Cher in an orphanage." - for a day? a week? a year?
  • Why quote: "According to biographer Connie Berman, "Cher got a group of ..."" - Quotes should be used sparingly, usually if someone famous has a witty thing to say; or if a major critic has some key insight; or of the speaker is saying something outrageous or controversial. But avoid for plain historial facts from a biographer. Just remove the quote and restate in the encyclopedia's voice.
  • quote source? - "and behavior after the "eccentric, fast-living young woman" character ..." - Whose words are those? Cher's? or the biographers? The reader will only want a quote if those are Cher's words, in which case Cher should be identified in the prose as "Cher admired AH, who she considered to be a "ecc, fl .""
  • non sequitur - " Despite the difficult times and the instability of her mother's marriages, Cher wanted to be famous .." - No reason for all the words before "Cher": it is natural for youngsters in difficult situations to want to be famous.
  • Unneeded: "She later commented in an interview, "I couldn't think of anything ..."" - No reason for word "later": of course she is not giving an interview at high school age. Maybe "She commented in a 1993 interview, ...."
  • Gender: "Like Cher's stepfather, the fathers of Montclair Prep students were financially successful." - Some of the $$ may be from mothers; plus there may be grants for poor students. Just say "MP was a school with students from affluent families" or something like that.
  • Unneeded: " She also achieved notoriety for her unconventional b ..." - Word "also" is almost never needed in any article.
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1960s
[edit]
  • Terminology: "and were unofficially married in October 1964 " - There is no such thing as an unofficial marriage in California: either they got married or did not. Maybe it was a small, civil procedure at the courthouse?
  • Wording: "... where she took acting classes and had jobs to support herself. " - "had jobs" doesnt sound right there. Maybe "..and worked to support ..".
  • Detail? - "She danced in small clubs along Hollywood's .." - What kind of dancing? ballroom, Jazz, strip clubs? go-go?
    • Unspecified by source.
  • Detail? - " she had a brief relationship ." - Business relationship? Golfing partners? If it was an affair, the article should say so.
  • WOrding: " When Sonny finally gave up ... he began going out to the stage with her to sing the harmonies." - Reword (1) "gave up" what? Prior sentence doesnt say what he was resisting; (2) No need for "when", try: " Sonny finally gave up ... and he began going out to the stage with her to sing the harmonies."
  • Wording: "which went by unnoticed." - not precise enough. Maybe "which did not not sell well" or "which were poorly received" or something like that.
  • Specificity: "The album reached the Billboard 200 top 20 and ..." - If sources say the exact position, it should be stated here
    • Unspecified by source.
  • Link: "cover version of .." - link "cover" to WP article, on first usage.
  • Precision: "At one point, they had five songs in the top 20,..." - Name the month/year.
    • Unspecified by source.
  • Unneed quote: "and became "one of the biggest-selling and most beloved pop/rock hits of the mid-'60s" - Who is this quote from? This is a good quote, since "beloved" is a bit subjective/emotional, but should state the quotes source in the article prose. It is best of the quote is from someone notable/famous, not just a biographer.
    • This is from Bruce Eder, a music critic of Allmusic. Should I remove this quote?
  • Wording: "openly monogamous, drug-free lifestyle had become obsolete due to ..." - "obsolete" should be replaced with something more precise: "not commercial" or "lost its appeal to American youth" or "fell out-of-step with music trends" etc
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? - "According to Berman, .." - Lost track of who this is, restate full name each time used, unless prior occurrence is very nearby.
  • Cap in quote - "According to Berman, "The heavy, loud sound of groups .." - initial letter in quote should be lower case here, in general, even tho cap in the source.
  • No quote: - "they were featured in "silly" skits. ... " - No need to quote "silly", just say childish, or immature, or inoffensive, or some representative word.
  • Wording: "The "arty" movie stiffed, costing t .." - (1) Replace quoted "arty" with a better unquoted word; (2) "stiffed" is slang: replace with professional wording.
  • Wording: "At a low professional ebb, .." - Not professional enuf for FA. Maybe "nadir of their career" or " a low point int their career" or "popularity was waning .."
  • Wording: " in which they opted for a more mainstream approach in sound and style. .." - (1) "opted" -> "which relied on a more ..."; (2) what does "mainstream" mean in this context? Less sophomoric? More rock-and-roll?
    • Reworded: "more adult approach ..."
  • Who? - "According to Wilson, .."
  • spelling? - "Wooded by television executives,.. " - Supposed to be "wooed"? If so, 'woo" is too slangy. Try "TV executives took note of their success and S&C began to .."
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1970s
[edit]
  • No quote: " and becoming an "enormous" success, .." - just remove the word.
  • Clarify: "Around this time, Cher had well-known flirts .." - Not sure what that means? Sexual affairs? Deep friendships? Mere "flirting" is not very important. The mere fact that somone invited her to meet them, and she declined, is not very significant. Do the sources make a big deal out of it? Need proof.
    • Removed.
  • Wording: "In February 1974, Cher countered with a divorce suit .." - "counter" means to reply to an action. Maybe just "filed a divorce .."
  • Wording: "Cher lived a two-year relationship with .." - "Cher was in a ..." or "Cher had a two .."
  • Wording: "Her solo show, entitled simply Cher, debuted as .." - What solo show? was it mentioned before? if not, just say "Cher starred in a solo TV show ..."
    • Reworded: "On February 16, 1975, Cher debuted a solo TV show, Cher, as a highly rated special featuring guests Flip Wilson, Bette Midler and Elton John."
  • Details? - "Cher lasted for less than a year, to be replaced by a reunion of Cher and Sonny; ... " - What year & how long did the reunion show last? series or just 1 special show?
    • The reunion is detailed on the following paragraph.
  • No cap: " she said, "Doing a s .. "" - "doing .."
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non sequitur: "A single mother with two children, Cher decided to change the direction of her singing career by temporarily abandoning her desire to be a rock singer and signing with Casablanca Records to capitalize on the disco craze. " - Not clear what motherhood has to do with changing from rock to disco.
    • "A single mother with two children, Cher realized that she had to make a choice about the direction of her singing career. Deciding to temporarily abandon her desire to be a rock singer, she signed with Casablanca Records and made a major comeback with the single "Take Me Home" and the album of the same name, which capitalized on the disco craze."
  • No quote: "that made the album "unfocused" and contributed to its failure." - keep word 'focused' but eliminate quote marks, and attribute to the source "... according to Joe Smith"
  • Wording - " on the soundtrack to the film " - "of the film"
  • Spelling: - "She filled for divorce nine " - filed
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1980s
[edit]
  • Clarify: "... she formed the rock band Black Rose with her then-partner, guitarist Les Dudek." - Business partner? Lover?
    • Boyfriend.
  • No quote: "Although Cher was the lead singer, she did not receive top billing because "she wanted to create the impression that all band members were equal."[" - replace quote with paraphrase
  • Wording: "Cher was at the "pinnacle of her career" as a nightclub personality in Las Vegas, earning US $300,000 a week" - No need for quote. Another pinnacle comes later in her career, so why confuse readers. Try ""Cher became a successful nightclub personality in ..."
  • Wording: "Her earliest entertainment ambitions had always lain in film ..." - "Her earliest entertainment ambitions laid in film, ..."
  • Wording: " and producers and directors in Hollywood did not take her seriously as an actor ... " try "and the Hollywood establishment did not take her seriously as an actor..."
  • Wording " In 1982, Cher moved to New York to take acting lessons with Lee Strasberg, founder of the Actors Studio, but she never got to do it." - sounds wrong. try "Cher moved to NY in 1982 with the intention of taking .... with LS, but her plans changed and she never enrolled" or something like that.
  • Precision: "Uninhibited, which earned about US $15 million in its first year sales, an" - gross sales? or net profits?
    • Unspecified by source.
All  Done. 05:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
1990s
[edit]
  • Non sequitur: " Despite the film's subdued reception, today it is considered a cult classic." - Most cult classics did have subdued receptions.
    • Removed "Despite the film's subdued reception".
  • Bundle cites: " stayed at number one in the UK for six weeks and spawned four hit singles, most notably the UK top-ten hit "Love and Understanding".[123][124][125]" - Three footnotes adjacent like that can look ugly. See WP:CITEBUNDLE - keep all three cites, but pack them into a single footnote.
  • Wording: "Partly because of her bad experience on Mermaids, " - "with Mermaids"
  • Wording: "Cher turned down two leading roles .." - " ..down leading roles .."
  • Wording: "Cher scored a comeback when she starred ..." - "scored" is slangy; try "achieved" or "made"
  • Cite bundling: "them questioning her movie career as dead.[33][131][133] "
  • Wording: "marked an extreme musical departure " - eliminate word "extreme"
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2000s
[edit]
  • Puffery: "The show featured 16 dancers and aerialists, "state-of-the-art" video and special effects, and "ambitious" set designs.[197]" - It looks like that source is a public relations release? That cannot be used as a source, unless the text specifically attributes it as such. Better is to find what independent critics said about the show and put that in.
  • Too many commas: "One song from the album, "Sisters of Mercy", ..." - that sentence is too convoluted. Try to reword to be simpler, fewer commas.
    • Reworded: " In the song "Sisters of Mercy", she called the Catholic nuns who cared for her when she was a child "cruel, heartless and wicked" for keeping her in their orphanage long after her mother attempted to retrieve her; that caused controversy among church leaders, who quickly issued denouncements."
  • Clarify: "In 2001, still in a dance mode, Cher released .." - Not too sure what that means. Is she still primarily singing/releasing songs that are dance-oriented? Try to reword to make it clearer.
    • Reworded: "In 2001, Cher released the highly anticipated dance-oriented follow-up to Believe: Living Proof ..."
  • Wording: " after she split with Warner UK last year. .." - "last year" has no meaning in an article. Perhaps "in the prior year"?
  • Not important/puffery: "earning Cher a place in the Guinness Book of World Records." - The GBWR is not important at all. If she set a record, just say that.
  • Wording: "..The tour earned upwards of ..." - "upwards" is slang/hard to understand. Just say "more than".
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2010
[edit]
  • Focus on $$$: "which grossed over US $89 million worldwide" - The article has a lot of $$ figures like that; some reviewers might think it has too many. For instance, in the Burlesque paragraph, the question that jumps to my mind is: that $ figure is pretty unimportant; are there some other, more interesting facts about the musical Burlesque which are not in the article?
    • Removed.
  • Cite bundling: " a number-one hit on the U.S. dance charts.[200][201][202]"
  • Wording: "As of 2012, Cher has been working on her first studio album .." - "as of" is not best here. Maybe, "during" or "starting in"?
  • Wording: "were Cher's outside choices." - "outside" is not a good word here. Maybe "were songs composed by independent songwriters, selected by Cher" or something?
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other
[edit]
  • Fawning: "museum immortalized her with a life-size statue.." - Some reviewers might think that the article has too many words that idolize Cher; here "immortalized her with" could just be "created a".
    • Reworded: "honored her with".
  • Clarify: " after being discovered by the then-Vogue magazine director Diana Vreeland. " - by 1967 she was not unknown in the music world, so maybe this could be made more specific to modeling. e.g. "... after the modeling industry discovered her ..."
  • Wording "In the late 1990s, Cher began having laser treatments to remove her tattoos.[247] The process went underway in the 2000s." - "went underway" is not correct. Maybe "was still underway"?
  • Similar sections: The two sections "Legacy" and "Artistry" seem to overlap too much. Especially Legacy and "Public Image". You need to look at the paragraphs one-by-one, and get them co-located into the correct section. Here is just an idea: put the fashion stuff into a new section on Fashion; move the "Throughout her career Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself" paragr into the Public Image section. Put the longevity paragr into a new subsection within Legacy. You get the idea.
    • Created a new subsection for the fashion stuff within "Artistry"; moved the "Throughout her career Cher has repeatedly reinvented herself" paragr into the Public Image section; splitted longevity paragr in two.
  • More confusion: the Public Image has "Cher figured twice on "The 25 Most Intriguing People of the Year" list compiled by People, in 1975 and 1987.[233][234] In 1992, Madame Tussauds wax museum immortalized her with a life-size statue as one of the five most beautiful women of history." - but that seems like it belongs in Legacy/honors/awards section. Again: every sentence needs to be moved to the correct thematic section.
    • Moved.
  • Cite needed: "Cher has engaged in the construction of houses with Habitat for Humanity and served as the Honorary National Chair of a Habitat's elimination of poverty housing initiative "Raise the Roof", an effort to engage artists in the organization's work while on tour. "
    • Source added.
  • Cite needed: "On October 27, 2003, Cher anonymously called a C-SPAN phone-in program. " - It is not enough to provide audio of the anonymous call; it could have been a hoax. Someone else must state conclusively that Cher called anonymously on such-and-such a date. The cite must point to the latter information, not the anon call.
    • New source added.
All  Done. Lordelliott (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing content: Cher as a gay icon - I'm no expert on Cher, but I've heard a lot about the topic of that article. It deserves at least a couple of sentences in the Cher article.
  • Missing content: There must be some important material about how feminists view her. On the one hand, she is a strong, independent, creative woman that is not dependent on a man; on the other hand, she has lots of cosmetic surgery etc. Surely, some notable feminists have analyzed her: what do they say?
    • I found this one. Could you help me paraphrasing this to the article? Lordelliott (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That looks like a good source. That is discussing an article in Ms magazine. Maybe you could find the text of that original Ms article and use that also. Also look at:
          • Cosmetic Surgery: A Feminst Primer page 29, in Google Books
          • Fragile Moralities and Dangerous Sexualities: Two Centuries of Community page 25 in Google books
      • I don't have much time to help with paraphrasing. I'd suggest you look thru Google Books for "Cher feminism" etc and see what you get. --Noleander (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added that on the "Legacy" section: "Cher was featured in the 16th anniversary edition of Ms. magazine as a "Feminist Extraordinaire" and an "authentic feminist hero": "Cher, the straightforward, tattooed, dyslexic single mother, the first Oscar winner to have entered into matrimony with a known heroin addict and to have admitted to being a fashion victim by choice, has finally landed in an era that's not afraid to applaud real women."[268] However, Kathleen Park of Orlando Sentinel felt that this choice was miserable, stating that, despite being "a star of extraordinary proportions", Cher "hardly embodies, at least publicly, the qualities that earn one respect in this world."[268] Park added that Cher "is praised for doing all the things most of us try so hard not to do in our efforts to grow."[268] " Is this enough content about how feminists view her? Lordelliott (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spouse/Kid list: Should add a list of spouses & children to Info Box, see Elizabeth Taylor for an example.
I'm pretty sure the FA reviewers will not like the two infoboxes. I don't really see great solution here. Personally, I would change the InfoBox to {{Infobox person}} which lets you add spouse & children, but is not focused on music. But other editors might think the Music infobox is essential. I guess you should remove that small spouse/child infobox.--Noleander (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Do you think the content I've added on the "Legacy" section about how feminists view her is enough? Should I do some more research? Lordelliott (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should be enough for now. However, I would put the "feminism" and "gay icon" material into their own (dedicated) paragraphs ... I think they are in a large paragraph with other material? --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. The article is better now. I think you could get Good article status for sure (nominate it at WP:GAN if you want to go that route). If you want to nominate it for FA again, your best path is to have one more FA-expert review it. I recommend User:GabeMc, who has gotten several music-oriented articles to FA status. Or, you can pick any reviewer you see at WP:FAC. They can do the review anywhere: in the article Talk page; here in this PR page; or you can start a whole new PR #2. After you go through one more review, I think it will be ready for FA status. It may be tempting to nominate the article now, after my review, but with large, complex articles on well known topics, I promise you that the best path is to have 2 or 3 PRs before the FA nomination!! Congratulations, you've done a lot of work on it, and it is really looking nice now. --Noleander (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments
[edit]

Hi Noleander. Please remember that Template:Cite_web#Publisher states that the publisher is "not normally included for periodicals". You may wish to remove them before taking this to FA. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! PS: I'm just the reviewer, not the nominator. I'll make sure the nominator sees your comment. --Noleander (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Sorry about that! GoingBatty (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

[edit]

This review was moved to Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Cher/archive1 on 28 January 2013, and is still underway. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Androgenic alopecia

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

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

I have rewritten it with more complete Pubmed citations, pictures, have rewritten and expanded most/all sections. I am cautious of WP:Ownership and wanted to get more neutral opinions about the revisions and thoughts for future direction. I would like it to eventually be a GA/FA. My thanks, Ramwithaxe talk 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62
  • "Androgenic alopecia is loss of hair that occurs due to an underlying susceptibility of hair follicles to androgenic miniaturization." Considering that this is the very first sentence in the article, I think some effort should be made to avoid using unlinked terms which the reader may not be familiar with. What is a follicle? What is androgenic miniaturization? More importantly, are these really the first details that need to be given when answering the question "What is androgenic alopecia?" Maybe so, but maybe not; definitely worth thinking about.
  • "It is the most common cause of hair loss and will affect up to 70% of men and 40% of women at some point in their lifetime." I would suggest changing "will affect" to "affects". The former suggests a prediction, whereas the latter describes that which is already known about the condition.
  • "It is the most common cause of hair loss and will affect up to 70% of men and 40% of women at some point in their lifetime." On an unrelated note, I was unable to find this claim in the body of the article. In general, the lead should only contain information that is also in the body.
  • What is vertex balding?
  • What are etiologies?
  • "temples" should be linked on its first usage, not its second.
  • "Classic androgenic hair loss in males begins above the temples and vertex" What does "classic" mean here? Perhaps a more formal phrasing would be "Androgenic hair loss in males typically begins..."
  • I'm not sure if the fourth paragraph of the lead is about animals which develop baldness naturally, or animals into which the baldness gene has been successfully transferred. Either way, I'm not convinced that this material is really critical enough to be presented in the lead. What about treatment? Or psychology? A good rule of thumb is that the lead should contain at least one sentence for each of the article's main sections, which is currently not the case.
  • "A number of hormonal changes occur with aging" The list that follows this is numbered rather than bulleted. Why?
  • I am of the opinion that Androgenic impact of exercise is far too large and detailed for the purpose of this article. Too much of the material here seems to be intended to give the reader a thorough understanding of the relationships between hormones and exercise, which is not appropriate for this article. There are entire paragraphs here which don't even mention baldness! I've also noticed that the article lacks an Epidemiology section, which is critical for any article about a medical condition. I strongly suggest summarizing the entire Androgenic impact of exercise section into a single paragraph, and then incorporating that into an Epidemiology section. Perhaps the current section can be split off into a new article.
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs, such as "Female patients with mineralocorticoid resistance present with androgenic alopecia." These should either be expanded, merged, or deleted.
  • The Psychological effects and Diagnosis sections should be expanded.

I'll be watching this page, so leave a note here if you have any questions. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sonic the Hedgehog video games

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this list for peer review because I want to get feedback on how to improve this list before I take this to FLC. I plan to take this and the other relevant Sonic-related video game articles to GA or FA status so we can make the Sonic the Hedgehog games a good/featured topic.

Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments good long list!

  • Lead is a little shallow for such a weighty list. I'd expect three reasonable-sizd paragraphs.
  • I think if you feel there's a need to link the word eponymous, it's probably not worth using it.
  • Sequel is a pretty common English term so needn't be linked, especially if you're not linking prequel.
  • Similarly, I think most English readers will know what a hedgehog is.
  • "as of November 2010" it's now January 2013, any update available?
  • Why are there empty sections in the table? It looks odd, even if there are no notes for a specific title...
  • Can you double check the template you're using for the video games table meets WP:ACCESS for MOS:DTT (i.e. row and col scopes for screen readers).
  • The reflinks tool is showing a few issues that should be addressed.
  • "2010 - (Ep. 1)" use en-dash for this sort of thing (per WP:DASH).
  • "2012 - Onlive " ditto. There are others, so check for that.
  • Be consistent with the way you link things. E.g. you link mobile phone in the "Other spin-offs" section the first time round, but you don't the second, third and fourth, then you link the fifth, sixth and seventh, but not the eighth.......
  • Who publishes ref 45?
  • Sonic Team is linked in ref 60 but not 58 and 59...
  • And in ref 82, but not 83 to 88...
  • Consistent date formats in the refs please.
  • Check refs for violations of WP:DASH.
  • Ref 115 needs to have format completed (e.g. publisher, accessdates etc etc).

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Selfe

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this biography in the Engineering section as, as you'll see, Norman Selfe is a fascinating personality in the history of civil engineering. Please move this PR to "history" or elsewhere if you think that's more appropriate though. This article is based in large part on the CC-By-SA article of the same name imported from the Dictionary of Sydney. I've modified it for WP's standards and recently brought it up to GA class. I'd like some feedback on what it would need in order to pass as a Featured Article - which I've never attempted before. Note especially that because the source material is both freely licensed and also a Reliable Source, in some cases the sentences are both copied from and footnoted to the Dictionary of Sydney. This is the same as the situation of Florence Violet Mackenzie (also GA class). Both GA reviewers looked carefully at the foonoting on that basis and found it to be correct/acceptable. Thanks, Wittylama 02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The following is he first of two batches of comments. I have tended to deal with general issues rather than sentence-by-sentence analysis of the prose, though my comments includea few prose points. As a general issue, I have concerns about a slightly unencyclopedic tone that permeates parts of the article; I have made a few specific comments in that direction. Overall I was most interested to learn about this man of whom I had not previously heard.

Lead
  • The lead should summarise the whole article. At present there is no mention at all of Selfe's early life. A couple of short sentences should suffice.
I've had a go at this, and adjusted the general flow as well. Tell me what you think.
  • Lead definitely better. Consider a paragraph break after "...second public competition", followed by "Selfe was commemorated...". "Still stands" is not time-specific, but alternatives such as "as of 2013" are ugly, so perhaps leave this. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's a time-specific thing, but then again, all articles have time specific things (especially biographies). I've changed it to "is a local landmark" which is a bit more chronologically vague. Wittylama 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical insertion of birthplace and death place within his dates is, I think, unnecessary; this detail should be kept to the text. (It also looks and reads awkwardly.
Done.
  • To say he is best remembered by the Sydney suburb named after him is stretching things, from a global pespective. Better, I think, to say "He is commemorated..."
Done.
  • Is "causes" the right word in the last sentence? It has a voluntary ring about it.
They were his "causes" so I've expanded it to "social causes and public works schemes..."
Family
  • There are several uncited statements in the section. It is a pretty firm rule that every paragraph should end with a citation.
There are now 9 footnotes for the 4 paragraphs (and two blockquotes) in the "Family background and apprenticeship" section, and there are also now 9 footnotes for the 4 paragraphs in the "personal life" section.
  • Nevertheless, there are still paragraphs which end without a citation. For example: "As adults, they trained in Italy with educator Maria Montessori and returned to Sydney to open a Montessori school of their own at Ashfield, called Warwick." Earlier, the statement that "As the rapidly developing metropolis was hungry for the talents of engineers, Sydney did not disappoint" also ends a paragraph, but as an unnecessary editorial observation this could easily be discarded.
I've removed the sentence about "did not disappoint which I agree is superfluous. I'm looking for a ref. about the montessori school now. I'd like to keep that sentence as it's such a lovely link between the family.Wittylama 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the Montessori school reference! Wittylama 07:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a clearer policy about when to switch from "Norman" to "Selfe". At the moment this is somewhat muddled.
I've replaced the vast majority of "Norman" with "Selfe" except in a couple of instances where it's talking about the family where it is unclear who I would be talking about since they have the same last name.
  • There are also chronology issues in the present section. You should consider dividing it between a "Family background and early life" section, taking things up to Selfe's apprenticeship, and a "Personal life" section, located later in the article, which will deal with the later aspects of his family life.
I've tried to do this and have created a "Family background and apprenticeship" section followed by a "Personal life" section. Please advise what you think. It's tricky because I've not written this biography as a chronology but more thematically. Many of his activities in education, commercial engineering work, government enquiries etc. were overlapping but it makes more sense to break them into thematic groupings. As such I didn't want to put things like the house moves and marriages interspersed through the text.
  • Generally a wise move. But it might be even better to put the "Personal Life" section towards the end of the article, just before the "Death" section. This is commonly done in biographical articles. I'd ecommend you try this out, see what it looks like, and then decide. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to the bottom and made "Death" a subsection of "personal life". What do you think? Wittylama 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the section, with 600 words, is a little overdetailed? That's about a sixth of the total wordcount. For example, there's stuff about Selfe's sister and her family that could easily be lost.
I think that due to the rearrangement of these sections it is less overwhelming now. please advise. Given that family was obviously so important to him I would be reticent to remove much.
Apprenticeship
  • Perhaps give a date for the start of the apprenticeship rather than Selfe's age.
Done.
  • Citations lacking in the first paragraph?
As above. In the newly refactored sections there are now 9 footnotes for the 4 paragraphs (and two blockquotes) in the "Family background and apprenticeship" section, and there are also now 9 footnotes for the 4 paragraphs in the "personal life" section.
  • The first mention of the subject in a new paragraph needs a name, not a pronoun. Thus: "At PN Russell & Co, Selfe made several innovations...
Done
  • Redlink unnecessary. If there's a WP article for Russell, there's never likely to be a separate onw for his business.
I Disagree. Here's an essay on the man, also from the Dictionary of Sydney, which I can import (cc-by-sa), and here's an essay on the company published by the city of Sydney. It appears that they are both independently notable especially since the WP biography article states "After the father's death this was carried on under the name of P. N. Russell and Company, and became the largest and most successful business of its kind in Australia".
Inventor and engineer
  • Beginning the section "The boy" is a bit magaziney, certainly not encyclopedic.
Done.
  • "The advent of refrigeration in on the colony..."??
Changed to Introduction.
  • I'd prefer "former employer" to "former boss", which is a touch informal
Done
  • Again I'm a bit uneasy with some of the redlinking. Unless there is some real likelihood that these articles will be developed (rather than a remote possibility), I think redlinking is best avoided. (I know there are other viewpoints on this)
I've redirected the australia hotel to the already existing article, removed the redlinks on the two oil companies and removed the redlink on one of the ships. It appears (not the least because of the illustration and also other inbound links to that page) that it may be written about eventually.
  • I imagine he was not "given" the chief engineer's role, but was appointed.
Sydney
  • You should avoid making judgemental comments on your text, e.g. "as these words from 1900 show". You are a neutral presenter
Removed
  • The pronoun "first mention" problem identified above recurs here
Do you mean the phrase, "From the time of his return in 1886 from two years' travel..." Can you make a recommendation for how I would adjust that best?
Now I have "From the time of Selfe's return...". Wittylama 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinkings as above.
The redlinks here are to specific Royal commissions which I believe are inherently notable.
Sydney Harbour Bridge
  • "But Selfe's version of a bridge for Sydney harbour, stretching from Dawes Point to McMahons Point, was destined to remain on paper." Too journalistic - simple encyclopedic expression required. I would transfer "stretching from Dawes Point to McMahons Point" into the previous paragraph, thus: "...in 1902 Selfe won a second competition outright, with a design for a steel cantilever bridge stretching from Dawes Point to McMahons Point". I would then reduce the opening of the second paragraph to "Selfe's version of the Sydney harbour bridge was not built".
Done.
  • Omit "nevertheless" and "even"
Done
  • What was the reason for Selfe not receiving the prize he had undeniably won?
I don't know - and it's not said in any of the sources. I suspect it's just a classic case of government bureaucracy and not wanting to pay for a bridge design that wasn't going to be built (even though he won the design comp).
  • The tone becomes too informal; he becomes "Norman", which is inappropriate.
Changed to Selfe
  • Delete emotive terms ("Alas")
Done
  • Remove inappropriate italics.
Was meant to be quotes, not italics. Fixed.
  • "it was not for a further decade before the first tenders for constructing the bridge were called." Needs unmangling.
Done.

Second batch tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(note: I'd rather not start on the rest until there is some indication that the first part of the review is being acted on. Please give me a buzz when you're ready. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for all the detailed comments Brian. I'll respond to all of these comments over the next 48 hours and will write "done" (or make a comment) against each item in the list :-) Wittylama 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few comments to the above and am now working on my second batch. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My remaining comments:

Historian
  • Begin "Selfe" rather than "Norman Selfe"
Done.
  • "Slowly interest increased" would be better punctuated: "Slowly, interest increased, ..." (i.e. two commas)
Done.
  • "Now known as the Royal Australian Historical Society..." would be better as "Known since [year] as the...", as "now" is not time-specific
Done. And added two refs to the RAHS own 'about us' history pages.
Technical education
  • Begin "Selfe" rather than "Norman Selfe"
Done
Done.
Teacher
  • "through suburbs and regional districts) → "into suburbs and regional districts"?
Done.
Critic
  • Who is Norm Neill?
Clarified as, " Norm Neill, historian of the early years of the Sydney Technical College, argues..."
  • Again, "Selfe" not "Norman Selfe"
Done.
  • "It was a very trying time..." Omit the intrepretative comment; "During this time the relationship between the board and the government deteriorated."
Done.
  • Preferably avoid possible peacock terms ("vehemently")
Replaced with strongly - which is also conveys a sense of force but feels less emotive IMO.
  • Rather than the somewhat vague "which ultimately happened", can you provide the year?
Gave some more details about this, with footnote.
  • "He rejected an alternative proposal that the University of Sydney should take over". Can you clarify whose proposal this was, and exactly what responsibilities the university was to "take over"? When you say Selfe "rejected" the proposal, it sounds as though he had powers of decision. Would it be more correct to say that Selfe "did not support..."
Changed to "did not support". I don't know about the particular proposal - Google Books only gives "snippet view" of that source. I could go and borrow it to find out if you think it's worth expanding on, or remove the sentence completely.
  • I don't want to stifle all colour from the prose, but maybe "ruffled feathers" is a mite informal?
It's not clear for non-native speakers. Changed to "caused affront".
  • Final sentence requires a citation.
Done.
Reformer
  • "the new century" - specify "the 20th century"
Done.
  • Who is Les Mandelson?
Clarified as "historian of Australian education systems"
  • "But Mandelson sounds a critical note too". Suggest change "But" to "However", and drop the "too"
Done.
  • Who is Stephen Murray-Smith? Maybe remove the judgemental comment on his assessment?
SMS is the "official" biographer - he's the one who wrote the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry. I'd like to keep in both a positive and negative assessment not merely for neutrality's sake but for comparison.
Death
  • I don't really see that Norma's quoted comment explains anything relevant, and I'd remove this. If you do decide to keep it, it should be formatted like the other direct quotes.
This was changed recently by user:Aa77zz. Have returned it to the blockquote format now.

An important Australia-based article. With some final polishing this could fly at FAC; if it didn't make it first time round it certainly should the second time. I'll take a final look if you like, when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through all your comments now. Yes, I'm really hoping to get this to FA - it'll be my first. It's not gone to FA before so any final "polish" would be great. Thanks for all your comments! Wittylama 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll give it a final readthrough and make any necessary minor fixes. I'll give you a call when I'm done, which might not be for a couple of days as I have a few other commitments (including preparing an FAC of my own). Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final fixes: I'm working on these.

Lead
  • I've split it per my earlier suggestion; I think this looks better, but it's up to you.
Looks good as 2 paragraphs.
  • On reflection, I have doubts about the citation to the first sentence of the lead. It is not usual to cite a subject's defining sentence, unless there is something problematic about it – a contested birth or death date, for example. The only slightly offbeat word in the opening sentence is "controversial", but the controversial nature of Selfe's higher education should be covered, and cited, in the main text. I'd do away with this citation.
That's just my misunderstanding of the MoS. Have removed it.
Family background and apprenticeship
  • "notoriety" means famous in a bad way; criminals and charlatans are notorious. I would change this word to "celebrity"
Now changed to, "Selfe's cousin Edward Muggeridge (later changed to Muybridge) moved to the United States and achieved global fame as a photography innovator."
  • There is confused chronology in this section. The sentence beginning "From their house in The Rocks..." is completely out of sequence; you don't record the family's arrival in Sydney until the next paragraph.
Played around with this, should work now.
  • You should identify Mary Reibey, - don't make your readers use a link and thereby leave the article.
Done. Identified her as " a former convict who became Australia's first businesswoman."
Inventor and engineer
  • "Further recognised..." There hasn't been any previous formal recognition recorded.
Changed to "achieved international recognition", although you could argue that being promoted to chief draughtsman and the other projects he ran can be considered recognition in their own right.
  • "he designed the whole of the machinery for the merchant ship SS Governor Blackall". What does "the whole machinery" cover? Engines? Steering system? Loading and unloading devices? Cooking facilities... etc? Need to be more specific.
Changed to "he oversaw the design and construction of the mail ship". Given he was chief engineer of the company that designed and built the whole ship it's fair to say that he was the man who signed-off on every aspect of the engineering in this important contract.
  • "it is claimed to be the world's steepest incline" - say who made this claim.
Clarified and expanded.
Historian
  • Section requires a citation at the end.
Done. It's a duplication of one earlier in the paragraph, but it's the most appopriate for the sentence.

I have to stop now: will get through the remainder tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My final bits

Technical education
  • It is not clear, from your summary of Selfe's ideas on teechnical education, why his views are described in the lead as "controversial". Perhaps "innovative" would be a better word to use in the lead.
The controversy was referring to his run-ins with government over policy. I've changed it to "outspoken" now - is that better?
Teacher
  • "...but felt more was needed". This is too vague; you need to expand on "more", e.g. "a more creative policy"
Changed to "felt a more thorough focus on practical skills was needed".
Critic
  • "In 1883, the government..." Clarify that you mean NSW government.
Done.
  • Is the "unresponsive colonial government" the same as the one that transferred control and provided funds for workshops, per the previous paragraph? Now I'm confused. This section begins: "In 1883, the government transferred control of the Technical and Working Men's College to a Board of Technical Education". A few paragraphs later we read: "Selfe strongly opposed the government's taking control of technical education which had been underway since 1883 when the government declared its intention to take control of the Technical College". This may be a chronology problem, but the situation is far from clear at the moment.
I've added a new ref and clarified this a bit. See what you think diff.
Reformer
  • "In the early years of 20th century, education became a major political issue in NSW." Probably more accurate to say "remained" rather than "became", as education was clearly a political issue before the 20th century.
Done.
  • The sudden jump forward to 1949 is a bit disconcerting. This sentence might read better if it lost the "ultimately", and the words "long after Selfe's death" inserted. Thus: "In 1949, long after Selfe's death, a separate Department of Technical Education was created, and the New South Wales University of Technology (later the University of New South Wales) was established at Kensington".
Personal life
  • "Much later" requires some time context
Put it as "the 1890's".
  • "stately house..." Hmmm, that suggests a very specific meaning in England, where "stately homes" are the country palaces of the (former) nobility. Maybe "stately" is not a good word?
Changed to Grand, also found its current owner and added ref.

Death

  • "churchwarden" s a single word.
Done.
  • Sentences should not begin with numerics, hence "Twenty-one" not "21" (per MOS)
Done.
  • According to your account, Rhoda would have been 70 not 80, in 1954.
Very odd. I found the death notice in the paper, which says "59", so I put that in. The number 80 comes from the PDF footnote of the cemetery register which clearly marks her age as 80 when buried. Obviously the cemetery got it wrong.

A few final tips before you nominate at FAC

  • Read through carefully to ensure there are no obvious grammatical or spelling howlers or simple typos
  • Check to ensure that, in your use of sources, you have not used close paraphrases of the original text and that the wording is essentially your own.
  • When writing your nom statement, give a little bit of information about the subject and try and make it sound interesting. Editors who write things like "I am nominating this article at FAC because I think it is ready" don't encourage reviewers to engage with their article.
  • Make sure you mention in your nom statement that this is your first FAC nom; this should ensure you some sympathetic treatment.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citroën C3 Picasso

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I need feedback on changes since the last peer review and the progress made. Also if it's worth listing for FAC any time soon. I'd appreciate a complete breakdown of pretty much everything in list format, including spelling mistakes, odd sentences, badly worded sections, ways to improve things etc.

Thanks, ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments some quick overview comments.

  • Seems to be a lot of overlinking in the info box (e.g. litre is linked many times....) Done
  • Infobox - "5-speed Manual transmission" no need for "manual" to be capitalised. Done
  • Ref 12 (used in the lead for "competitors") doesn't seem to mention any of the competitors. Done
Paragraph 1, line 3. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company began selling the car" -> "The company began to sell the car..." Done
  • "engine at €12,590" -> "engine, priced at .." Done
  • What does "44 mpg-imp" mean to a non-expert?
I believe Miles per gallon is wikilinked in the first few instances, and the following imp is for it being an imperial measurement. Is that what you meant? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would wikilink to Fuel economy in automobiles but there's a convert template in use already there. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerned that the "Models" section reads like a brochure for Citroen, e.g. "is consistently the luxury trim for each market".... yuck. Done
  • Engines table needs work for WP:DASH.
  • Tables should meet MOS:DTT for accessibility for screen readers.
  • "611 C3 Picassos built between" avoid starting sentences with a number. Done
  • Capitalise "European car of the year" correctly. Done
  • " quality at 3 stars." see WP:MOSNUM, should be "three stars". Done
  • Worldwide 2011 sales not available?!
  • Check refs for dead links, I found a few...!
I found 2 from the Department for Transport that are under maintenance. Did you see any others not from this source? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Chopra

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA review, had a thorough cleansing of the sources, and a copy edit from GOCE member, so this is the last step before going to FAC. Just want to see what may be missing from FA criteria. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 17:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Right after the first sentence, the lead now reads, Her parents are former Indian Army physicians. During Chopra's childhood, she often moved to different cities in India because of her parents' occupations and their frequent reassignments, and she spent several years in the United States. "
This is unnecessary information for the lead. Lead does not necessary have to have summary of all sections of the text, rather it should be a functional summary, and, if possible, be interesting. I'd rather have Miss World sentence as the second sentence. I think you should simply remove those two personal life sentences from the lead, its trivial for the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Agreed, too minor for lead; removed. BollyJeff | talk 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comment "Chopra was due to made her film debut in 2002 opposite Bobby Deol and Akshaye Khanna in Abbas-Mustan's romantic thriller Humraaz, but she opted out because of her work commitments. She said, "I started getting film offers even before I won the Miss World title. Right after Miss India I signed Humraaz, which was my debut film. Then I went for the Miss World contest due to which the film got delayed by a year". So, Chopra opted out of the film because she had to participate in Miss World, right? Then, why the film got delayed? Did the producer delay the film in the hope she would return to do it? This needs either clarification, or modification of sentences. Why use a quotation here? This information can be converted to plan text easily.
  • "It was her first negative role, the film was a moderate success at the Indian box-office,[36] and Chopra's performance was critically acclaimed." Can be changed to " Acting in her first negative role, she was praised by the critic; the film was a moderate success..." or something else. The present form has three somewhat oddly placed commas, and themes are detached.
  • "the category has been retired since 2008". Won't it be discontinued, rather than retired?
  • "...live electrical wire and was almost electrocuted". You either get electrocuted or not. Almost electrocution is not possible. Also, which film was she shooting for when this happened?

 Done. I think most of the above is fixed now. BollyJeff | talk 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • " and her performances in them received mixed to negative reviews" (in Critical acclaim (2008–2011)) section. Thats a wrong sentence. Remove and, capitalize Her.
  • "Later that year, Chopra starred inMadhur Bhandarkar's Fashion, a drama revolving around the fashion industry as seen Chopra's protagonist character Meghna Mathur...". Probably a "by" is missing.
  • "earning her several awards for Best Actress including the National Film Award for Best Actress" Three superscripts (citations) follow this clause; why do we need 3 references for one non-controversial award?
  • "Her final film role of 2008 was Tarun Mansukhani's romantic comedy Dostana with Abhishek Bachchan and John Abraham" Remove role.
  • "Produced byDharma Productions, the film was a financial success with a worldwide revenue of over 86 crore (US$15.65 million)[39] Chopra received positive reviews..." Punctuation missing.
  • "Her role earned her several awards and nominations including a second Filmfare Award for Best Actress nomination[76] and an Apsara Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, her second consecutive award in that category". Do you mean second consecutive Apsara award? What was the first one? That's probably not mentioned in the text. ANyway, is this a quite famous award to mention in the text?
  • "Chopra subsequently appeared in Ashutosh Gowariker's romantic comedy What's Your Raashee?, for which Chopra was being considered for inclusion in the Guinness World Records book for being the first film actress to portray 12 distinct characters in one film" -- that's not a good sentence construction, two "being"s, the second Chopra should have been "she". Try something different and less complex.
  • "Chopra's heavy workload—filming for several productions, travelling for endorsements, performing at live shows, and appearing in the Miss India pageant..." Appearing in Miss India? Why?
  • "Anglo-Indian ". Any wikilink?
  • " Chopra turned down the role of Phaedra inTarsem Singh's 2011 Hollywood fantasy film Immortals because of the film's conflicting shooting schedule." This sentence suddenly appears in between sentences on 7 Khoon Maaf, and breaks the flow. Should be re-positioned.
  • "Chopra reprised the role of Roma, which received positive feedback from foreign critics." That's suspicious! Why suddenly mention specifically foreign critics? Nothing that follows indicates about foreign (!) critics.
  • "...Chopra became the first mainstream Bollywood actor to be signed by..." Is there any non-mainstream bollywood actors to have the feat?
  • "This is a great follow-up [after the Universal Music Group/Desi Hits! signing].". The readers were not told about Universal Music Group/Desi Hits signing.
  • "Upon release, the film broke the highest opening day collections record..." Highest opening record of what? Indian films? Bollywood? in India?
  • "To follow the success of Agneepath, Chopra co-starred with Shahid Kapoor in Kunal Kohli's Teri Meri Kahaani, a love story set in three different eras" You mean, she tried to follow the success?
Wow, some of the above stuff occurred during the copy edit. The first issue is because her first couple of films of 2008 were bad, but Fashion was where she took off. I tried moving those up to the previous section, but then you get 2005-2008 and 2008-2011; '08 gets repeated. Do you have an alternate suggestion? BollyJeff | talk 13:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first point above (and her...) is merely on prose issue, not content. The sentence preceding it missing a punctuation. So, I suggested to put that punctuation, remove the word "and", and then capitalize the H of the word her, so that this becomes a sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. These will all fixed fixed later. BollyJeff | talk 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Think I got them all. BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from PKS: "She was later noted for experimenting with different character types in the 2009 caper film Kaminey, the 2009 comedy What's Your Raashee?, the 2011 neo-noir 7 Khoon Maaf, and the 2012 romantic comedy-drama Barfi!."
  1. Are you saying she was only noted for "experimenting". For which films? critically acclaimed? Or what?.
  2. She was only noted for "Experimenting". Are you saying she is an average actress who is only noted for "Experimenting with roles".
  3. She is not noted for her acting prowess but for "Experimenting"......Like...."She is a average actress but critics commends her "for experiment". That, what are you saying??
  4. Are critics only noted her experiment not her talent.? Are critics views are like....."Chopra is okkkk, but god she tried something different" but still only tried, not shown versatility or anything like that. It is confusing.

—PKS (TALK) 05:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you are always so protective of her. We can reword it a bit, but it is certainly not trying to say she is only average. I think what it is meaning to say is that she tries various kinds of roles, and even though she is a beauty queen, is not afraid to go after non-glamorous roles like in Barfi and the young girl in Raashee, etc. I don't see how you think that is implying that she is not a good actress. BollyJeff | talk 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about replacing that sentence with something like this: "She was later noted for experimenting with different character types and being unafraid to take challenging and un-glamorous roles, while also appearing in several blockbuster action films. BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may use but Remove "Experimenting" use "shown versatility" or critics noted her versatility in her performance or like that.
You should mention that "2008 marked to be the turning point in her career" or "path-breaking" or "she starred in fashion which proved to be career defining role for her" or something like that.

This should be followed by She further played strong and independent women in critically acclaimed films like....." —PKS (TALK) 04:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments
  1. The article say that Bluffmaster and Aap ki khatir are loosely adapted from certain films. I have their DVDs and they don't even mention about their adaptation from films. If it was adapted then it suits better in article of those films. Also, the producers didn't even mentioned that those films are adapted officially. Its quite strange.
It seems properly source and can stay. It can be added to film articles as well. BollyJeff | talk 20:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Artistry sections just after acting career seems repetitive. It would be helpful when it would appear after personal life. Balan's article is best example. It also has influence section which come before Music career which is strange.Prashant  Conversation  05:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least three reviewers here have expressed that the article has too much WP:fancruft, and much of it is the Artistry section. I am proposing to move just the influences sub-section back to where it was, and eliminate the Acting style and analysis sub-section entirely. I don't believe the article can pass FA with this section intact. BollyJeff | talk 20:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following up whether the suggestions are utilised in the article.

  • "Chopra credited her fondness of singing to her upbringing in a musical family home and exploited her ability during her pageantry career."

Musical family is ok, 'home" is not needed. Also, she exploited which ability? Also, exploited is probably not the best verb to use in this instance.

  • "She declined to sing "Tinka Tinka" in her film Karam..." You can use the word playback with appropriate wikilink here.
  • "Chopra's unsettled childhood...", what is meant by unsettled childhood? It reads as if she had troubled childhood.
  • "In My City" trended at number one on Twitter a few minutes after ..." Do you mean worldwide trend, US trend or India? And also a few minutes after which release? Indian or US release?
  • "the song was released to iTunes Store on December 4, 2012 for digital download". Use d-m-y pattern for dates.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'In 2010, Chopra became a television host with the reality show Khatron Ke Khiladi,...'. Not sure, but probably it would be "...host in the reality show..."
  • "She performed most of the stunts herself" Why are stunts necessary in a TV show? I think a small explnationof the nature of Khatron Ka Khiladi is warranted.
  • "...nineteen stage shows worldwide'. Nineteen-->19.
  • "In 2011, she was signed to become the brand ambassador of Blenders Pride Fashion Tour". Why do you dedicate one sentence to this specific endorsement while all other brands are mentioned together in the succeeding sentence?
  • "In 2006, a day with Chopra was auctioned on eBay India to help the auction winner spend a day with Chopra, proceeds of which were donated to an NGO called Nanhi Kali which helps to educate girls in India" Something is wrong in this sentence. "...to help the auction winner spend a day..." sounds odd.
  • The whole philanthropy section is too much detailed. Her primary notability is not for the charities. This section is boring, monotonous and needs trimming.
  • "Chopra's biggest influence is Amitabh Bachchan..." needs citation.
  • ' at the famous Salvatore Ferragamo Museum in Florence, Italy in 1999". Remove famous. In 1999? She was not around then.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After the first sentence, the lead reads "She became known as Miss India and Miss World in 2000 before beginning her film acting career."
Doesn't sound right. Could be changed to "Her Miss India and Miss World titles in 2000 had made her well known before she began her film-acting career." or "She was a “Miss World” and “Miss India” in 2000 before she started her film-acting career." or something else. Naveed (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneThank you all for your advice. I have implemented most of it. Anything else? BollyJeff | talk 03:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, "In 2011, she was signed to become the brand ambassador of Blenders Pride Fashion Tour". Why do you mention this? What is the specialty of this endorsement? Why not just enlist this as one of her endorsements in the preceding sentence?
Well, the rest are product companies, whereas a "Fashion Tour" is not really a company. I could say "Blenders Pride" and forget about the tour if that is acceptable. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could not find any reliable info on her early modelling (despite what certain websites may say or people may remember), so it was left out. If you can suggest sources, it will be added. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that she may not have been a model before winning Miss World, but after that, she has worked as a model, right? She has done some ramp walks, and has been used in many advertisements (as discussed in endorsement section). So, she is also a model, besides an actor, and a quite good and popular one it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some random
  • "She also launched a campaign called "Save Girl Child", aiming to change Indians' mindset towards girls" It seems on reading this sentence as if she was the person behind this campaign. The source differs. According to the source, she merely inaugurated it.
  • "In 2007, she visited Jawan troops in Tenga in eastern India to boost their morale for a special episode on the NDTV show" I may have missed, but did not find anything on "boosting morale" in the source.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall The article still has the appearance of Wikipedia:Fancruft. There are scattered sentences that need to be toned down. And the charity section is unnecessarily large. The word "criticized" has been used only once in the whole article. I believe she has been criticized many more times in her acting career. (I know this is a wrong mathematical method to argue something, but overall the article does look like too much praising her, rather than remaining neutral). No negative criticism in the "Acting style and analysis" section? If you have such a section, you should include varied aspects, not only flowers and garlands. Additionally, a lot of trivial (to me) information is there in the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some fans were/are involved here. I will try to smooth it out. BollyJeff | talk 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a negative review for her debut film. It is actually pretty hard to find any more negative reviews in reliable sources. There are additionally a few summarized at the beginning of the Critical acclaim section, as well as the one that you saw, and one for Anjaana Anjaani. I consolidated the charity section, but I don't want to remove valid info; an FA needs to be comprehensive. BollyJeff | talk 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there is hope to make FA with that "Artistry" section, particularly the "Acting style and analysis" sub-section? It was the last section added by some other editors, and I am not very fond of it, nor do I know a good way to fix it. Suggestions are welcomed. BollyJeff | talk 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That artistry section has actually become a complete fancruft instead of critical analysis of Chopra's acting style and endeavors, her migration from one role to another, whenever she fails to do so etc. I had a wonderful plot and structure in mind, seeing FAs like those of Maria Carey and Janet Jackson, where such sections are included. But I think it was fan-user Pks1142 who made a complete utter rubbish of the section with the same fancrufty praises and idolizing with borderline shitty glamorous lists and all. Guess what, that section has become a bloody repetition of the biography actually. I can even show you how the initial draft was turning out, and it was NOT this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, we either have to fix it or remove it. I can see leaving the influences, and some words about her choice of roles, but not much else. BollyJeff | talk 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I completely concur with IndianBio (though I would tone done my language a bit :D). That section, especially, reads like a fan page. The only other issue I have with the article is that very few negative critical reviews have been quoted, while much of the career section goes on praising her. I think that some negative comments should also be highlighted instead of just focusing on the positive parts. For example, only a couple of lines like "In 2008, Chopra acted in six films; her first four—Love Story 2050, God Tussi Great Ho, Chamku and Drona—were critical and commercial failures. Her performances in them received mixed to negative reviews" talk about her unsuccessful films, and then we have several paragraphs dedicated to praising her for the films that worked. Even for Balan's article I ensured that the Heyy Babyys and Kismet Konnections were highlighted as much as her successful films.--smarojit (buzz me) 16:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added some detail, but its hard to find much coverage of these below average films in reliable sources. BollyJeff | talk 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine concern — Will this article ever be ready or stable with the amount of tweaks and changes and rearrangements going on and on each and every day, every hour? There should be a stable version for the reviewers to review, for the editors to work upon as well as to have consensus on if anything needs to be changed. But I don't see that as the case here. Bollyjeff has put in a lot of hard work, and other editors are also trying to help. But sometimes I'm seeing content being removed, being added on whim, then removed again for no apparent reason at all. I'm just saying that this article is a classic example of "too many cooks spoiling the broth, as well as the main course itself". I hope you guys get my point. PS, a new artistry section was again proposed. Now since I was the person who had put forward the idea of an artistry section, I have to say "NO". The artistry section was not supposed to be a re-hash of Chopra's achievements and film role summary. It was a different approach, of analysing her career, her decisions and her acting style etc. Not just critic's description of how she acted in so-and-so film, but rather a journalistic and academic approach as to how the role impacted, how it was scrutinized. Its a pile load of recycle now tbh. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the massive changes to Kareena Kapoor even during the FAC review? I am putting in tweaks while following that review, to hopefully head off some of those questions when this one comes up. I agree though that we should mostly leave it alone now except for important new info, which always happens with popular people. Do you think it is ready to nominate now, or what else is needed first? BollyJeff | talk 12:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is not ready. Bollyjeff wait for sometime.Prashant  ✉  12:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What else remains? BollyJeff | talk 13:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Nothing, Yes everything is in the form. You may nominated it. Best of luck.Prashant  ✉  14:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pks, I really don't have clue what you say most of the times. You said there are issues, but immediately back-tracked it. Please don't confuse editors. Bolly, I believe the initial prose of the article is pretty good in shape, sans minor glitches. However the recent work section is seemed with recentism diatribes and proseline effect. By this I mean that the general coherent flow evident in the previous sections breaks here. Ideas and content are thrown in here, without connecting them together. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I noticed was the absence of quotes from the artist herself. There are ample amount of quotes from the reviewers themselves, but very few from Chopra herself, except Barfi! about how the role influenced or was inspired from. Since we are proposing to remove that darned artistry section, I believe the addition of one line quotes from the artist herself would give a different perspective and nullify the proseline effect. You don't have to give it for every film, just the major ones like Kaminey, 7 Khoon Maaf, Fashion, Krrish etc. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that. I got dinged during the GA review for having too many quotes. Remember what you said about having many cooks, haha. Anyway, I will check for the proseline effect and maybe add one or two quotes max. BollyJeff | talk 13:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bolly for understanding what I was trying to tell. :) All these hard work won't go in vain. I think you already saw how SandyGeorgia is behaving at the FAC of Kareena, a small mistake and the FAC is doomed. Don't want to tear logheads at this article's FAC also :( So we shouldn't give them any chance to oppose as best as we can. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 09:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H. C. McNeile

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
One of the forgotten giants of the golden age of British detective fiction, H. C. McNeile is now more likely to be remembered for the rather odious views on race and anti-Semitism he included in his stories from time to time. Best known for his Bulldog Drummond stories, McNeile created the forerunner to later thriller heroes—Drummond was both a proto-Bond and Biggles—but he also wrote extensively about the First World War, while serving on the front line. Although FA may well be a step too far, I'd like to get this as close as possible to that standard. Many thanks for any constructive criticism and suggestions. – SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto's comments

Lead section

  • Should it be captain as its descriptive?
  • Even though I know your like-minded thoughts, It wouldn't be a Cassianto review if I didn't mention the ghastly WP:DISINFOBOX. I don't want to create a war, like you, so this is merely a mention ;)
  • "The character was based on McNeile himself, his idea of an English gentleman and his friend Gerard Fairlie." - Should there be a comma after gentleman? It sounds as if he based the character on three persons; McNeile, an English gentleman, and Fairlie.
    • It was based on the three people (or types of people) there. I've struggled to get this done cleanly. Maybe: The character was based on McNeile himself, his friend Gerard Fairlie and McNeile's idea of an English gentleman." This sounds a little too contrived, especially with the repeated "McNeile". - SchroCat (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I agree it does sound a little contrived. I ended up there too. No worries, leave it as it is and we will see if anyone else picks up on it; if they do then perhaps they can offer an alternative. - CassiantoTalk 23:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McNeile wrote ten Bulldog Drummond novels, as well as three plays and a screenplay." - In 1920 or in total over his career? (I suspect the latter. Excuse my non-intensional flippancy:)

Early life

  • "...although he was not particularly good at it." - Redundency? It would be more suited if he were a champion sportsman who started off rubbish.
  • "...from which he passed out and was commissioned into the Royal Engineers as a second lieutenant in July 1907" If he was commissioned, could we take if for gospel that he initially passed out?

First world war - Looks OK

Next batch

Post war

  • "...and a further seven by McNeile's friend Gerard Fairlie. The character was an amalgam of McNeile himself, his idealised concept of an English gentleman and his friend Gerard Fairlie." - Could we get away with surname usage for Gerald on the second mention?
  • "... "a brutalized ex-officer whose thirst for excitement is also an attempt to reenact [sic] the war. -- The closing quotation mark has gone AWOL.

Personal life

  • Some may not know where the Savoy Theatre is (there are three on WP). Rather than being made to click off to find out, could we not say: "...before opening in London at the Savoy Theatre on 21 December 1937" or "...before opening at London's Savoy Theatre on 21 December 1937."

Writing

  • "Those works published between 1915 and 1918, are his war stories, and relate directly to his experiences during the First World War; while those published from 1919 onwards, are largely thrillers. - sounds better I think?
  • "McNeile's war stories were marketed by the Daily Mail and Hodder & Stoughton as being eyewitness accounts, and produced by a professional serving soldier" Or, "McNeile's war stories were marketed by the Daily Mail and Hodder & Stoughton as being eyewitness accounts, from a professional serving soldier." Obviously ignore all if this was the actual marketing slogan used.
  • "...particularly The Lieutenant and Others and Sergeant Michael Cassidy, R.E.— and then afterwards in his fictional stories, particularly the Bulldog Drummond stories" - Particularly repetitive, especially when we consider that the next sentence starts "McNeile's fictional work—particularly his Drummond series of books..."
  • "Similarly, his thrillers also sold well."
    • Re-worked. I'd also missed out a "sold", which would have made three, but should be okay now... - SchroCat (talk)

-- CassiantoTalk 23:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I think I caught everything but I will give it another read through today. Great work as usual! -- CassiantoTalk 08:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


comments from Tim Riley
  • General
    • McNeile's name occurs more than 100 times in the article. In some paras, e.g. the second one in the First World War section, I reckon you could replace half of them with "he" or "his" to good effect.
    • I was taught to avoid the construction "journalist John Smith" or "historian Joan Brown", as either Americanisms or tabloid journalese. The insertion of a definite article before the job-description improves matters 100%, but to each his own.
  • Early life
    • "and counted a general in the British Indian Army among their descendants; McNeile's great uncle was the canon of Liverpool" – two things here; "descendants" is confusing: I'd just say "members". And while I quite see why you want to mention a general in the context of Sapper I'm blest if see why it matters that he had a relation who was a clergyman.
  • First World War
    • "where he held the rank of commander" – I know little of military matters, but didn't know there was a rank of commander in the RE. Quite prepared to be corrected about this.
    • "McNeile would later admit"– not sure what the past modal auxiliary has here that the plain past tense hasn't
    • "released from the army so he could work" – a bit informal for an encyclopedia article, perhaps; you might consider "released from the army to work" instead
    • "Lawrence Treadwell observed" – it is usual (I know not why) to use the present tense for such phrases, even when the author is long dead.
    • "The Middlesex Regiment under McNeile … again Mentioned in Despatches" – a long sentence, with two "and"s stringing it together. Perhaps a semicolon instead of the second "and"?
  • Post War
    • Subheading – the OED hyphenates "post-war" both as a noun and as an adjective
    • "Drummond's main adversary"… to the end of the para – up to you, naturally, but I'd expect the descriptions of the plot to be in the present tense. I wonder if other people agree with me?
    • "character with Jim Maitland" – the character of ….?
    • "the central protagonist" – I think technically you can only have one protagonist, and so "central" is tautologous.
    • "McNeile and his wife returned to England after Britain came off the gold standard" – if you're going to mention the gold standard I think you'd better say why it's relevant to McN's relocation: it isn't discernible with the naked eye.
  • The First World War
  • Reception

That's my lot. It's a good article. Please let me know when you take it to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for your thoughts and comments—they are very much appreciated. I think I've done justice to your efforts, but I'll have another look through later (especially over the excessive use of McNeile and the return from Switzerland point). Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: You seem to have quite a lot of useful comments here, so at least for the moment I'll confine my remarks to image matters, and a few points on the lead prose:

Images
  • I have some reservations about the new image in the infobox.
  • Under the licence provided, you are required to specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Such information doesn't seem to be provided.
  • Even so, the present licence tag doe not indicate that the image is PD in the US, which is the overriding requirement.
  • Replaced with the original image. Although the ciggie card is in the UK public domain, it isn't in the US, so sadly the original returns. As Cassianto commented, this one is like looking at him "through a fishbowl". I'll see if I can find something else which suits, but I'm not sure how successful it wil be. - SchroCat (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source link on the Du Maurier image does not provide source or date information.
  • It's from a 2007 article on the Daily Mail website, but carries no date or attribution. As it's unclear, I've replaced it with a US lobby card from the corresponding film. I'd rather have an image of GdM (as the first person to play Dummond), so I'll track down something with a cast-iron PD status and drop it in at some point when the images are refreshed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead prose
  • Second sentence: "He started writing short stories based on his experiences in the trenches during the First World War, which were published in the Daily Mail" is worded with a slight ambiguity. To avoid this I would turn it round a bit : "From his experiences in the trenches during the First World War he started writing short stories, which were published in the Daily Mail".
  • "...he was given the pen name Sapper, the nickname of his regiment, the Royal Engineers." Was he "given" the name (if so, by whom?), or did he adopt it? Incidentally, the Corps of Royal Engineers is known as "the Sappers", not as "Sapper", so a little rewording might be in order.
  • "The character was based on McNeile himself, his idea of an English gentleman and his friend Gerard Fairlie." I interpret this as meaning that the character had three elements: (a) McNeile himself, (b) some concept that McNeile had of what an "English gentleeman" was typically like, and (c) Fairlie. If my assumption is right, I think the idea could be put more plainly.
  • "McNeile interspersed his Drummond work with other novels and story collections, including two characters..." Misused participle; needs to be "that included".

That's all for the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian. I've tweaked the lead as appropriate. I'm something of a traveller in a foreign land when it comes to PD matters, so I'll wrap a wet towel on my brow and start reading up. Thanks again and regards - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no great expert myself, but for FAC purposes it is essential that every image page has a description, a verifiable source and a date, so that the particulars of the licence tag can be checked. I have found this table quite useful in helping to sort out what is PD in the US. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I try and avoid the problems by using as much from Commons as possible, but always (foolishly) forget to check if they have been set up properly there! Thanks for the very useful table, which will come in handy as I try and work through these. I've also posted a request for help at Commons on these, as I think that although most of the images may be OK (based on my dubious grasp of copyright), there are too many questions which are unclear. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brian. I think I've covered all your points now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Many thanks to all who took part in the PR: your help and comments were much appreciated in developing and polishing this article. - SchroCat (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevill Ground

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently expanded it and would like feedback on how to improve this cricket article to be ready for GA.

Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The intro is only a few sentences long - is there any chance of expanding it so it's at least a couple paragraphs? Remember that it should sum up every section in the article.
  • "The Nevill Ground is known for having rhododendron bushes around the perimeter." This shouldn't need to be cited in the intro if it's something the grounds are known for. Discuss it in the body of the article as well (perhaps discuss the history of it; why is this done?) and cite it there.
  • "The Nevill Ground was established in 1895 after the purchase of the land by the Tunbridge Wells Cricket, Football and Athletic Club, with assistance from the Bluemantle Cricket Club, on a 99 year lease from the Marquess of Abergavenny as the land was part of his Eridge Park estate." Holy run-on sentence, batman!
  • The 1913 Arson section should be a subsection of the history section.
  • I would change the '1983 World Cup' to a subheading of something like 'Events Hosted', but that's more personal opinion than an actual article issue.--TKK bark ! 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say so. If you are going for good article, make sure all your images use alt text. They also won't like the image of the Bluemantle Stand sandwiching text against the info box. I also personally prefer citations for every sentence, but I see what you've done (citing blocks of texts instead of single sentences) and it's an acceptable way of citing. --TKK bark ! 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gakhwangjeon Hall

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to upgrade it to GA and need a new set of eyes to get to the root of any problems with the article. There are few such articles about Korea related topics, especially National Treasures. I wrote it myself and have consulted all available sources on the topic.

Thanks, Waygugin (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth ulcer

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…lately starting to consider thinking about beginning GA process on this article.

Thanks, lesion (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

Hi! I hope you do eventually bring this article through GAN. I am of the opinion that articles about common medical conditions are among the most valuable on Wikipedia. However, I think there is still a lot of work to be done:

  • More research! The quality of the sources used looks pretty solid, but 9 sources is not enough to build a medical article, especially for a topic as common and well-documented as this.
  • Why is there a section for Differential diagnosis and Diagnostic approach? I would imagine that there is a lot of overlap there.
  • There are some paragraphs in this article that are far too large to be readable. The most glaring example is the Pathophysiology section, which could easily be split into 2 or 3 smaller paragraphs.

If you find this feedback helpful, I would be happy to provide more. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments Cryptic, will take me a day or two to make these edits. When I have done this I will post here again...

As per WT:MED#Clarity...differential diagnosis and diagnostic approach sections advice: "the possible causes (differential diagnosis) and how physicians will normally distinguish between them (diagnostic approach)" so it looks like the info in these sections follows the guidelines.lesion (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done, but reading over this section I think it may need more work. Its a bit all over the place atm.lesion (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Some other areas of potential expansion:

  • Do any recreational drugs (tobacco, methamphetamines, etc.) cause mouth ulcers?
I will re-check these sources, I don't remember them mentioning recreational drugs, but you are probably correct for some.
  • Is surgery ever used to treat mouth ulcers? If not, why not?
An ulcerating tumor would require surgery and/or radiotherapy. I can add this to the malignancy section. Most other causes of ulceration there is no point in excising the lesions, since they will just reform in other areas of the mouth...
This is not a single disease or condition as such, but a general term for a great many different processes. As such there does not seem to be any epidemiologic data for something that almost certainly affects everyone at many times during life. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis is a specific type of ulceration that has been the subject of epidemiological studies, however this has its own page. It might be better to delete the epidemiology section here altogether, unless a suitable source is found.lesion (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Osteoradionecrosis is the term for when area of bone does not heal from this damage." Two problems here: First, it appears that there is a missing word between "when" and "area". Perhaps "the" or "an"? Second, I don't understand how this is relevant to mouth ulcers. Does osteoradionecrosis cause ulceration? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this section slightly, it was confusing before... Lesion (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some inconsistencies in the references that should be fixed:
    • Ref 1 used "Inc." while Ref 2 uses "Incorporated"
    • Ref 3 says "2nd ed. ed."
    • Ref 3 says "Chicago: Quintessence Pub.Co.", shouldn't there be a space in "Pub. Co."?
    • Ref 4 says "Scully, Crispian (2008). "14"." Why is that 14 in quotes? I don't know what it refers to.
    • Some refs give initials as "AB", while others use "A.B."
    • Some refs use semicolons to separate authors, but Ref 5 does not, making it very difficult to discern which names belong to which author.
    • Ref 11 lists the pages as "pp. 7–8, 25, 35, 41, 43–44, 51–56." There are too many distinct pages used for this to exist as a single footnote. {{rp}} is very handy for this sort of thing.
  • A one paragraph lead is too short for an article of this size (or any size, really). Related, the lead should summarize important points from all of the top-level sections of the article. Once the body of the article is stable, both of these issues can be fixed easily by picking a few more nuggets from the body, inserting them into the lead, and breaking it up into paragraphs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues with refs are now fixed...I normally dont pay any attention to what is being autofilled after enterring teh PMID. I will take more care from now on, these issues are hard to correct. Instead I think I will paste the authors direct from the pubmed listing into the "last=" field for standardization: Zbar AP, Ben-Horin S, Beer-Gabel M, Eliakim R. Yes could easily have some stuff about treatment in lead. I will think of other stuff to put in there too. Lesion (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kalmus

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this is my first article and I would like to improve it. Plus I am having a specific problem with formatting the References section and do not understand how to get the list to number correctly.

Thanks, Admiralquirk (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admiral. Hopefully someone more familiar with the peer review process will come by, but in the meanwhile I'll provide a few tips:
  • RE citation formatting, Wikipedia:Citation templates might help
  • Watch out for proper period placement and spacing with citations. This happens a lot with newcomers. Examples: "ge[1]." instead of "ge.[1]" or "stP [1]" instead of "stP[1]"
  • Try to avoid non-neutral language like "notable achievements" or "noted British particle physicist" or "well-known." For example, instead of saying "noted" tell us what he is noteworthy for.
  • The structure seems a bit odd to me. Instead of having two career sections, I would try to break it out chronologically. Awards could be integrated into the subject's history as well
  • The article is really large for having only five citations. An article of that size might - in some cases- have 50-100 citations. More research could really boost the article.
Hope this helps and welcome to Wikipedia! If you ever need help with anything, I'm around. CorporateM (Talk) 02:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almon Harris Thompson

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the subject is of significant importance to the history of the United States and the article is extremely well referenced. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I think the article needs further work and expansion to do full justice to an interesting subject. It is, however, a promising beginning. Detailed comments follow:

General
  • The lead needs some expansion, to summarise all the main material in the article. At present it is more a summary of Thompson's achievements than a summary of the article.
  • Citations: it is a general rule that every paragraph should end with a citation; this is not the case in several instances. You should either add citations or rearrange the prose so that the citation comes at the end.
Prose
Lead
  • To avoid close repetition of "expedition", perhaps "a federally-funded venture"?
Early life and education
  • "Later, his family moved to Southborough, Worcester, Massachusetts (1848–1856)..." The parenthetical dates create some ambiguity. It would be better to say: "In 1848 his family moved to Southborough, Worcester, Massachusetts, which was his home until 1856".
  • Likewise, the second parenthetical dates would be better as "Bewteen 1857 and 1861 Thompson attended Wheaton College in Illinois..."
  • In what circumstances did he meet Powell? Fellow-students, or...what?
  • In the general text, refer to the subject as "Thompson", not "Almon H. Thompson"
  • "noting his residence" → "giving his residence"
  • "He was commissioned as an officer..." You can probably lose "as an officer"
  • Was he engaged in any military activity during his five months' enlistment? If not, citing him as a Civil War veteran in the opening sentence, on the basis of five months' non-combatant service, looks dubious.
  • "First lieutenant" not "1st Lieutenant". You can wikilink to the rank
  • Clarify whether the census indicates that the Thompson and Powell families were living together in the same house, or merely in the same town. Who was Emma Powell?
Expeditions
  • The article is somewhat lacking in detail in places. For example, you give no details of the size or make-up of either of the two expeditions discussed. With regard to the second expedition, you mention in the lead that it was federally funded, but there is nothing about this in the main text. Was Powell commissioned by the federal government to carry out the expedition, or did he apply for federal support? Such would be useful background information.
  • No need to spell out "John Wesley Powell" after initial mention, nor to repeat the link
  • "put together" → "organized"
  • "Because Powell was often away from the work site, Thompson was often in charge." This has more or less been said in the previous sentence"
  • "In addition to the river survey, Thompson also..." Delete "also"
  • "In Chapter X: Report on a Trip to the Mouth of the Dirty Devil River in the Exploration of the Colorado River of the West..." What is this "Chapter X" of? Chapter headings should be given in quotes.
  • The very short paragraphs in the latter part of this section could usefully be combined.
  • "They were both listed as members of the Illinois State Association for Schoolmasters in 1873–1874." A somewhat inconsequential fact?
  • "focusing on" is awkward wording - could be simply "for"
  • "The April 25, 1878 Winfield (KS) Courier..." should be rendered "The Winfield (Kansas) Courier of April 25, 1878..." Non-US readers won't know what KS stands for.
After the Powell Expeditions
  • Section title should be "After the Powell expeditions"
  • "under the new USGS director, John Wesley Powell" again the issues about Powell's full name and overlinking. Suggest rephrase: "under Powell, who had become the USGS director"
  • First paragraph has too many very short senetnces. Redraft for a better flow.
  • "Later, Thompson was..." Give a date or year, rather than the vague "later"
  • Do you "author" a map? I think they are "designed"
  • "...measurements that could be used in determining the irrigable land". I'm not sure what "determining the irrigable land" means - can you clarify?
National Geographic Society
  • "He was one of several signatories on an invitation to meet on January 13, 1888" Clarify who was being invited to the meeting?
  • "...created the plan for the National Geographic Society". I'm not sure that "created the plan" is the best expression here.
Later years
  • Very scanty section which I am sure could be beefed up. For example, to whom did Thompson submit his report, and for what organisation were the field offices established?
  • To what position does "this post" refer?
Naming of geographic locations
  • Again Powell overnamed and overlinked
  • "Thompson", not "A. H. Thompson"
Legacy
  • Content suggests "tributes" rather than "legacy"
Gallery

The gallery images would be much more effective if reallocated to the text in appropriate places.

I hope these comments are helpful. As I do not watch individual reviews, please contact my talkpage if you have questions arising from this review, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Buna–Gona

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I put a lot of effort into improving it over a year ago and it's still rated C-class. I think it merits a better rating but would appreciate some fresh eyes and perspective about remaining improvements that can be made.

Thanks, — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 17:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, good work so far. I have the following suggestions/comments:

  • I think the main thing at the moment that is keeping it from a higher rating is the referencing. There appear to be a few areas that need referencing, for instance (If the citations could be added, I believe it would rate B class):
    • "It rained up to 10 inches (250 mm) daily."
    • Green tickY "Some blockhouses were covered in earth that protected them from artillery fire and concealed with fast-growing jungle vegetation. Blockhouses covered in earth concealed four or five machine gun emplacements and could hold 20–30 soldiers."
    • Green tickY "Other intelligence he received him to believe that Buna was held by about 1000 sick and malnourished soldiers. Unfamiliar with the state of Japanese defences, Lt. Gen.Richard K. Sutherland, MacArthur’s chief of staff, glibly referred to these fortifications as "hasty field entrenchments.""
    • "from the 5th Yokosuka and 5th Sasebo Special Naval Landing Forces"
    • Green tickY "Buna was Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur's first ground offensive campaign against Japanese troops in World War II."
    • Green tickY "The 32nd was not trained, equipped or prepared to fight in the jungle nor taught Japanese tactics."
    • "They did not encounter a single enemy soldier, but more than ⅔ of their men became casualties, sick with malaria, dengue fever, bush typhus, amoebic dysentery, bacillary, along with jungle rot, dobie itch, trench foot, athlete's foot and ringworm."
    • "Major General Edwin F. Harding and his artillery commander—Brig. Gen. Samuel Waldron—finally persuaded MacArthur's headquarters to break down one 105 mm howitzer and fly it to Pongani, where it was moved closer to Buna for fire support. They also borrowed eight 25-pounder guns from the Australians."
    • Green tickY "Col. Leif Sverdrup set out from Abau on foot with 190 men, including Flight Lieutenant M. J. Leahy, an expert on Papua, who knew many of the tribal chiefs personally. They reached Fasari on 18 October and hired local villages to clear the site by burning the bush and clearing a few stumps."
    • Green tickY "Situated in the coastal area south of Cape Endaiadere, on a line running inland to Sinemi Creek, this became known as the Warren Force."
    • "This group, named the Urbana Force, were charged with defending Soputa and with the subsequent attack on Sanananda."
    • "Fighting was bitter from the outset: the Australian 7th Division took 204 casualties in the first three days of its thrust."
    • "On 20 November, MacArthur—operating from his comfortable headquarters in Port Moresby—ordered Harding to attack "regardless of losses". The following day, he sent another missive to Harding, telling him to "take Buna today at all costs". General Edmund Herring arrived at the American front on 25 November and reported that the American infantry had "maintained a masterly inactivity at Buna"."
    • "Despite the lack of progress made by U.S. and Australian forces, naval support remained unavailable."
    • "The attack made some progress but was finally halted by the Japanese."
    • "On 29 November, the Japanese were reinforced by the remaining 500 troops from the South Seas Detachment (mostly the 41st Infantry Regiment under Colonel Kiyomi Yazawa), which had led the Kokoda Track campaign and retreated to the sea at a point north of Gona. They were shuttled by boat to the Sananada stronghold."
    • "These and other reports did not mollify Eichelberger's view of the situation. Eichelberger arrived in Buna to inspect the troops on 2 December."
    • Green tickY "Martin and Rogers returned from the Warren front to the 32nd Division headquarters at Dobodura at 22:00 to find that Eichelberger had already relieved Harding of command. Eichelberger replaced him with the division's artillery commander, General Waldron. Eichelberger also sacked the regimental commanders and most battalion commanders, ordered improved food and medical supplies, and halted operations on the Buna front for two days, to allow units to reorganise."
    • "On the same day, 500 Japanese reinforcements, in the form of the inexperienced 21st Independent Mixed Brigade (based on the 170th Infantry Regiment), arrived at Gona under Maj. Gen. Kurihanao Yamagata. The Japanese fought tenaciously and the 32nd Division lost 392 personnel within the first two weeks."
    • Green tickY "Sergeant Bottcher and his troops fought off attacks for seven days, taking over enemy machine guns for their own use. Bottcher was wounded twice before he was relieved. His unit had killed 120 Japanese, and his successful defence of the beach enabled the rest of the division to advance to the beach."
    • Green tickY "The tide of the battle of Buna had finally turned and Bottcher was awarded the battlefield commission of captain and his first of two Distinguished Service Cross Medals. A plaque was later placed at the entrance to Buna Village in memory of his actions that day."
    • "Although they were successful in establishing the roadblock, the Japanese maintained their position, receiving resupply through the swamp."
    • " By now, illness and low morale was taking its toll and the 126th were retired on 22 December"
    • Green tickY "The commanding officer of Company C was killed. Eichelberger later wrote that "the fighting was desperate and the outcome of the whole miserable, tortured campaign was in doubt"."
    • "Privately, MacArthur constantly pressured Eichelberger to act quickly and obtain results. Eichelberger recorded multiple instances when MacArthur urged him to hasten his efforts to rapidly defeat the Japanese. Having never visited the front, MacArthur sent his Chief of Staff—Richard K. Sutherland—with a letter for Eichelberger which Sutherland delivered on Christmas Day."
    • "Of the 635 American troops who engaged the Japanese, only 244 effective troops remained by the end of December."
    • "On 14 January, the Allies discovered that most of the Japanese defenders had left and quickly overran the junction stronghold now held by only 158 Japanese."
    • Green tickY "Two NCOs from the 32nd Division—both of them killed in action near Buna (1st Sgt Elmer J. Burr and Sgt Kenneth E. Gruennert)—were later awarded the Medal of Honor. Herman Bottcher was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross twice. Allied operations against Japanese forces in New Guinea, including Operation Cartwheel and the Salamaua-Lae campaign, continued through 1945."
  • I also have a few other comments/observations that are more geared towards GA:
    • Green tickY At seven paragraphs, the lead is too long. Four paragraphs is the maximum apparently according to WP:LEAD. I suggest trying to consolidate a couple of the paragraphs in the lead;
    • Green tickY The Citations and References sections seem a little repetitious. There also appear to be a mixture of a few styles in the Citations section.
    • Green tickY Be careful of overlinking. The duplicate link checker tool identified quite a few (some examples listed): Guadalcanal Campaign; Kokoda Track campaign; Port Moresby; Chester Nimitz; Special Naval Landing Forces; Douglas MacArthur;
    • Green tickY is the See also link relevant? If so, it should probably be worked into the article with some explanation/context, otherwise I'd suggest just removing it. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Green tickY Just some copyediting notes from me, although reviewers won't care about much of this until you get to A-class:
  • Green tickY "The Battle of Buna – Gona was a battle", "New Guinea campaign, a major part of the Pacific campaign": try to avoid "the battle ... was a battle" and "campaign ... campaign". See WP:Checklist#repetition.
  • Green tickY "Both forces": You've mentioned three forces at this point ... which two? Both force
  • Green tickY "The Japanese were under pressure to hold Guadalcanal, which had forced them to withdraw their forces when they were within sight of Port Moresby.": See WP:Checklist#because. Instead of saying the pressure forced them, just say that they withdrew the forces for use at Guadalcanal.
  • Green tickY "the Japanese had built on the north coast hundreds ...": That's more of a German construction than good English. One fix is to move "on the north coast" to the end of the sentence.
  • Green tickY "Because of poor intelligence, Allied Supreme Commander MacArthur and his staff vastly underestimated the number of defenders": See WP:Checklist#because. I'd go with: "Allied Supreme Commander MacArthur and his staff received poor intelligence reports and vastly underestimated the number of defenders"
  • Green tickY "beginning on 16 November": you don't need to give the date again. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updates
Many of the items you cite as needing citations are referenced in adjacent references. I will see which statements are egregiously missing references and update them as necessary. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, can you please clarify what you mean by adjacent references? If you mean the references that come before the sentences I listed, then in my experience that won't be understood as applying to a sentence that comes after it. In that case, I would suggest just simply moving it to the end of the paragraph, or using a duplicate reference. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant the references in the following sentence or 1 or 2 sentences afterward. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadalive

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it promoted to FA one of these days. I've been working on it for about a year now, and it's a GA, as well as an A-class article. I just underwent its first copyedit. Any assistance would be excellent. Thank you, Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Would you consider the "series' overarching alien mythology" as a story arc? I've seen it referred to as such.
  • "viewed by 12.4 million viewers" bit repetitive with the "view..." thing.
  • " After the body of alien abductee Billy Miles's (Zachary Ansley) body" too many bodies?
  • "threatens Skinner with nanobots" not sure what that means really. If someone threatened me with nanobots, I'd just squish them and carry on...
  • You wait to the third para to link "alien" and "abduction".
  • You link vital signs in the main body but not in the lead, why?
  • "In the previous episode" you mean "In the final episode of the previous series" or something similar.
  • Image captions which aren't complete sentences shouldn't have a period.
  • "burying the man[…]just " spaces...
  • Not sure there's a genuine need for a picture of strawberry jam.
  • Is it Miles's or Miles'?
  • What is "a Swiss facial mask"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. How does the article look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Meanwhile, rogue FBI agent Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) uses Skinner nanobot blood infection as leverages tries to get him to kill Scully's unborn child." -- I think there is a missing/incorrect word here (I'm not sure what it's trying to say)
  • "...causing the veins in Skinner's neck bulge, making him stumble." -- I think you mean "causing the veins in Skinner's neck to bulge, making him stumble."?
  • Scully gets a new lab report, which says that Miles has (literally) became a new person. -- I don't understand this -- new DNA?
  • Spotnitz later called the directing "fantastic" - a little clarity; -> Spotnitz later called the directing of "Deadalive" "fantastic"
  • "an 11-percent share" dash isn't needed Ruby 2010/2013 22:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a ton! I believe I have got them all.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.


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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like this to achieve a featured list status. It would certainly help out for Wikiprojects West Virginia. Many thanks

Thanks, Coal town guy (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... give me a few days ... Truthkeeper (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Hi, Coal town guy - you've have a nice beginning here. A few initial comments:[reply]

References and sources:

  • The first thing I noticed is that footnotes 1 and 10 to 26 are bare URLs. Those all have to be formatted.
  • Sources such as "find a grave" are not considered reliable. Not sure about genealogy sites, but all this information exists in books and should be cited to the best sources possible.

Lead:

  • I think the lead needs some expansion and re-organization. There's quite a bit of history involved in the choosing of the counties that I guess happened at the Wheeling Convention, the result of which gave WV it's distinctive shape. This book on google books gives more history in the chapter "The Thirty-fifth State". You should be able to view it. Also a search on google books for WV counties shows a lot of results, [1].
  • Consider reorganizing the lead so that all the historical background is together in one paragraph, and information about the county sizes (largest & smallest) kept in another paragraph.
  • I think the material about permitting the creation of a new county should, if possible, be sourced to something other than the WV constitution - maybe a secondary source?
  • Suggest scaling down the image to be more in line with List of counties in Massachusetts, which is FL.
  • Suggest trying to follow List of counties in Massachusetts format in regards to writing the lead. Eventually some copyediting will be required, but I wouldn't worry about that until the material is all in place and then consider listing at GOCE for a copyedit.

More later .... Truthkeeper (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that now, in addition to some cite refs. I will be removing the find a grave sites for certain, No genealogy cittions will be used,because I contribute to those part time as well and thats a great info source, BUT NOT 100% reliable in the sense of an encyclopedia. I have an autographed copy of the 35th state. Not much on the shape of the actual state or specifics on county formation, HOWEVER, I think I can find another source for county formation requiremets besides the constitution itself if thats the issueCoal town guy (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good. There is quite a lot in the link I added about county formations. The title of the book is West Virginia: A History by Otis K. Rice, Stephen W. Brown. It seems to be previewable on google books and I'm sure available in any local library. I'd assume too that any local library would have the information that's needed. I'll add another batch of comments tomorrow. Still thinking this through a bit. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found an excellent book source for the criteria of forming a WV county. Additionally, I can use my own first edition 1890's copy of WV History by Virgil Lewis......The Rice book has an excellent blurb on the formation of WV and the county resistance to the new state even after its admission to the union, I have a copy of that as well here at the house....Coal town guy (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. You might be able to find something more recent in the library as well. Interlibrary loan is great for this kind of thing if your library doesn't have it. And reference librarians will always help - particularly if you tell them what you need the information for.

Lead map

  • It's boosted a bit high and should be shrunk a bit. Also, have a look at the lead map in List of counties in Utah where some color is used for contrast. Something like that would be nice.

Table:

  • It appears that some of the table columns are larger than needed (i.e. the one for date) and others are smaller than needed (i.e. etymology). I had a look at the tables in List of counties in Massachusetts and List of counties in Utah because both are FL. The Massachusetts one doesn't set parameters for the column width, the Utah one does. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to spend some time playing around with the mark-up to resize the columns.

Additional

  • If former counties existed that are now part of either VA, PA, Maryland, or Ohio, that should be added somewhere. I see that the Utah list does this in a separate table which might be a good way to go. I'm not that familiar but seem to have a vague idea that maybe there were some counties that didn't join WV and stayed with VA or Maryland? Garrett for instance is one I've always wondered about.
Got that covered with a book ref or 2 already. No counties were cut, but some did resistCoal town guy (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a suggestion and something the other counties lists don't have - but would be nice to fit in a column with a picture from each county. It's a beautiful state - but feel free to ignore this because I don't really see how it can fit. You might try doing something like a panorama at the bottom of the table. An example is in the article Alps - panorama is placed below a table in one of the sections. Would be great to see something like that to make it pop.

Referencing

  • The citations all have to be written out in a consistent manner with consistently formatted retrieval dates (i.e either February 6th, 2013 or 2013-2-6 - but don't match styles). If websites. The Utah counties list is a particularly good example for this.

I think I'm almost done, but will have another look tomorrow and add additional comments if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the col spacing, no problem, however, and in all candid honesty, I SUCK at formatting and colors. I did not want to shrink the map too much more as it is clickable and we are talking about 55 counties....IMO, too small a map would detract from the function. As to color, I would LOVE to use WV colors (surprise!) which would look ver cool in contrasting the map. As always I am very graeful, and will also take a peek at the date formatting. I have started to get away from web pages as refs as my library here at home is rather good.Coal town guy (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that with 55 counties, all clickable, it needs to be fairly large. But there's a lot of white space around the edges, partially because of the shape of the state. Maybe the people at the graphic lab would help with a redesign.Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point its wikilinking some names and double checking some of pop stats for each county. They originally had a TX ref for FIPS not WV....SO, I am certain the pop stats are OK, but want to be very certain. Otherwise, I ytook your suggestions about the other FL's and did some formattinf and fleshed out the intro. I am however grateful for this little gem, I get to read more of my WV texts here at home. I started my Phd in Apalchian Studies but stopped due to family issue. I got a decent library, and BONUS, get to use it. Do you think after the copyedit, I can take it out of peer review and submit for FL candidacy????Coal town guy (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs a bit of tidying, but is coming along nicely. The peer review bot will automatically close the review two weeks after the last comment is made, and I suppose if you want it closed earlier then someone could do that - it's not anything I've ever done myself. I probably won't get to the copyedit until the weekend or maybe later, but in the meantime try listing at GOCE to see whether someone there picks it up. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the chances are it will make it?Coal town guy (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just posted at GOCE, wish me luck. MANY MANY thanks to EVERYONE who has been helping thus far. AFTER GOCE, I will ask for help to get it sent to FL nominationCoal town guy (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the peer review finished? All- I wanted to ask if all of the concerns of this Peer Review have been met and addressed. IF thats the case, I will close this and submit the list for FL candidacy. A Copy Edit was performed by the GOCE.HOWEVER, ANY other editing, is always welcomedCoal town guy (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bade Achhe Lagte Hain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see this article as a GA. Please help!

Thanks, Tamravidhir (২০১২) 15:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laborintus II

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Didn't foresee much for this one past GA, but the reviewer indicated that FA status wouldn't be beyond it, so I figured I may as well go for a peer review to see about that viability. This is an article about a recording of a pretty avant garde piece of music (while it doesn't deal with the composition as its primary subject, it does cover it to a good extent), which seems to have tentatively poked the mainstream without actually following through. I'm wondering about both the scope of the article (is it broad enough to cover FA standards? should it focus more or less on the original composition rather than this particular recording?) and about its quality. Looking forward to anything that can be picked apart or offered. GRAPPLE X 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I would just double-check WP:LEAD, this isn't a huge article so I wonder if just two paras is sufficient.
    Could easily be dropped to two, but I'd probably end up keeping the same information and just rearranging it as two paragraphs if that were the case.
  • " by Mike Patton and Ictus Ensemble. It is a recording of Luciano Berio's 1965.." who are these people? You could introduce them e.g. American singer, Italian composer... whatever. To a complete outsider, it's a little hard to understand the significance of these people.
    Jiggered about a bit to add this kind of context. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has been described as" attribution please.
    Caught it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "débuted" debut is an English word now, we don't need that accent.
    Fair enough; I figured it was really an ENGVAR thing on whether the accent was retained but I could well be wrong. In either case I've cut it out. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " this recital included car tyres and a blow-up doll on stage" not sure how much that added musically, was it a case of the performance was more stage art, so it had some bizarre stuff going on at the same time as the music? It's a little unclear to me (sorry)....
    Yeah, that's just non-musical stage dressing. If it's not adding anything I could lose it, I had just thought it might be useful to add what I could find of the original performance. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the track listing template meet WP:ACCESS for tables, per MOS:DTT?
    Going to have to look into this one. It's a pretty high-use template so I'd assume that it would be, but I'll make sure and get back to you on that. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Template:Track listing. Between myself and Dodoïste, it seems that the template meets any requirements, for accessibility. GRAPPLE X 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 is unreferenced.
    Added a ref; it was meant to be covered by the ref beside it in the text but I've re-used this in the note just to cover it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allrovi -> AllRovi.
    Replaced. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 has pages 1 to 22, but refs 7 and 8 are a subset of that. Any point in doing that?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 11 is meant to cover the entirety of the packaging (so as to show an absence through an exhaustive listing), while 7 and 8 refer to specific quotes on individual pages. I'm not keen on using longer page ranges just to keep a reflist shorter, as it makes things a bit easier to verify when precise pages are listed.
    Thanks for taking the time to have a look at this one, I appreciate it. GRAPPLE X 23:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Crozier

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping one day to turn this into a GA. I have expanded this article and I would greatly appreciate any tips on how to infinitely improve this article in any way.

Thanks, Heroman26 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead is far too short, check out WP:LEAD, it should be at least two weighty paragraphs summarising the article.
  • Image in the infobox could use a caption.
  • Year ranges (in the headings for example) should use an en-dash, not a hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • "Roger Crozier was identified" no need to repeat Roger.
  • Apply WP:YEAR to the career section of the infobox.
  • Season year ranges should use en-dashes.
  • "In 1959-60, " links to a Memorial Cup article, too much Easter egg for me.
  • CPHL is a dab link.
  • "looked to bounce back" etc, reads like a tabloid paper.
  • Stats section could use compliance with MOS:DTT per WP:ACCESS so screen readers can read rows and columns (using row and col scopes).
  • Ref titles should use en-dashes were appropriate.
  • Succession boxes are awful, think about incorporating their "content" into the article.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, thanks for your input. I'll go fix those things now. Heroman26 (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KFC

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed Good Article status, but recently failed its Featured Article nomination. I want to get it to Featured Article status, and would appreciate any comments that will help to improve the article.

Thanks, Farrtj (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Service to Music Medal

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was failed at GAN since it seems to be more of a list than an article, and it was suggested that I take it to WP:FLC. I would like to have it peer reviewed first so I can get input on how to make sure it's ready for FLC.

Thanks, Sycamore (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments many questions, some comments...

  • Coming at this with total ignorance, is this medal significant outside the fraternity? It looks like all but one of the refs are primary sources.
  • How often are the medals awarded?
  • Are the medals accompanied by anything, a prize etc?
  • Is there a positive effect after an award on the recipient? e.g. more sales, more prominence, etc?
  • Lots of capital letters (e.g. "Concert Band") is that really needed?
  • Meredith Wilson is missing an "l".
  • "Following is a list of recipients of the award from 1965 "... first item is "1963–65".
  • With so few notable recipients, is this list really notable?
  • Caillet seems to be one "i" short.
  • How frequently is the award presented?
  • What is the format of the presentation?
  • How is it chosen?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to The Rambling Man Coming at this with total ignorance, is this medal significant outside the fraternity? It looks like all but one of the refs are primary sources.

  • It is significant in the wind band world. Most recipients include that fact in their professional bios. I had been looking for more secondary sources, but that's been on the back burner for me lately.
    • Updated with a secondary source replacing one use of a primary source. Now the only things referenced to primary sources are 1. the complete list of recipients (this could be sourced independently but would likely take individual references for each recipient which isn't worth the effort or citation clutter, in my opinion); 2. the precise language of what it is awarded for, found in the infobox; and 3. the fact that two recipients have been awarded the DSMM in more than one category. Also, if you search Google Books for ("Kappa Kappa Psi" "Distinguished Service"), you can find several books and journals related to bands that can support this award's significance to its field.

How often are the medals awarded?

  • At the discretion of the KKPsi National Council, based on nominations and eligibility.

Are the medals accompanied by anything, a prize etc?

  • No monetary prize, no. Awardees receive the medal and a plaque.

Is there a positive effect after an award on the recipient? e.g. more sales, more prominence, etc?

  • I don't know of a study that has examined the DSMM's effect on a recipient, but I wouldn't doubt that it lends a degree of prominence.

Lots of capital letters (e.g. "Concert Band") is that really needed?

  • Perhaps not, but the capitalization is taken from the official categories used by the fraternity. It can be changed if it's against MOS or there's consensus to do so.

Meredith Wilson is missing an "l".

  • Fixed.

"Following is a list of recipients of the award from 1965 "... first item is "1963–65".

  • Fixed.

With so few notable recipients, is this list really notable?

  • Most recipients are notable within the American wind band field, but many do not have Wikipedia articles. That doesn't mean they are not notable, just that Wikipedia has a lack of articles for members of this field.

Caillet seems to be one "i" short.

  • Fixed.

How frequently is the award presented?

  • Any time at the discretion of the KKPsi National Council.

What is the format of the presentation?

  • There is no formal format of the presentation. From what I can gather, it is often presented by the fraternity's National Executive Director. There is only one video of a presentation (to William V. Johnson) that I have found, which can be viewed here, and picture of another (to Joseph P. Missal) here.

How is it chosen?

  • By a vote of the KKPsi National Council (5 members: 4 elected, 1 appointed) based on nominations, usually received from within the membership but there is no stipulation that nominations must be internal.

Sycamore (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to take it to FAC sometime soon. Thanks, Plant's Strider (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll give this article a look-over as soon as I can, which may not be until Saturday. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help get this to FA-level too. I will give more detailed comments later, for now the main issues I see from a glance are the lead (too much importance to recent events, esp that O2 concert), "2000s and beyond" (coverage of the 02 concert can be tighter) and "Legacy" (starts off as a dull list of band-names, and ends with a list of minor fashion-trends).—indopug (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to take it further up the quality ladder (it's currently a GA). In particular, I'd like some input on whether anything is obviously missing from the article, and whether it makes sense to both music and MilHist people. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment. The article includes 28 citations to a pair of newspaper articles by Ed Vulliamy. He does not cite his sources. Where did his information come from? Aren't there better sources? Aa77zz (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there are, I haven't found them yet. I've tried to replace these with other sources where available, but usually there aren't any available. I believe most of the information in those articles came from interviews with people involved. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt

I had the pleasure to get to know this article as Peace music and to review it for DYK. For higher qualification:

Hey Gerda, thanks for commenting. I've expanded the lead slightly and amended the heading. A composition infobox for a concert? I think the article's better off without one. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, like the lead! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Tim riley

Having been grateful for so many citation reviews by Nikkimaria, it is a pleasure to be able to reciprocate in a small way here.

  • Title
    • The Oxford English Dictionary lists both "première" and "premiere". I prefer to use – as you do – the grave accent, and the MoS doesn't, as far as I can find, pronounce on the matter. But I'm pretty sure that for words such as "première/premiere" that have been more or less absorbed into English there is a fairly solid consensus against your view and mine, and the accent tends to be dropped in English WP articles. [Later: I see Brianboulton has made the same point above, but I leave my comment as first drawn because the point struck me quite strongly on first reading the article.]
  • Lead
    • If you're aiming for FAC I think you need to beef the lead up. Having just two paras totalling only 130 words or so is less than par.
  • Background
    • "broadcast première in Europe by Sir Henry J. Wood" – feel free to ignore this completely, but to my eye piping the "Sir" is easier on the reader's eye than not doing so. Thus Sir Henry Wood rather than Sir Henry Wood – in which I think the latter breaks flow slightly. Tangentially, Wood styled himself "Henry J. Wood", as you have done, but after much to-ing and fro-ing we have called his WP article just "Henry Wood".
    • "in London" – I'd lose the blue link: see WP:OVERLINK
    • "took place … by the NBC Symphony Orchestra" – perhaps "was given … by the NBC Symphony Orchestra"?
  • "Preparation
    • "The hiatus on musical broadcasts – I wonder if "…hiatus in…" would read more naturally?
    • "three performers died while rehearsals were ongoing.[25][23][26][11]" – bundling would be tricky, perhaps, but if you really want four references they ought to be in numerical order.
    • "traditional symphonic works by Ludwig van Beethoven, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov" – purely a matter of personal preference, but I'd pipe these three composers to leave just their surnames visible to the reader. But of course ignore me if you think otherwise.
    • "Some musicians protested…" – it isn't plain until one reaches the later words about the rations that the musicians who protested were members of the orchestra; worth making clear, I think. Just substituting "players" for "musicians" would do the job.
  • Performance
    • "a lavish banquet at the Astoria Hotel" – I'd be inclined to add "Leningrad" after the name of the hotel: as the wording stands it might have been a Nazi celebration in Berlin or elsewhere.

I found myself unexpectedly moved at certain points of this article. I learned a lot from it, and I shall watch its progress with interest and enthusiasm. If you take it further please leave me a note: I'd be glad to contribute at FAC in due course. – Tim riley (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Tim - I believe I've implemented all of them, save for the accent issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll back you up on the grave accent at FAC, but I don't think we'll win! Tim riley (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugetsu

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because recently there has been substantial interest in improving this article from several editors. It would be great to get objective third-party opinions about the article to give guidance for how to best improve it.

Thanks, JoshuSasori (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:POINT. You are clearly just posting this here in order to continue undermining my edits to the article. Whether or not the article is good now, it doesn't mean it is "complete" and nothing new can be added. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, my other peer review ended and I want to get comments. Please note that User:Ribbet32 and User:Deoliveirafan (self-identifying as anon IP editor) have both contributed much more substantial edits to the article than you. No disruption intended. JoshuSasori (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted all my edits, no matter how minor, to this and most other Japanese film articles. How can I work on making substantial edits when I have to deal with your WP:HOUNDING like this? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's too short and needs more content. I don't think its even a C yet. I persoanlly don't think that its ready for a Peer Review and think that JoshuSasori and Elvenscout should just get a room already. They clearly deserve each other.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuSasori can't respond because he's been blocked for making what appeared to be a real-world threat. He and I haven't been getting along, it is true, but I have only ever been genuinely interested in improving this and other articles, and I assume the same is true of him. If you think my edits to the article have been unconstructive please feel free to revert them and find new sources for all of the awards, etc. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I am very interested in helping to expand the article. Normally with this kind of topic we can just translate Japanese Wikipedia in order to expand the article, and then find sources (has anyone else noticed that Japanese Wikipedia is really bad on referencing!?), but in this case the Japanese article was started last year (apparently split from the article on the book, and inspired by English Wikipedia), and is quite bare, so we're down a rabbit hole. I liked Ribbet's Ebert addition -- I'll probably check tonight if Tadao Sato said anything about the film and try adding that. But apart from various critics' opinions on the film, what do you think we can do? elvenscout742 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I apologize. I was just teasing. He's been rude to me in the past, while I'm never interacted with you before. Anyway, I added some info about the film from the only Mizoguchi biography that I had at my disposal, but there was very little real info about the production. But i rented the Criterion DVD last week and hopefully will get around to adding more content this weekend.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the feeling. Over on Kuroneko I wanted to improve the article and actually bought a copy of the director's diary, but it was mostly along the lines of "Today we shot at xyz temple, and then we went back to Abc's apartment for dinner. When I got home I read Kwaidan: Stories and Studies of Strange Things in English. It was fun." elvenscout742 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre productions of Dan Leno

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


This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian and Victorian stage actor was chiefly known for his many dame pantomime roles that were popular at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. Earlier last year, I significantly contributed to the main article and co-nominated it at FAC, where it was promoted to FA status. As I went along, I researched his many theatre productions and have compiled this short list which now supports the main article. I feel confident that this list is a thorough and comprehensive collection of Leno's theatrical productions and plan in the future to submit it for WP:FLC consideration. Before doing so however, I invite any comments and suggestions at this peer review which would be greatly received. Thanks, CassiantoTalk 11:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Leno has another sub-article called Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SchroCat
Looks fairly solid, with only a few minor tweaks here and there.
Lead

  • Looks OK

Table

  • Roles: The table should probably sort by surname
  • Fortunatus: Royal Colosseum: Are you sure on the spelling of Colosseum / Coliseum? (I appreciate that it may be a non-standard spelling, but as long as you're sure)
  • Jack the Giant Killer: "preceded the pantomime.[19] which"—should be a comma, not a full stop
  • Jack and the Beanstalk: Any reason why these are "By xxx", while the previous ones have been "Written by xxx"?
  • For the ones that state "By", the sources don't suggest "Written by", so I have not assumed. With Will Leno, it says "Written by". I think consistency is key here so I have swapped the two Leno ones. -- CassiantoTalk 17:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little Bo-Peep: "co starring" should be hyphenated; " for its lengthy script[32] which": comma after script?
  • The Forty Thieves doesn't sort properly—it should sort on Forty.

Refs

  • May be worth using {{ODNBsub}} the for the DNB reference, rather than {{subscription}}
  • Compare fns 12 and 40: one is "Anthony, p. 88;" one is "Brandreth, p. 69." I'm not sure whether semi-colon or full stop is correct, but it should be consistent. (42 and 46 use the semi colon)

Sources

  • Capitalisation needs sorting on "English Plays of the Nineteenth Century: Pantomimes, extravaganzas, and burlesques; volume 5 of English Plays of the Nineteenth Century"

Hope it helps. Let me know when you're sorted and I'll give it another spin. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, guys. It looks pretty sharp now, I'd say. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Questions:

OK, good. Plural it is! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency, I added links to all the pantomime themes, such as nursery rhymes, fairy tales and other title references. Do you like this? If not, we might consider delinking all of them except those that actually refer to the exact work performed, such as Atalanta. Arguably, "Jack the Giant Killer" should also be linked to "Jack and the Beanstalk". Can you see any others that I missed? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. About ready to go to FL, I guess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
.

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm interested in getting feedback in preparation for an eventual featured article bid. Comments on style, substance, or anything in between are welcome and appreciated! Give me a review and you can guilt trip me into giving you one!

Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin: This wasn't a bad game, although I preferred Reach personally. The graphics in Combat Evolved Anniversary looked really crisp compared to the original game, that's for sure! But as for the article, here's my review. Apologies if it isn't as thorough as you'd like it to be. Exams are a nuisance.

  • There are a few "citation needed" tags scattered throughout the Development section that need removing/replacing. Also worth noting is a xbox.com dead link found using the checklinks tool. I'd also recommend that the soundtrack track lists be sourced, even if to a primary source.
  • Sourcing and citations generally look fine, although xboxacheivements.org does not appear to be a strong source. Towards the end of the ref list, there are a few bare urls that should be formatted.
  • Prose is OK for the most part, but needs a some effort to get into tip-top shape. I spotted a few grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies, so a look-over would be beneficial. I'd recommend a thorough copy edit for clarity and cohesion, if you have plans for FA. With that said, I've offered general observations and points from the introduction.
  • Shortened versions of titles and names are always used except for the first occurrence in the body, for which the expanded name is used. So on first instance, say "Halo: Reach", but after that, always write just "Reach". It's more consistent that way. The same applies for 343 Industries (343i) and names of people.
  • "The game reached gold status on October 15, 2011, and was released a month later on November 15, 2011, the 10th anniversary of the original title's launch." – there isn't much point in saying that a game was released a month after a date then giving the date itself that it was released. So, cut "a month later".
  • "After considering remaking the game entirely or a port of the PC version with added features..." – I play computer games, but this isn't clear to me. What is meant by a "port of the PC version"?
  • "Saber decided to overlay their own game engine over the original graphics..." – "own" is needless, since "their" makes the possession clear.
  • "Anniversary's updates to the original title include a complete visual overhaul; support for cooperative and multiplayer gameplay on the Xbox Live online service; new and remastered and sound effects and music; and extras such as achievements, multimedia 'terminals', and other hidden easter eggs." – why is "terminals" in quotation marks?
  • "Reception to Anniversary was generally positive." – what kind of reception? From fans, casual gamers and/or critics?
  • Subject—verb agreement: "The updated graphics, sounds, and ability to toggle between the remastered and original visuals was praised." – should be "were praised".
  • "Complaints included technical glitches, faults with the original game's level design, and the implementation of the game's multiplayer offering." – why would they complain about the original game? Explain? And "and the implementation of the game's multiplayer offering" isn't quite clear to me.
  • "Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary's gameplay and plot are nearly identical to Halo: Combat Evolved, with the addition of new features." – cut "the addition of". Needless phrase IMO.
  • Unless absolutely needed in the context, look for unnecessary adverbs that can be weeded out without altering the meaning. For example, "Players can freely switch between playing the game with the original 'classic' graphics or new graphics by pressing the Back button on the controller"; "Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary was officially announced to the public with a trailer on June 6, 2011".
  • I'd recommend a very brief and run-down plot overview of the game, because the article must stand alone. Many gamers (and readers) hadn't played the original Combat Evolved after all.
  • To me, shortening Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary down to just Anniversary doesn't sound very encyclopedic. There also seems to be some inconsistency of the italicization of "Anniversary" that needs ironing.
  • This is a little repetitious: "In addition to original music from Halo: CE, additional tracks are as below."

Well, that's about it from me. Great work and a very interesting read too. I watch-list any reviews I do, so feel free to leave questions. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I'm working on the issues you brought up now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll surely let you know when I need a helping hand! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this looks in pretty good shape, a few minor comments:
  • The date formats are inconsistent.
  • I'm not sure the paragraph break in the "Audio" section is in the best place, I'd move it.
  • "while the original game had imbalanced elements, 343 Industries decided that preserving the original game experience players remembered was more important than trying to improve on the original." This feels a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it?
  • "redoing keyframed character animations was off-limits because redoing them could introduce gameplay bugs" Some repetition of "redoing" here.
  • Check for logical punctuation, I saw a few commas inside of quotes.
  • "During the promotional period anyone who ordered a Halo pizza received two free days of Xbox Live Gold membership." What is a Halo pizza?
  • Might want to note which St. Petersburg you mean.
  • I made some copyedits, feel free to revert if any of them are problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments (and the copyedit!) I'll see about addressing your concerns today or tomorrow. In regards to "Halo pizza", it's a Halo-branded pizza, or do you mean what toppings, etc. make it a Halo pizza (not a whole lot.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, no need to list the toppings, I tweak the mention slightly.
  • "343 Industries, the internal division, approached Saber Interactive with a proposal to remake Combat Evolved for the game's tenth anniversary." I think "the game's" might be ambiguous here since you've mentioned two games in that paragraph.
  • "Those who pre-ordered the game would receive a code to download John-117's Mark V MJOLNIR armor for their Xbox Live avatars. " I'd consider "received" instead of "would receive" here, but that might be a preference issue.
  • Alright, that's all I have, this looks like it's in pretty good shape. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Yellowstone

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it will soon become a potential Featured Article Candidate

Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria
  • "The U.S. Army presence in Yellowstone 1886-1918, not only established a lasting infrastructure called Fort Yellowstone" - grammar
  •  Done Ranges should use endashes
  •  Done "legal authority to maintain and protect park's natural features" - grammar
  •  Done Wikilink poaching? US Congress?
  •  Done When a MDY date occurs within a sentence, include a comma after the year
  • "at a cost of approximately $700,000" - any idea how much that is today? ($700,000 USA in 1913 equals approximately $16,000,000 USA in 2013)--MONGO 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The increase in size of the army contingent along with increasing visitation, required almost continuous expansion" - grammar
  • "The initial wave of construction between 1891-97 was representative of typical U.S. Army posts of the time...and typical of most western military posts of the period" - seems redundant
  •  Done "the largest structures in the fort where built" - grammar
  •  Done "Proactive actions by the army in stopping poaching in the park led to the passing of the Lacey Act of 1894, which established legal protection for the wildlife in the park and provided remedies for dealing with violators." - source?
  • Source(s) for second para of Transition section?

In general, I'm seeing a need for a general copy-edit and WP:MOS consistency check. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO:

  • A few paragraphs nearer the end of the article could use refs in the body of the paragraph instead of just at the end. I assume that the source for thses paragrapghs is the one used at the end, so I'd just move the source higher up the paragraph and add <ref=name> to the rest of said comments.
  • I've gone and redone all the references to have a uniform format...
  • There are a few instances of repeat comments or expressions...in the effort to format the references, I adjusted two sentences so their meaning had some variation on the same theme, as in the second paragraph in this diff
  • I'm going to see if I can recruit a third party copyeditor to review the sentence structure and prose...as I have edited a fair amount on this article, more eyes would be helpful.
Comments from Bishonen
  • (Full disclosure: yeah, MONGO recruited me.) I've only really looked at the lead section yet; I'm a bit busy, I'll be back, and try to be more helpful, but I'm already a little worried about the prose. It's rather choppy, and… I don't know, it looks like it's written a bit cautiously and in fear of not being correct, and with a not very large vocabulary. The number of "constructions" and "structures" in the lead alone is staggering. And the first thing that happens to the reader is that they stumble over a parenthesis; that's not smooth or inviting. There's a bit of committeespeak altogether: "The military commanders furthered the evolution of park policies and conservation measures regarding backcountry patrol, access improvement, wildlife protection and management, protection of natural features, law enforcement and development of a ranger force, headquarters area development, visitor services and facility development, educational and a host of other activities". There must be a more straightforward way of putting that. And why did the commanders in particular do all that, why not simply the Army?
I'm sorry to be complaining instead of copyediting; but it's difficult for an outsider (and non-American) to know what's hiding behind some formulations. For instance, it's probably not the intention to call the whole list of good things achieved by the military in the green quote (backcountry patrol, access improvement, etc etc etc) conservation measures (although the syntax implies it) but some of them are, right? (Or maybe the syntax implies that they're either park policies or conservation measures, I'm not sure. Though I am sure that some of the things on the list are neither, e. g. headquarters area development.) It might be easier for the original writer, who doesn't suffer from such doubts, to unravel the sentence. I'll have another look later, if perhaps you'd like first to have a go at the things I've indicated here, and try to… well, I know it's an encyclopedia, but try to write in a more relaxed way? You're supposed to be having fun here! :-) Bishonen | talk 14:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Lead section, additional comment: Well done, MONGO, nicely cleared up. I've changed a few more phrases. Another thing: no doubt the Campaign hat deserves a mention, but perhaps not in the lead (which is a summary of the most important content of the article) and absolutely not in the most emphatic place of all: the final sentence. Compare Bathos. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I am sure you're correct about that. As a former park ranger, I'm biased in that the hat is a symbol that Americans associate almost exclusively with National Park Rangers (though State Troopers also oftentimes wear them). My thinking of having it in the lead was to provide a visual rather than non-visual (like policies) connection between the army presence and the modern era...and the hat is definitely a carry-over from the army presence. But not beholden to this issue and it can surely be removed.--MONGO 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Facilities section: My inquiring mind got hung up on the "snowshoe cabins". Apparently the army built lots of them. Wouldn't somebody on the ground (HINT HINT MONGO) like to create an article about this kind of house? Or at least complement the footnote that states "At the time, long wooden skis were called 'snowshoes'" with a reference? I don't doubt the truth of it, but our snowshoe article has no concept of any skis. And, I'm sure this sounds very ignorant to people who're at all local, but what exactly does the term "snowshoe cabin" refer to — were they actually (or conceptually) made out of long skis? That doesn't sound so likely for any more permanent or robust shelter. Look at the Pass Creek Snowshoe Cabin — obviously a sturdy structure, "originally built by trail crews on their own initiative as a more permanent and bear-proof accommodation than tents". So where do the snowshoes come in? Bishonen | talk 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I can provide a source for this. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah… pity you have to be signed up to Questia to see it. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The snowshoe cabins were possibly accessible in the winter only by way of snowshoes. The snows were too deep to easily reach on foot or even by way of horses...and over-snow motorized transport in the U.S. wasn't yet developed or was in its earliest stages.--MONGO 18:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the name might mean "you need snowshoes/skis to get to them"! But I can't seem to get anything helpful out of Google, which merely overwhelms me with hits to snowshoe cabin rental offers. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
FYI, here's the text of the source. The explanation of the term "snowshoes" is addressed in most Fort Yellowstone sources. There was no word ski in the English language! The word snowshoe was used for ski throughout the mountain West. "The celebrated 'Norwegian snow-shoes,' or 'Norway skates,' " wrote Charles W. Hendel, "are from 8 to 12 feet long, 31/2 to 4 inches wide, and 1 1/4 inches thick in the center. . . with a spring worked in so that without weights they rest on the heels and the points." They were concave and grooved on the underside which was also burned with tar to a mahoganylike finish. For racing, the shoes were 101/2 to 13 1/2 feet in length, from 3 3/4 to 4 1/4 inches in width, wider on the front part than on the back. "So great have been the improvements during the past few years. . . that they now appear to have reached perfection." Hendel is a reliable witness; he was a surveyor and mining engineer who traveled Plumas and Sierra counties in the gold rush years. Hendel used the adjective Norway or Norwegian to describe the long boards. Although Swedes and Finns were among the immigrants who skied, by the late nineteenth century skiing had become part of the Norwegian national culture in a different way than elsewhere in Scandinavia. Therefore, when Scandinavians arrived in ski country, it was only natural that skis were described as "Norwegian." That terminology also distinguished them from the racquet snowshoes, only used at lower altitudes. William Brewer in his journal for 1862 noted, "The only way of getting about is on snowshoes, not the great broad Canadian ones. . . but the Norwegian ones." --Mike Cline (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: I'm sorry, I'm really busy these days, but I'll weigh in after this gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further from MONGO:

  • While it doesn't bother me, and I even suggested doing so earlier to accommodate for the wealth if images, galleries are generally best avoided by shuttling off extra images to Commons...
  • I've done a lot of copy editing myself but the article still seems to have some minor repetitions on the theme regarding the army's contributions. Maybe since I wasn't in the military but was a park ranger, I'm finding that somewhat overly stressed, but my opinion is probably biased. I would perhaps make the army's role more of a groundwork or foundation that the park service used but has greatly expanded subsequently...maybe the references don't back that premise up so it may not be possible...again, my opinion may be biased.
  • I found one dead link to an external source, but that may have been my bad when I cleaned up the reference formating.
  • The article is really close and I believe that it is ready to be submitted to Feature Article candidates in 2 weeks unless another chimes in here at Peer Review.--MONGO 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

interesting is in the eye of the beholder

[edit]

Although this peer review is improving the article, I always get concerned when content is removed based on one editor's view that it isn't interesting. In this case, the removal of the rationale for the chapel ignores the significant backstory as to how the chapel came to pass. Haynes, Hampton, Culpin And Watry all devote significant paragraphs to the story. Albeit in different ways, Mongo and I are close to this subject and I think Hhe would agree that Fort Yellowstone was more than just a collection of buildings. It was a tight community of civilians and military families pretty much isolated from the rest of Montana and certainly from the rest of Wyoming. The story of that community and their efforts to improve life at Fort Yellowstone can't get lost by removing content that seems uninteresting. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the phrase I removed with the argument that it wasn't interesting enough, "at the urging of Captain John Pitcher and Judge John Meldrum", added some flavour of the story of the tight-knit community and their efforts to improve life at Fort Yellowstone? It didn't do anything like that for me. Perhaps the sentence needs to be fuller (more flavourful) instead of shorter, in order to convey more of the "significant backstory" of the chapel. Anyway, as my edit summary also implied, please do revert that removal (and any other alterations you disapprove) ad libitum . Bishonen | talk 18:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I'm torn on the significance of who was behind the effort to have the chapel built, but leaning towards inclusion. Like other places around the world in that period, the chapel, church, synagogue or whatever gave the community a focal point and added a sense of permanance. Since this is Wikipedia, I always ask for bold reviews and bold (and even mundane) edits...and Bishonen is one I trust unconditionally to ask for feedback and article improvements.--MONGO 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


FYI - Here's just one such paragraph on the chapel. This is from the NRHP nomination: The chapel, completed by January 1913, was the last building erected during the military period in Yellowstone and reflected the fort's status as the center of a community as well as an army post. Previously, religious services had been conducted in the troop mess hall, the post exchange, or private residences, as was consistent with army policy. John W. Meldrum, U.S. Commissioner at Yellowstone, voiced his belief that it was “a burning shame” there was no church where Sunday services and events such as burials could take place. Beginning in 1905, Meldrum enlisted the support of the park acting superintendent [Pitcher], Wyoming senator Francis E. Warren, and others in a campaign to acquire funding for the chapel. As military appropriations did not include such construction, it was a departure from standard procedure and required a special appropriation from Congress. The pleasing design of the building, reminiscent of ubiquitous small frame churches in New England, incorporated lightly dressed native sandstone. The simple interior with plastered walls and exposed trusses resulted in a harmonious composition, considered by many to be the most beautiful of the army buildings at Fort Yellowstone. The chapel was operated on a nondenominational basis, a policy continued after the National Park Service took control of the building. Other sources reflect a similar narrative. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's all about focus. I wouldn't have removed any of it if it had focused (concisely) on the "fort's status as the center of a community" and on there being a campaign. That's the sort of thing I meant when I suggested above that the sentence might need to be fuller instead of shorter in order to convey the "significant backstory". Bishonen | talk 21:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I went and readded the names and some details in a compromise...how is the article looking now?--MONGO 18:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mind MGMT

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to move it up the quality ladder. Aside from one edit, I'm the only editor who's contributed, so I may have blinders on to any missing or redundant content. Help in any area would be appreciated.

Thanks, Argento Surfer (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image caption, I think per WP:HASH we tend to avoid using the hash symbol to represent "number". Check that throughout, I think it's common in comic articles to use the hash character, but our MOS seems to frown upon it.
  • Don't overlink in the info box (e.g. you link Kindt twice).
  • You have a single ref in the lead, I'd suggest that since the lead is a summary of the main article, you can move the ref to the relevant part of the main article where this fact is expanded upon.
  • Check for compliance with WP:DASH on number ranges.
  • "first issue was released in May 23, 2012" vs "The first issue was published May 25, 2012," so the first sentence fragment is grammatically incorrect, and the two fragments contradict one another.
  • " Comicbookresources.com" why not just Comic Book Resources which your link redirects to anyway?
  • Refs need, as a minimum:
    • Title.
    • Accessdate (for online links).
    • Publisher.
    • Language (if not English) and whether subscription is required to access the information.
  • Where possible, links should also include:
    • Publication date.
    • Work.
    • Author name.
  • Odd mix of italics in the refs.
  • Don't SHOUT in ref titles.
  • Use en-dash where appropriate in ref titles.
  • You have DMY date format in the refs, but MDY in the main body. Any reason for the difference?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The hash mark for comic issues is an exception for MOS:HASH. I fixed the various dashes and corrected the date for the first issue release. I filled out the references with the criteria you listed. The access dates aren't all the days I originally looked at them, but they're all active today. The italic refs are the titles of published works, everything else is just the name of an article. The book's title is "MIND MGMT," with all caps. I changed some of the text (and article title) to reflect this. There was no reason for the change in date presentation, so I made them uniform. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omayra Sánchez

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Omayra is the key figure of the Armero tragedy and I'd like this article to be featured for the anniversary of the eruption in November. I think the prose needs some fine-tuning, so I've listed it to here to generate some feedback!

Thanks, ceranthor 23:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice work, sad story, some comments,
what is a rice driver?
crushed the refuse? Might be cleared the refuse but I don't find that section clear.
There is some complication as to towns, villages, cities and municipalities, and a bit more internal consistency in the article would be helpful. In particular at one point it refers to "14 villages and cities" being destroyed at another "a regional town received 18 pumps". Reading between the lines I suspect the story is that the city of Armero and 14 towns and villages were destroyed.
Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 00:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WereSpielChequers! I will get to your comments ASAP. ceranthor 00:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed the issues. ceranthor 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. It left me wondering whether the regional town that got the pumps was involved but in less need than Almero, or that the town and therefore the pumps were outside the disaster area. The current wording of Almero and villages implies that those pumps didn't reach the disaster area at all. Could your sources clarify that? ϢereSpielChequers 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that sentence - it seems to contrast with the rest of the article! ceranthor 15:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, this is the first thing to be put up in WP:VOLC article alerts in ages (sigh). ResMar 01:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: Thank you for your work on this article and for drawing it to my attention. I have carried out light copyedits while reading through the article: the following are my review comments:

Lead
  • "the debris of a door" does not sound sufficiently traumatic to trap someone, even a child, for several days. In the main article you refer to her being trapped "under her house's roof", with references to other heavy debris
  • You could avoid the "struggling...struggle" repetition by replacing "struggle for" with " efforts of". I recommend you reconstruct the last part of the sentence to read something like: "...and the efforts of volunteer rescue workers to reach and treat trapped victims despite a dearth of supplies and equipment."
  • Perhaps, as this is a child, stick to "Omayra" rather than the rather formal "Sanchez".
  • "figment" is not a good word in this context, since it means an invention, usually of something fantastic and unbelievable. Suggest "figure in" rather than "figment of".
Background
  • Rephrase "It is also the deadliest lahar and Colombia's worst natural disaster" Suggest "It is Colombia's worst natural disaster, the lahar being the deadliest in volcanic history".
  • The final paragraph is not so much "Background" as an account of the disaster itself. I recommend that this paragraph, and the first of the "Death" section, become a separate section of the article titled "Disaster" or some such. The "Death" section then begins with "Despite her situation..."
Death
  • "Once the girl was freed..." gives the wrong impression; she was not freed.
  • "The teenage girl was scared, and often prayed or cried." This sentence appears to contradict the immediately preceding one, in which Omayra is positive, singing, asking for food and drinks etc. Perhaps you should say: "At times, however, the teenage girl was scared, and prayed or cried."
  • "descended into agony" is the wrong side of encyclopedic objectivity (hard to maintain, admittedly, with a subject like this). Nevertheless I would omit it: " Near the end of her life, Omayra's eyes reddened, her face swelled, and her hands whitened."
  • "As the public became aware of Omayra's situation through the media, and these facts came to light..." This is saying the same thing twice. Omit "and these facts came to light"
  • "...the failure of officials to properly account for victims who could have been saved" - I'm unhappy with the phrasing "to properly account for", which is vague. I think it is their failure to help victims rtaher than failure to account for them, whatever that means.
  • "Controversy broke out after officials indicated that they had used the best of their supplies, and corroborative descriptions of the shortages were released." Again, The meaning is unclear. I assume from the context that officials were saying they had done their best with the inadequate supplies and equipment available to them. If so, this needs to be much more clearly stated.
Photographs
  • "He had traveled to Armero by driving for five hours and traveling on foot for another two and a half hours." Unnecessary overdetailing?
  • "... a farmer directed him to Omayra Sánchez, who was at that time almost deserted, having been trapped for nearly three days". First, the Sanchez is unnecessary; secondly, "almost deserted" sounds weird in this context. I think the whole sentence needs some reconstruction, possibly: "a farmer directed him to Omayra, who had by then been trapped for nearly three days; he found her almost alone."
  • "the world was already fixated on the tragedy" - "fixated", I think, is an overstatement that needs toning down, e.g. "awareness of the tragedy extended to many parts of the world".
  • "Almost immediately after its release, the image captured widespread attention" The first five words are unnecessary.
  • Is the last (short) paragraph of this section really necessary? It is shifting the focus from Omayra.
Legacy
  • Nothing really wrong with this section, except there is no indication that the government of Columbia has taken any preparatory steps in the event of a recurrence of the disaster, which your second paragraph implies is a current risk. Has the government done anything to change its policies and provide a greater state of preparedness? This would represent a more practical legacy than commemoration in pop bands etc.

One final MOS point: page ranges in references require dashes, not hyphens.

Quite a harrowing read, really, but a worthy, composed tribute to a brave girl. Brianboulton (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think these have all been fixed. Thanks a ton Brian! ceranthor 20:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day (India)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this underwent a failed FAC where the oppose points includede comprehensiveness and substandard prose. Some works have been done after the FAC. I would be highly obliged if editors can comment on improving the article. Thanks, Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have not copyedited the article, though I have made one or two corrective edits; I can't guarantee I've picked everything up. My general comments are:

  • Considering the historical importance of Indian Inependence Day, I am surprised that the article is relatively thin. The article seems to have two purposes: first, to summarise the events leading to and carried out on actual Independence Day, 15 August 1947, secondly, to discuss the annual commemorative celebrations. That's OK, but I think that much the greater weight should be given to the events of Independence Day itself. After all, unlike 4 July 1776, on which date Americans declared their independence, on 15 August 1947 Indians achieved theirs.
  • The brief summary of the events preceding Indpendence Day looks all right, though I don't have detailed knowledge. However, the account for the day itself is very limited; we have the extract from Nehru's speech, and an unattributed summary programme of events in a box to the right, but little else. I am sure that the available sources recording this historic day would enable a much more vivid account of the day to be provided.
  • For example, who apart from British and Indian officials was present at the ceremonies? Was Pakistan represented? Surely, Mountbatten mada a speech at some point; what did he say? Can we have more information about the national flag, including a description?
  • A point of detail: who swore in the governor general? Incidentally, it's wrong to say Mountbatten "continued as its first governor general"; this was a new office.
  • We should have a clearer account of what was happening away from New Dehli. There are general references to the "carnage" taking place at the borders and elsewhere, and some speculative casualty figures, but we should have information about particular incidents that took place on 15 August 1947.
  • Some reorganisation of content may be advisable: the mention of Pakistan's Independence Day should be transferred to the "Immediate background" section. Also, the information about the Purna Swaraj declaration should be placed before the subsection on Independence Day itself, possibly in its own subsection. At present some is in "History" and some in Celebrations".
  • Some of the "popular culture" information looks a bit trivial. For example, is it really noteworthy that radio and TV stations broadcast patriotic music and films? I'm not sure how much of this section is worth keeping, and as you say, the books that you mention are not really concerned with Independence Day itself.
  • A small point, but should the differences between The Indian Congress Party and the Muslim League be referred to as a "squabble", which word normally is used in relation to petty quarrelling?
  • The "Times of India" image has been listed for deletion on the grounds of not being PD in the USA.
  • I am not sure of the grounds whereby you are claiming that the "Red Fort" image is PD in the US.

I hope that you find these comments helpful. As I do not watch individual peer review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have questions arising from this review, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. In a nutshell, we need more description of 14-15 August 1947, covering Delhi as well as other parts of the country. We have some resources for that, especially the books Freedom at Midnight. So, we will do do that work.
The red fort and Times of India images will probably be deleted in Commons. Indeed they lack US PD rationale. We will remove those two images.
Once the points you have raised are addresed (even if the Peer Review bot archives this page by then), I will ping you. We greatly needed a thorough peer review, thanks for guiding. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; To be comprehensive the article needs to describe few of the aspects regarding the Independence Day and the lead up to it in some detail:

  • Between June and August 1947 there was a real chance that India would be a fragmented nation which recognized the rights of princes. Negotiations by Patel and Menon and Mountbatten's influence prevented this from happening. Political integration of India apart from (and often linked to) partition was an important feature of events in pre–independent India. It needs to be given greater weight in the article.
  • If possible, a comparative map of how India looked on 14th (before transfer) and 15th August could be added to the article. This should help though I don't like the colouring scheme. Hyderabad, Junagarh and J&K did not accede to India before 15th and therefore should have been shown in the same colour.
  • Astrological significance of 14th midnight should be mentioned. Many astrologers regarded 15th August as an inauspicious date. However, luckily for Mountbatten, 14th midnight was seen as suitable.
  • Decorations and ceremony that took place on 14th–15th August 1947 have been ignored. They might/might not be same as contemporary Independence Day celebrations. For instance, on that day, triumphal arches were constructed, conch shells were blown, members of constituent assembly gathered and waited till midnight, and military bands including that of the INA performed.
  • Celebrations describe only one aspect of how India looked on 15th August. Delhi had about half a million refugees in 200 camps and large parts of Punjab were in flames. This deserves a mention.

I don't think I have suggested anything that Freedom at Midnight or any other relevant popular book won't cover. However, if you still need help with referencing, let me know. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 21:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look and comment in more detail after the weekend. Main thing, as noted above, is that the history section (especially about that day, 15 August 1947) needs to be expanded.—indopug (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Evans

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm new to writing articles about people and I'd like some feedback. I'd like to see this article become a GA eventually, but there isn't much help out there. SounderBruce 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I wrote a GA about a soccer player, it's Jason Dozzell. It was a while ago but checking it out and its review may help. Brad Evans has much more info available...
  • Put (MLS) after "Major League Soccer".
  • "stayed for 2 seasons" -> two (per MOSNUM).
  • "for a 2-goal" same.
  • "appeared 5 times for" same, etc. You can see the theme...
  • Lead: second para repeats a lot of the first para..!
  • Infobox, date format is British, you presumably want it to be US for consistency.
  • "was born to parents" would imagine that "parents" is redundant here.
  • "Evans played 6 matches during the 2004 season and scored 4 goals.[4][5][6][7][8]" five refs for this? If you don't have a single ref showing all his games in the 2004 season, how do I know he didn't play in other games?
    • Not sure how to cite his appearances then, the PDL website doesn't go back to 2004.
  • Don't repeat his first name after the first sentence.
  • Coming from a featured list perspective, it would be nice if you could make the tables accessible by using row and col scopes per MOS:DTT.
    • Not sure if this is possible.
  • Why the use of bold text in the "honors" section? Check out WP:BADEMPHASIS.
  • Use en-dash in the scorelines in the ref titles.
  • You don't need "Major League Soccer players" as a cat because you have more refined cats.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to most of your comments. Thanks for your help. SounderBruce 01:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was marked as C-Class on Neuroscience project quality scale and I would like it to reach B-Class at least.

Thanks, Dcdace (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biosthmors on the WP:LEAD
  • Could you clarify what the peaks are detecting in the image? The caption is vague.
  • Is "non-invasive technique" really critical for a the first words of WP:First sentence? I think we can get a better definition.
  • Also, what is "brain activation"? This seems unclear to me.
  • "fMRS uses MRI to detect X" seems to be a better format for the first sentence. And it would make the second sentence unnecessary.
  • Instead of saying "The output typically is not represented as an image" can you first say what it mostly does then mention the rarer case?
  • "That correspond to molecules". That's getting to a point of specificity that I like. What are the molecules doing, to generate the signals? Maybe we could link the concept article that describes what they are doing. Or describe in a bacgound section. WP:SS of a parent article, maybe?
  • Ah, "metabolite dynamics". Sounds exciting, but what is it? Does it record chemical reactions?
  • The word "currently" is used. We try to avoid that. See WP:CURRENTLY.
  • There are several one sentence paragraphs in the lead. We try to avoid that.
  • There are 15 citations in the lead. That's not a big deal, but anything that is in the lead should already be in the article (WP:LEAD). The idea is to cite things in the article, so that the lead isn't cluttered with unnecessary citations, generally speaking.
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
  • I hope these comments have been helpful!

Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made this edit. "Non-invasive technique" is WP:Peacock sounding to me. Biosthmors (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Biosthmors. "Non-invasive" is not a peacock in this case but very crucial aspect for the technique which studies tissue metabolism. It is actually the main advantage over other techniques. --Dcdace (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression all MRI was non-invasive. Biosthmors (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's right. But to highlight it in other MRI techniques is not as important as in MRS. Because MRI gives just an image. How else could one get an image of slices of a living brain than non-invasive with MRI or CT. But tissue metabolism have been studied already before MRI techniques existed and only in an invasive manner. It is (or was) hard to imagine how can one measure concentration of tissue metabolites other than taking out a sample of tissue. But MRS does a "miracle" - measures metabolite concentration and other biochemical process in a living brain without invading a tissue. --Dcdace (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Technology is always doing cool things I guess. But a WP:First sentence (and an encyclopedia) is supposed to be as consice as possible. It seems from Human_brain#Metabolism there, for example, that fMRI and PET scans also show non-invasive images of brain metabolism. I don't think the phrase "non-invasive" is critical for a first sentence. Do you? Biosthmors (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fMRI and PET do it very indirectly and as you say - shows images, noting else. But OK, I write about that in "Advantages" section, maybe that's enough. --Dcdace (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neuroenergetics is an energy turnover required for brain to work. This term is used in literature on fMRS. But, yes, it might be too specific and not easily understandable term. I will think how to rewrite it in an easier language. If you have any ideas, you are welcome to change it. --Dcdace (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "neuroenergetics" to "energy metabolism in the brain". And I added "The area under peaks in the spectrum represents relative concentrations of metabolites." to the first paragraph. --Dcdace (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Goodart

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has been copyedited, recently underwent a major review, and I would like to soon nominate the article for GA review. I previously listed this article on December 24, 2012, but it was not reviewed and a bot closed the review on January 15, 2013. I would greatly appreciate a solid peer review to help this article pass a GA review. Thank you in advance for your time and any helpful comments.

Thanks, Lawman4312 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Infobox, certain amount of over-capitalisation, e.g. "Hotel Manager". Not necessary.
  • "treasurer. Goodart was raised" -> "He was raised...."
  • "during a violent train crash" violent seems a bit POV, no real need.
  • " ... a period .... a period...." repetitive.
  • "Goodart was the second manager " -> "He was..."
  • "in Wabash County. Goodart served as an" -> "He served as..."
  • "only child, Leland" boy or girl?
  • "he lost his right leg. After Glenn lost his leg" repetitive.
  • "Frederick Hinde Zimmerman, Mr. Zimmerman's children " -> "Frederick Hinde Zimmerman, Zimmerman's children"
  • "On July 29, 1929 Glenn Goodart burned" -> "On July 29, 1929, Goodart burned"
  • " private collection.[2]</ref> " oops.
  • "Oral accounts of the" normally "verbal" accounts.
  • Don't link common terms like "beach".
  • "not state the cause of his death, but instead stated" repetitive.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Goodnight

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I helped develop a first draft of the article with a WP:COI, which brought it up to C class. I would like to work on a second draft that would be ready for a GA review and felt getting feedback from an impartial editor would really help feed the process. CorporateM (Talk) 01:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead is too short, at least two paras are required per WP:LEAD.
  • Image caption shouldn't have a full stop nor should it repeat Goodnight's first name.
  • Still looking a little bit fan-like, with "now a multi-billion dollar company, have been widely studied".... for instance. Perhaps state something like "a company with a turnover of x billion", and reduce "widely studied" to just "studied" or similar?
  • Non-US readers may not have a clue what NC means.
  • "Software Engineer" no need to capitalise Engineer.
  • Inventor is mentioned in the infobox but nowhere else.
  • "he got a job" reads clumsily to me.
  • Don't link individual years (e.g. 2002).
  • Consider linking "Master's".
  • "As owner of two-thirds of one of the world’s largest software companies" unnecessary. Really is fancruft. Just state the facts in a neutral tone, i.e. He is the 43rd richest American.
  • "There is some speculation about Goodnight’s retirement and succession plan. In 2008, Goodnight said he was not considering retirement.[17][24]" pretty pointless pair of sentences.
  • Most of the See also links can be woven into the article.
  • Publisher of ref 6?
  • Access dates for all the online refs?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Pakistan

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured list status. Please have your comments/suggestions for further improvement.

Thanks, Zia Khan 16:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments –

  • In the hatnote, should both words in "Governors-Generals" need to be plural, or just one? Done
  • "and executive authorizations on key matters requires the both consultation and final confirmation...". Make "requires" singular, and flip the order of "the" and "both". Done
  • "Pakistan has been shifted back to the parliamentary democratic republic." "the" → "a"?
  • "and performed ceremonial duties...". "performed" → "performs"? Done
  • "since the introduction of the post in 1956. The post...". Try to avoid having such close repetition of "post" like this. Done
  • "Three of them gained power through one of successful miltary coups in Pakistan's history". Add "the" before "successful"? And perhaps say how many coups there were, if a source can support it. Done
  • "The current President is of Pakistan...". Needs to be something like "The current President of Pakistan is...". Done
  • Yahya Khan entry: "He resigned as an result of Pakistan's defeat in the war." "an" → "a". Done
  • Pervez Musharraf: Add "a" into "and declared state of emergency." Done
  • "in order to avoid the impeachment." At a minimum, "the" should be removed; the "in order" could probably go too. Done
  • Publisher of reference 22 (The New York Times) should be italicized. Done Giants2008 (Talk) 03:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Zia Khan 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • presidentofpakistan.gov.pk -> Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan Done
  • "Under this parliamentary system" - perhaps simply "under that system" Done
  • I would link figurehead, and perhaps name all figureheads in the lead.--Tomcat (7) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't get you, could you clarify this?
      • I mean, I would link figurehead in the first occasion, and perhaps name in the lead all figureheads of Pakistan.--Tomcat (7) 21:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done (only first part, I don't think the latter one is necessary).
  • Thanks for the review. Zia Khan 19:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minimum wages by country

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'm planning a labor-intensive update to and expansion of the data in the list, and I'm looking for input early in the process so that the finished product will be more polished. I'm also thinking of nominating the list for featured article status if people think it has a good shot at achieving it without too much extra revision beyond what I'm already planning. I've begun the update process on a subpage of my user page. I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. that people may have about the changes I'm making. So far I've completed updates to Afghanistan through Belarus, though I don't mind going back to touch up those entries if there are good suggestions for improvement. Thanks, Greenbreen (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is not a candidate for featured article, perhaps it would be better to think about WP:FLC.
  • We no longer start lists with "The list below..."
  • Lead is brief and each paragraph is quite short. I would encourage you to beef it up a little.
  • If the table is initially intended to sort by Country, then something is out of order since when I click on the Country col heading, it re-sorts...
  • What's the difference between N/A and en-dash in the table? Shouldn't "none" sort as zero?
  • Greece has no %GDP per capita value.
  • "886,50Turkish new lira" should be a space here, and what do you mean by 886,50? Do you really mean 88,650? or 886.50?
  • Macedonia "Effective" sorts out of order.
  • Table needs to comply with MOS:DTT (part of WP:ACCESS which makes use of col and row scopes for screen readers).
  • Refs are a mess:
    • Bare URLs should go.
    • Consistent date formats are required throughout the refs.
    • No SHOUTING required in refs.
    • Non-English refs should have their language noted.
    • Titles should comply with WP:DASH.
    • Several refs are actually footnotes and should have their own section.
    • Refs should have, as a minimum, title, publisher and accessdate, also publication date, author, page number, work etc where possible.
  • Some working weeks are longer than others, what is the source for this?
  • SMIC is a dab link.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bat'leth

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of taking it to FA and would like some feedback. I would also like to ask what people think how would be best to lay out the legality section and whether using "they are not/illegal in X if XXXX" would be acceptable in a FA. Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: After re-opening the peer review I took a look at the article. While it is interesting and a good start, I do not htink it is anywhere near ready for FAC - here are some suggestions for improvement.

  • The lead seems too short and does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
  • My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is nothing on the legality there
  • This is my opinion, but I would put that this is a Star Trek weapon in the first sentence of the lead.
  • I would use the creator's quote in the lead and article, something like Designer Dan Curry has called the bat'leth "one of the iconic images associated with the show".[2]
  • I am concerned about the image File:Sword of Kahless.JPG as it appears to be (part of?) a screenshot from a Star Trek episode, which would make it copyrighted and a fair use image - instead it is on Commons under a very dubious license.
  • I would also crop File:Klingon-weapons.jpg so that more of the image is of the weapons themselves. I do not know if a crop focusing on just one or two of them might be a better lead image.
  • The StarTrek.com source gives a length and mass for these "116 centimeters long and weighs 5.3 kilograms" which should be in the article.
  • It also translates the Klingon name as "sword of honor" which should be included. It also mentions the four points of the weapon, which seems worth a mention here.
  • "...the weapon can be used with either one or both hands." needs a ref, especially since there is a later ref to a different weapon used with just one hand
  • One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness and it seems to me that the part of the article on appearances within Star Trek episodes is very brief and could probably be expanded. There is only the mention that it appears in 29 epsidoes, but I think the series should be mentioned (TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise). If there are sources that mention other memorable episodes featuring the weapon, I would include those too.
  • Second part of this sentence seems to me like it needs a ref "However, bat'leths are also considered to be a kind of martial arts sword,[1] which could be seen to tie in to Dan Curry's work in martial arts in films." and to be honest I did not understand the point - how does the tie in with Curry's work affect the legality of owning one?
  • The subheaders "In the United Kingdom" (and in the US) could probably be shortened to just "United Kingdom" and "United States".
  • This sentence is not backed up by the reference following it "They are classed as weapons, which makes them illegal to carry in a public place.[18]" The newspaper article does not really say that.
  • I checked one other source, the South Carolina laws page. It makes no specific mention of the bat'leth, so this smack a bit of WP:OR to me - to put it another way, I imagine almost every state has some sort of law about carrying bladed weapons above a certain size / length, so why is there not info on all these laws too?
  • Flickr has this free pic of fans in costume, one with a bat'leth - here
  • Sears and Amamzon sell them, which seems worth a mention
  • Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brotman

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a new WP:BLP article.

Thanks,    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Could use a lead section rather than just one single section of text.
  • Prefer the use of "References" to "Notes" when they're actually refs.
  • Lead image has no caption which is a little odd.
  • Check for ref placement (usually after punctuation).
  • You could try to expand his background, birth, upbringing, family etc.
  • It's a bit out of order, there's some modern stuff, then some older stuff, then some modern stuff again. Normally I see biographies as chronological accounts. A small summary of the bio in the lead, and then expanded chronological later on.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the Western Isles of Scotland

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article would make a fine featured list, although a number of issues need an objective assessment. These include:

1) The introductory section is lengthy. In order to understand the list one needs to know something of its author and its history. I am loathe to imagine a situation in which there was an article about the book and a separate list of the islands it refers to.

2) There are linguistic issues. The Scots language that Monro wrote in is (I think) just about understandable to someone who is not familiar with it, but in places it may become unduly obscure. There is also the issue of Scottish Gaelic. Few readers will have a working knowledge of the language and although having such is not necessary to read the article, an understanding of Gaelic pronunciations makes it much easier to grasp why some of the names seem so varied (appearing as a few do in their Gaelic, Scots and English guise).

There are issues of this sort with, for example, No 212 "Garvellan". Why should we associate this island with the modern name Garbh Eilean? The answer is that that the latter is the spelling of a Gaelic name that is pronounced as the former.

3) The list itself is a long one although I don't think this should bar it from consideration.

4) Garvellan is also an example of an identification not made by any outside authority. There are only two of these, the other being 233 "Ere". The maps available to Munro in 1961 presumably didn't name Garbh Eilean or Eire. The text makes it clear that this is the case and I find myself caught between indulging in a minor piece of "research" or alternatively pretending that there is no possible identification, when it is blindingly obvious that there is one.

I am aware that the lead and references need a little work, but it would be helpful to know where the article may be going before I complete that. All comments gratefully received.

Thanks, Ben MacDui 15:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Tim riley

I have had to scratch about to find anything to quibble at, but these are my meagre comments:

  • Lead
    • "The Hebrides" – the capital T looks odd to my eye. I see that the WP article on the Hebrides doesn't capitalise the article in mid-sentence.
    • Equal opportunities notwithstanding, I think you are wise to link the Scots language but I think all your readers will, ipso facto, know what the English language is.
  • Publications
    • Not clear why you have "chapters" in inverted commas.
    • "published in Scots/English" – unclear what this means: in both Scots and English? In some sort of blend?
  • Critiques
    • " Buchanan was fulsome in his praise" – careful with "fulsome"! Chambers' defines it as "sickeningly obsequious, nauseatingly affectionate, admiring or praiseful".
    • "In 1840 Rev. Alexander" – it is usual to write …"the Rev. Alexander…"
    • "MacCulloch's statement…." – the quotation marks look a bit odd here; I wonder if leaving the "of" outside the quote might make the sentence flow better
  • Craignish, Taynish, Jura and the Firth of Lorn
    • "On my screen (a smallish one) the pictures after "its entirety from the Auld and Moniepennie publications" cause a four-inch gap of white space before the tables resume with No 54. Later: I consulted a WP luminary: people use so many different screen sizes that one can't cater for them all. Pray ignore this comment. Tim riley (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islay
    • "added a few islet's" – possessive apostrophe not wanted, surely?

This is a remarkable article, and I am enormously impressed. Please let me know if you take it to FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm on the road at present and will take a proper look at your comments later in the week. Ben MacDui 18:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Divine (performer)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently had a lot of work done to it, and ideally I would like it to attain GA status fairly soon. Before that can be achieved however, it would be great it someone else couldtake a look at this and let me know what they think! Thanks in advance!

Thanks, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks a great effort, and I am surprised that nobody from the showbiz/film projects, or LGBT, has picked it up. So I will do my best. It may take me a while because I am tied up with other things, but I'll leave a note on my talkpage inviting any casual readers to comment on it. You may get lucky! Brianboulton (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

I've not had time to look at the prose yet, but there are a few issues concerning sources and references:

  • Is http://www.dreamlandnews.com/divine/interview.shtml a high quality reliable source?
  • There are currently 2 "citation needed" tags
  • There are a couple of other instances in the article of paragraphs ending without citations
  • Ref 162 is a dead link
  • Refs 17 and 19: judging by your general practice, the "p." should be a "pp."
  • Some of the page ranges have hyphens that should be ndashes
  • Retrieval dates should be uniform (compare, e.g. refs 149 and 153; there are other discrepancies)
  • Some retrieval dates appear to be missing, e.g. refs 152, 160, 161 and maybe others
  • Page number required for ref 157. Check for others
  • Should the Mallory Curley book have an IBSN?

Brianboulton (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, when I have a bit more spare time I shall fix all of these errors! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me know when you're done and I'll continue with the review Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outrun (LP)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's my first article and was unsure of the quality of it, specifically I think the sources might need to be improved since it is quite difficult to find the original official source of information such as track listings.

I'm very passionate about learning to make well-communicated, organised and quality content so I thought making this relevant page (since I had been looking it for myself when discovering it didn't exist yet,) was a good starting point.

Thanks, Crushedpixel

Comment: I realise that this is your first article, and that you are likely to be a little uncertain at the moment about the process of article development. Basically, peer review is for articles where a substantial amount of work has been accomplished, when the article is well on the way to being a finished product. The review is the means for polishing up the article into its final form. In this case, the article looks hardly begun. This page lists a large number of music album articles which are fully developed. They represent the sort of thing you should be aiming at, and as you will see, your article in its present form does not compare. You should for the time being concentrate on expanding the article, and bring it back for review when much more of the developmenta;l work is done.

As for finding the appropriate sources, I don't myself work on album articles, but a study of finished articles should reveal for you the kind of sources where information can be found. Don't be afraid to ask for help from one or other of the editors experienced in writing this kind of article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like someone to go over the language of the article (I'm not a native speaker). Also, I would like feedback on whether the citations are enough. Another question would be whether to capitalize both words of the title.

Thanks, Nkrita (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in very good shape. I didn't see any problems with the language, but I might look to add in some more refs. I think the title is good as it is.—Zujine|talk 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over. I will add some more references. As for the title -- research literature usually refers to it as "glasnost meeting" (no capital letters and in quotes). For now I'll just create a few redirects. Nkrita (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Flashman Papers

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The Flashman Papers are a series of twelve historical fiction books, written by George MacDonald Fraser and centred on Harry Paget Flashman, a coward, rake, adulterer, drunk, liar and cheat—and that's what he says about himself! The series is a fantastic romp through the military hotspots of the 19th century in the company of one of the most colourful characters in literature. An FLC beckons once the various prose issues have been ironed out, so any assistance in that direction would be much appreciated. SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very nicely done. Obviously you know the books well, as evidenced also by the wear on the spines of the exhibit.

Lede
  • While Flashman self-describes as a coward, his reaction to an attack is to fight back. Some mention of this, and of his prowess in arms, would be worthwhile both in lede and body (in the Flashman section, I dare say)
  • The mention of his sexual exploits is very close to the mention of Queen Victoria, I would either separate or make it clear he did not have sex with her.
Context
  • Can nothing be said about the enjoyable footnotes which end each Flashman book? In the case of some of the worse ones, they are more entertaining than the book.
Publication
  • Would it be possible to have a brief mention, possibly within parentheses, of the dates when each took place? I see them below this, but I think it would aid the reader.
  • On Royal Flash, you should probably clarify that Gustaf does not actually have a social disease, but is imprisoned by Rudi et al.
  • I think considering he's one of the best characters original to Fraser, you should say a bit more about John Charity Spring.
  • "He is identified as an abolitionist" This reads oddly as Flashman is not an abolitionist. He doesn't care one way or the other.
  • "subsequently killed. Flashman is subsequently involved " Ahem.
  • You should probably clarify whether Ignatiev is an army or navy captain. Lower case.
  • In Great Game: Is it worth adding a sentence at the end that Flashy gets the VC and word of the publication of Tom Brown's Schooldays?
  • It should be mentioned, I think, that Part 1 of Redskins immediately follows the end of Freedom
  • "Kuklos also want Flashman". There should probably be a "The" starting this sentence.
Other references

Comments by Sarastro: I can't resist commenting on this one, damn your eyes! And I hope this is the beginning of a long series of articles on Flashman; if so, please keep me informed! Really good article overall, well done.

  • I'd like to (much as a few of us did with the Bond novels, character, films etc) but whereas there are a few hundred books that look at various aspects of Bond—ranging from academic explorations of the subject to things only just above fan scribblings (where we are more accurate and neutral!)—there is very, very little that looks at Flashman in the same way, which leaves us with the reviews of books and the primary sources themselves. I'll probably update the character article at Harry Paget Flashman, but I may struggle to go too much further than that, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flashman was created by journalist, author and screenwriter George MacDonald Fraser": Seems to be a stretch as Hughes arguably created the character and Fraser … expanded upon it.
  • Arguably is the key word there as I think it's something of a moot point. When I wrote the lead, I worked that sentence several times and still wasn't happy where it ended up! I've flipped it the other way now. Does that look OK? - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he is a coward who tries to run away from any danger, he is involved in a number of notable military episodes from the 19th century and—often taking actions that cause subsequently infamous actions, such as his flatulence causing the Charge of the Light Brigade Despite his cowardice and his attempts to flee, he becomes a decorated war hero and rises to the rank of brigadier-general": Something wrong here: a long sentence, a misplaced capital and one half of a pair of dashes!
  • "Flashman either had sex with them, or tried to have sex with them": Perhaps "either had, or tried to have, sex with them", but my commas seem awry. And is "sex" encyclopaedic enough? (I almost feel that a suitable phrase from the books should be used here, but perhaps not…)
  • LOL—too much fun to be had in finding the right term from the books to drop in there! WP:EUPHEMISM says that "have sex" is the neutral version to use, even though I'd prefer to use "bulled her round the room until she hollered uncle"! I've tweaked the more strait-laced version as you suggest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In giving the "explanation" of the books' "discovery", is it worth saying that they were found in Ashby? I always liked that touch.
  • "Fraser would research each novel at Trinity College, Dublin": Perhaps just "Fraser researched…"
  • Surely Royal Flash should mention Lola Montez?
  • It's certainly allowable to cover that aspect, I'm struggling to find anything in the sources that would cover that angle appropriately, but there must be something somewhere, so I'll dig a little further. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the offer Tim: I will certainly take you up on that offer when I start doing the Flashman character article. I've dropped in a line here about the reception in general, which should cover the summary nature of the book series. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two penn'orth from Tim Riley
  • Introduction
    • "a series of novels and short stories, first published in 1969" – not all of them published in 1969. Perhaps "the first of which was published…"
    • "Flashman's part in the stories tends to either be fictional, or he assumes the role of real but unidentified individuals" – I'm not quite clear what this means
    • "his flatulence causing the charge of the Light Brigade" – it is positively inhuman to write this without explaining how. A footnote would do, but PLEASE! Tangentially, I think linking to flatulence as you do is a calculated and mischievous piece of WP:OVERLINK. Mind you, I couldn't help laughing.
      • I've tweaked it slightly (my memory was slightly faulty) and added a footnote to explain. It is one of the better passages in the series and still the only book I've ever read that has had me laughing uncontrollably on London Transport, much to the bemusement of the other passengers on the No 30 bus! - SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The series consists" – earlier you use "series" as a plural noun ("the main series of stories finish in 1894") Either is fine, but I think you should be consistent. For what it's worth, my own inclination would be to use the singular form.
    • "he decided to leave journalism and take up writing" – I see what you mean, but writing is what journalists do, after a fashion. Perhaps "...and write novels"?
    • "the John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry" – is the definite article wanted here?
  • Flashman in the Great Game
  • Flashman at the Charge
  • Flashman's Lady
  • Flashman and the Angel of the Lord
  • Flashman and the Tiger
    • "He rides the maiden voyage of the Orient Express" – do trains make voyages? Not absolutely sure, but it feels subtly off-key to me.

That's my lot. I extravagantly enjoyed reviewing this article. It reads lightly but there is plainly a lot of careful reading behind it. Bravo!– Tim riley (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

A very engaging little article, and brilliantly fluent with its prose. I have a few minor observations:

Context

  • "...spanning a period from 1839 to 1894." - "a period" is a little redundant when we go onto give the period in date form.
  • "...until Barrie & Jenkins published it in 1969. When the novel was published in the US in 1969..." - repetition of "1969"? Could we say "...until Barrie & Jenkins published it in 1969. When the novel was published in the US the same year..."
  • "Fraser was working as a journalist on The Glasgow Herald when he decided to leave journalism and take up writing novels. He would write in the evenings, after work, taking 90 hours in total to write the first novel, Flashman. -- This seems a little mixed up chronologically. He left journalism one minute, then returned to write after work. Did he have a second job? If not, I would say: "Fraser, who was working as a journalist on The Glasgow Herald, would write after work, and took 90 hours to write the first novel, Flashman. After this, he decided to leave journalism and take up writing novels full time." -- Failing that, I would just delete "after work".

Flashman

  • "...his grandfather made money from rum and slavery" - selling rum? making rum? smuggling rum? If he was involved in slavery, one would assume smuggling. Could this be clarified?
  • "...a number of times by a number of countries." - a number of repetitive words, especially when we bare in mind that "a number" is used twice more in this paragraph.

More later. -- CassiantoTalk 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for your thoughts here: I look forward to anything else you pick up on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication sequence

  • This all looks OK. I noticed a couple of trivial things:
Flashman at the Charge

OVERLINK of Russia

Flashman and the Redskins

"In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth. In Washington meets George Armstrong Custer..." -- Either there is a misplaced full stop after Elspeth or a few words are missing -- "In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth and meets George Armstrong Custer in Washington..." or In 1875 Flashman returns to America with his wife, Elspeth. Later, in Washington, he meets George Armstrong Custer..."

Notes
  • Is it usual for a citation to be given at the end of a paragraph? If so Note a's is missing.

That's it, everything else looks superb! Hearty congratulations! -- CassiantoTalk 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind and, as always, your excellent and insightful comments are very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing PR: Many thanks indeed to everyone who commented. I hope I have done justice to your thoughts and comments and I hope to see you at FLC! - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Queen (Ivy Queen album)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been recently promoted to GA, and would like to try for FA. I feel it is a very strong article, though sections like the lead could use help.

Thanks, DivaKnockouts (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bald Zebra

Overall this is a good interesting article - I can't believe it's taken 3 weeks for someone to review this!

External Links / References
There appear to be some major issues with some of your references / external links:
  • References 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25, 30, 31 and 33 (linking to pandora.com) are all inaccessible for users outside the US, Australia and New Zealand - you'll need to find an alternative source for these.
Okay, so the information that is used with these must be removed? Or, if I archive these links, they should be available then, right?
Yes, the track listing at Liveweb seems to work fine. You won't need to remove anything - all you'll need to do is add the "archiveurl=" attributes to the reference code. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 19:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone ahead and archived them directly just in case. Now, to find where the Billboard articles have been moved to. Also, the remaining Billboard articles that haven't been affected should probably archived as well right? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikilinks used in these citations are wrong - they link to Pandora (the goddess) when they should link to Pandora Radio.
 Done
  • References 2, 23, 46-60, 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 (linking to billboard.com) all appear to be broken.
Okay, it seems that with Billboard's new remodeling, all of these links have been broken. I will try to find where these links have been moved to.

Alright. I've added (registration required) to references 45-59 and 75-79, since they were registration required links. I think that's all the broken links, did I miss any? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I not 100% sure about this but if those links are registration-only, it may affect the chances of this article getting to Featured Article standard as not everyone would be able to access them. Are you sure Billboard haven't moved those links elsewhere? ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't think so, since they were registration required before the move, my good friend Hahc21 ([[User talk:Hahc21|talk) told me it shouldn't matter. I'll look deeper into this. Thanks for your reviews and time on this article, I greatly appreciate it. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • " It features a wide variety of musical styles, prominent on her previous album, Sentimiento released three years earlier and on a different record label." - I feel this sentence needs a bit of tweaking, for example "It features a wide variety of musical styles, as was prominent on her previous album Sentimiento, released three years earlier and on a different record label."
 Done
 Done
  • "Drama Queen spawned two singles" - this sounds like something out of a horror movie! Consider changing this to something like "Two singles were released from the album"
 Done
Background
  • "It's a privilege to have Ivy Queen apart of over artistic roster." Probably a typo, but it's hard to verify as the reference is broken.
 Done, Will check for an alternate source.
Recording and production
  • "...a roster of well-known urban artist..." - should be a plural.
 Done
Singles
  • First paragraph: mun2 and Vevo should be wikilinked, as anyone outside the US probably won't have heard of these.
 Done
  • "Queen said that the genre bachata is more meaningful " - should this be "bachata genre"? Or is this a direct quotation?
 Done

If I have any more suggestions, I'll let you know.

Thanks for your time and reviewing this article. I great appreciate it. Regards. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 15:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

59th National Film Awards

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the list was FLC twice. This time opening PR first than FLC nomination. Thanks, - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are my first bunch of comments:

Infobox
  • Concern: Shouldn't Hamid Ansari be credited in the "Awarded by" section and his designation mentioned in the bracket, instead of the other way round?
Done
Lead
  • "Deool in Marathi language and Byari in Beary language shared the award for the Best Feature Film. Byari was the first-ever film made in the Beary language, and the only film in the language at the time of the awards." aren't good sentences. How about "The Marathi film Deool and Byari (the first and only Beary-language film) shared the award for the Best Feature Film"?
Done
  • "The award for the Best Non-Feature Film was given to theHindi—English documentary And We Play On." There is a minor spacing issue there, and why is an endash used here. "Hindi-English" should be hyphenated.
Done
  • " the Assamese film critic Manoj Barpujari was declared the Best Film Critic." Redundant "the".
Done
  • Why isn't "best feature film direction" linked?
Done
  • " The award for best feature film direction went to Gurvinder Singh for the Punjabi film Anhe Ghore Da Daan, which was the debut feature film by him." can be changed to " Gurvinder Singh won the award for the best feature film direction, for the Punjabi film Anhe Ghore Da Daan, his directorial debut." Or maybe something better.
Done
  • "The award for Best Actor was given to Girish Kulkarni for Deool for which he also won the award of Best Dialogue." ==> "For the film Deool, Girish Kulkarni won the awards for Best Actor and Best Dialogue". Also, link the respective awards.
Done
  • "...was given to the veteran Bengali actor Soumitra Chatterjee for his contribution to the Bengali cinema." Is the usage of "veteran" necessary here? Also, there is a redundant "the" before Bengali cinema.
Done. Though I have kept "veteran" word as is. I hope it does not violate WP:PEACOCK.
Selection process
  • In the first sentence, "... invited nominations for the awards" should rather be "...invited nominations for the 2012 award ceremony"
Done
  • "... magazines, and journals in the same period were eligible for the best writing on cinema section." ==> "... magazines, and journals during the same period were eligible to contest for the best writing on cinema section." I am sure of this one. But, the sentence doesn't read well.
Done Changed to "The written material on Indian cinema published in Indian print media during the same period were eligible for the best writing on cinema section."
  • Next sentence "Entries of .." should be removed from the sentence.
Done
  • " In the Non-Feature Films category received 156 entries; 28 books and 22 articles were submitted for the Best Writing on Cinema section." is grammatically incorrect. Please change it.
Done
Awards
  • First line should be "The National Film Awards are grouped into three sections: Feature Films, Non-Feature Films and Writing on Cinema".
Done
  • Next line should be "On March 7, 2012, in a press conference held at Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi, the winners for the 2012 award ceremony were announced".
Done
  • "A lifetime achievement award, named after the father of Indian cinema Dadasaheb Phalke, was awarded to a film personality for outstanding contribution to the growth and development of Indian Cinema". The phrase "father of Indian cinema" is not needed here. Also, second part of the sentence is grammatically incorrect.
Done
  • "Six categories from the Feature Films section, and two from the Non-Feature Films and Best Writing on Cinema sections were made eligible for a Swarna Kamal.." What do you mean by "made eligible"? Confusing.
Done Removed this sentence. It was mentioned as confusing in the previous reviews as well.

I will come back later for more.

Fixed few. Will work on other. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed above mentioned issues. - Vivvt • (Talk) 20:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Some comments on format
  • Shouldn't the Award section be followed by the Dadasaheb Phalke Award, Feature Films etc as sub-sections?
Earlier PR received a comment for "Award" section being too long and suggestion came up to have it split into four section, as we have currently.
  • For the "Jury" sub-section in the "Feature Films" section, the profession of all the other members are mentioned except for the ones who are heading the different regions.
All the regional heads are part of central jury, so did not mention their profession separately.
  • In the "Silver Lotus Award" section, categories having more than one winners follow different table formats. For example, Best Child Artist is different from Best Costume Design and Best Make-up Artist. Needs to be consistent. --smarojit (buzz me) 03:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Vivvt • (Talk) 04:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thome

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I recently brought it up to GA and am strongly considering trying to bring it to FA status, but want to know how much is left to do first. Thanks in advance.

Thanks, Go Phightins! 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing.... Alright ... I lived in the Cleveland area during some of his best days there; I'll give it a shot. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ... sorry it took me a week to print it out and go through it with a red pen, then get back here.

This article has strengths, strengths that clearly got it to GA status. It's generally well-organized, and most importantly for a reviewer it has little if any spelling, grammar or punctuation errors. Most of my pen marks were for greater issues.

However, there were some significant ones. If the goal is to get to FA, these, I think, will have to be addressed by some very intensive work on the article.

The main one is that it doesn't heed summary style. There is too much, way too much, emphasis on one kind of statistics and the corresponding detail. Most directly, we have a good picture of Thome as a hitter over the course of his career but not much else.

There are three skills that everyone who makes it to the show has to have: batting, baserunning and fielding. This article's account of Thome's career focuses almost exclusively on the first. You wouldn't even know what position he plays for most of it—you'd think he'd been a DH from his rookie year on. There's just one mention of him as a fielder, when he goes back to playing a position during his second stint in Philadelphia. And no discussion of him as a baserunner.

And this focus on one aspect of his play leads to an article that's overly specific. We get dates for everything, the pitchers he hit certain home runs off of, etc. I know baseball fans love to rattle this stuff off, but we're not writing for just them here. It's been years since quite a few of these events ... most readers aren't going to care, and the ones that do probably know they can go to baseball-reference.com for this.

Another result of this hitting-stat focus is that facts, even ones that should be in the article by any measure, are often just strewn around paragraphs and sections without much thought as to how they form a narrative.

I will start going through the article with some specifics next ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific passages

[edit]

Intro

[edit]
  • I'd recast the lede graf by putting the teams first, dropping the date ranges (the first example of over-specific detail), and then mentioning that he's a free agent.
  • He is currently seventh all-time for most career home runs (612) and 24th all-time for runs batted in (RBIs) with 1,699. Be consistent here ... if you're going to put homers in parentheses, do the same with RBIs. Or set them both off with "with". But not one here and the other there.

    And you might want to introduce the "HR" abbreviation parenthetically here as well, since you do use it later.

  • In 1995, they lost to the Atlanta Braves in six games while in 1997 they lost to the young Florida Marlins franchise in seven games: Is this level of detail really relevant to Thome himself in the intro? You can cut this entirely, since you said what you needed to say about this period of his career in the sentence before that: they made the Series and they lost it twice.


Early life

[edit]
  • Thome was born in Peoria, Illinois on August 27, 1970, shortly after twin sister Jenny. The youngest of five children ...: Since it's not mentioned again, I don't see how his being born after his twin sister is relevant (unless, say, it was a difficult labor and his mother gave birth to him more than a day later, which doesn't seem to be the case). It's probably better just to stick with "youngest of five."

more. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • His grandmother was hired at Caterpillar so she could play for the company softball team." For non-American readers, or any reader not familiar with what Caterpillar is and/or their large presence around Peoria, we should add something explaining this like, "at one of the Caterpillar plants in the area." Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like his brothers, Thome also attended Limestone. Redundant, and I took the liberty of fixing it myself.

Pro career

[edit]
Do they play in a particular location? Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... where he played exclusively in 1989 posting a stat line of .237 with no home runs and 22 RBIs.: You just introduced batting average to the reader without even explaining what it is, and only a regular reader of the sports pages will know what a "stat line" is.
  • Thome made his Major League debut on September 4, 1991, as a third baseman against the Minnesota Twins. In the game he went 2-for-4 and recorded his first hit off of pitcher Tom Edens in the fourth inning. He hit his first career home run on October 4 against New York Yankees pitcher Steve Farr. Are the dates, pitchers and the inning really necessary here?
  • Is his rookie year salary necessary? Especially since his other years' salaries are, for the most part, not.
  • "... though they eventually lost the World Series to the Atlanta Braves in six games, who had won ten fewer games in the regular season": Not only do all the prepositional phrases here make for choppy reading, not only does the last clause dangle, I don't see why it matters that the Braves had a worse regular-season record when they beat the Indians in the Series.
  • "...contributing 40 of them to go along with 33 from David Justice and 32 from Williams": Again, this is the article about Thome; we're not here to read about someone else's stats.
  • "On July 14, 1998, Thome hit his 24th home run of the season while helping the Indians snap the Yankees' 10 game winning streak ... On August 8, Thome broke a bone in his right hand and spent five weeks on the disabled list." Do we need the exact dates of things that happened over a decade ago?
  • "On May 31, 1999, in a rematch of the prior year's ALCS ..." Not only do I not think we need the date, but I don't see the relevance of this item at all.
  • " On September 29, while in the midst of a tight race for the wild card spot, Thome led the Indians to an 8-4 victory against the Toronto Blue Jays by hitting a two-run home run." Again, I'm not sure about how relevant this is, especially since ... "Despite finishing with a record of 90–72, the Indians missed the playoffs."
  • "Thome hit .269 with 37 home runs and 106 RBIs in 2000": Now, if you're going to make the point in your opening sentence that his stats went down from the high levels they had been at, why do you then put the actual stats several sentences away at the end of the paragraph?

taking a break again. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On June 14, 2004, Thome hit his 400th career home run off of José Acevedo to the left-center field seats at Citizens Bank Park" The date might actually be OK here since it's a milestone homer. The pitcher too. But where it landed?
  • "Ryan Howard won the NL Rookie of the Year award." Huh? Not having a footnote is the least of the problems here, as this comes out of nowhere. In the beginning of the next graf, I can see where you're going, but this creates all sorts of confusion where it is.
  • "Though the emergence of Howard made Thome less important to the squad, another primary factor in his trade to Chicago was his family situation." Wait a minute. Trade? Chicago? Which team? Only later in the graf do we understand all this.
  • "... the Phillies and White Sox completed the deal on November 25, 2005, only days after new GM Pat Gillick took the reins of the team." Once again, I'm not sure the exact date is really important after seven years. And the change in general managers should be mentioned only if it had an effect on the trade.
  • "Thome was traded to the Chicago White Sox along with $22 million for Aaron Rowand and minor league pitching prospects Gio Gonzalez and Daniel Haigwood." Only here, in the last sentence, do you put the full name of the team, which should have been used on first reference. And I also question whether we need to know who or what was on the other end of the trade here.

    In fact, this whole paragraph needs to be reordered. It should discuss how Howard emerged, which combined with Thome's injury made him less important to the Phillies, then how his parents' situation made him even more amenable to being traded to the White Sox. There's a story here and it needs to be told chronological. I get the feeling something was taken out without looking at how it might affect the surrounding text, because there's really no need for two separate grafs for this.

  • "On June 4, 2008, Thome hit a 464-foot (141 m) home run—which at the time was the ninth longest home run in U.S. Cellular Field history—against Kansas City Royals pitcher Luke Hochevar in a 6–4 White Sox victory." I was going to say that this seems like a rather wan accomplishment ... until I looked at the article on the stadium and saw that it used to be Comiskey Park. If you clarify that, the context is clearer.
  • "... Thome hit the first of four consecutive home runs by the White Sox": Against who? Were they in the same game? In this case the opponent probably should be mentioned.

breaking again. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The other two openings he was part of were the 1994 Cleveland Indians as they opened Jacobs Field and the 2004 Philadelphia Phillies as they opened Citizens Bank Park." This is actually an interesting, I-did-not-know-that fact ... I wonder if it's a record of some kind. However, this sentence should be made into a note so it doesn't disrupt the narrative flow.
  • "On June 19, Thome returned to Citizens Bank Park, where he hit a pinch hit game-winning home run in the 11th inning off of Danys Baez in a 13–10 victory over his former team.: Despite the cleanup I did on the sentence, it's uncited and still of doubtful relevance.
  • "Statistically, in terms of power measurements such as slugging percentage and at bats per home run ...": First, this sentence is misshapen. It would read better as "It was Thome's best season since 2002 for ..."

    Second, why this single mention of statistics other than the traditional HR/hit/RBI numbers? More on this below.

break. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm done with the specifics. Two other large issues need to be attended to

Player profile

[edit]

I looked at the only other FA on an active player I could find, Derek Jeter, and I saw it had a similar structure. After the history, however, there was this nice "Player Profile" section, discussing Jeter as a player in mostly qualitative terms. This would be an excellent section to have if the research could be done ... and I can't believe that for a guy who's hung on through 20+ seasons in the big leagues there isn't at least one more in-depth profile of him. An article that talks about, either directly or indirectly, his strengths and weaknesses as a batter. What pitches/pitchers is he particularly successful against, or not? How does he approach an at-bat? Did he have any issues developing in this are? Almost every player talks to the media about this at some point.

And this would be the place to discuss his fielding, mentioned all of twice in the history. How is he in that department? Was he, did he like, playing third more than first? This guy's spent most of his later career as a hitter ... is his fielding a reason for this? And what kind of baserunner is he? Obviously it's not his primary skill, but if he gets on base he's got to run (or if he's pinched for, is there a good reason?)

This would be a good place, perhaps, to discuss Thome's career in post-Bill James statistics. To paraphrase him, what has all his hits/home runs/RBIs brought to the teams he's played for? What do they mean? How does he look in metrics like OPS? Wins above replacement? If he were to sign with yet another team in the next few weeks, if I were a fan of those teams I might want to know what we're getting.

Images

[edit]

All your images are, aesthetically, great. And editorially. But ... I see they're scraped off Flickr, from streams taken by people at the parks/games.

There is a dispute as to whether images taken at sporting events can truly be considered "free." The terms and conditions of your admission, either on the stadium's website or the back of the ticket in barely readable fine print, almost always say that any photos or video you take at the ball game are for personal, noncommercial use only.

Now, whether that can affect a third party's reuse of your photo, even one where, in accordance with the terms of a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license, they didn't even ask permission (much less pay) to the effect that the team could sue a business that reused it without the Express Written Consent of Major League Baseball, is an open question. It's never come before a court because that lawsuit hasn't been filed.

Since you aren't required to attend a game, some of us have argued that means the photographer has implicitly accepted the licensing terms by entering the stadium, and therefore the CC licensing is superseded and cannot be used. Thus, they conclude, images taken at a sporting venue cannot be free without specific authorization (which has sometimes been given) to take photos using that licensing.

There are sometimes people at FA who bring this up and make it a big sticking point. It might be a help to you at FAC if you could find one free image of Thome outside a sporting event, even if he's wearing a blazer and polo shirt (Cf. Jerome Bettis).

That's all I have. Happy editing! Hope all this helps! Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, regarding images, I went to a Phillies game last spring with the intention of taking a few pirctures of him, but he was put on the DL the day before :(. Go Phightins! 02:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'll get cracking on this soon. Go Phightins! 11:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audie Murphy

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate Audie Murphy for Featured Article and would like to know what needs to be changed and/or fixed to meet the criteria for FA nomination.

Thanks, — Maile (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by MarcusBritish

[edit]
General
  • Does not appear to be "brilliantly and professionally" written yet, for FA standards. Is very blunt in places, lack in-depth information, lacks biographical relevance in parts. Needs to be refocused and strengthened in places.
 Done - Lead
  • Short, to the point, but not very inspiring. Would suggest leaving the lead until last, and rewriting it from scratch to reflect the article better. Lead should not require in-line citations, as it is a summary of the article, which should hold the references, so a lead should not contain anything not in the main article.
I've just cleaned the citations out of the lead. Will hold off re-working the lead until the rest of the article has been tackled. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completely reworked the lead.— Maile (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Infobox
  • Photo plus signature plus medal is very crowded. Picture and signature need separating in graphical editor, signature background should be transparent (PNG) and displaying under the signature parameter of {{Infobox military person}}. Not sure where the medal needs to go, but side-by-side looks poor.
Moved medal image down to section "Military honors and rank". Infobox looks much better. I'm no good working with images, so separating the signature from the image needs to be handled by someone who knows what they're doing on that type of thing. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly do this, as I use Photoshop so can manage the requirements. Not sure if signature images have to be done or uploaded in any special manner, but I'll check in a moment on here and Commons. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Early life
 Done - Childhood
  •  Done - Not sure if I see the need in birth/death dates of every member of his family, is seems rather crowded, given that he had 11 siblings, and as none of these are wiki-linked, I can only assume they were not notable (each name should be checked for an article, however, incase). Removing these dates would be more practical in paragraph format, or convert the 11 names to a list with name – born–died. It should be clearly referenced.
Changed appropriately. Depending on the reference, he was either the sixth, seventh or even ninth child. I changed it to "one of twelve" and left out the names of the siblings. — Maile (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a paragraph on the inconsistencies on both his birth date and height, with referencing. The reader can make up their own mind . — Maile (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Enlistment
  • Double mention of his height, within the space of a few lines, needs work, once should be enough.
Reworded — Maile (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Battles
 Done - Medal of Honor action and valor awards
  • Majority of references are the same two sources [1] and [5] throughout these two sections. Extra sourcing might be useful, if available, to give a broader perspective.
As done as it can be, all things considered. I've added extra sourcing where I can find it. But the fact remains the the Audie Murphy memorial site and its Audie Murphy Research Foundation is the best sourcing. They have all the military records on PDF, and not a whole lot of that information is available else where. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done = Last two paragraphs are completely unreferenced.
His entire Military Career has undergone a re-working. It's in a decent cohesive, chronological order now. I've scattered quotes from Murphy in the text, so the reader can see it through his eyes. Did a lot of sourcing. There's probably some tweaking in order, but as a whole, I'm done with this part. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Military honors and rank
 Done - Medal of Honor citation
  •  Done - First paragraph after the citation is mostly unreferenced following the first sentence. There is little, if any, detail regarding his service, just a bland list of campaigns and awards. Perhaps the previous "battles" section could be expanded to fully discuss military action in greater depth, and this section rewritten to discuss the awards more clearly, as he is famous for being one of the most decorated American soldiers of the war, I'd expect to know more about those decorations.
Per a suggestion from the Audie Murphy talk page, the citation was moved up to the MoH action and valors award section, and the inline citation source was changed to the United States Army online page on Audie' citation. The two paragraphs that were below it were moved up in the section above it and will be dealt with in that section. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Rank and date
  • Seems fine, although it would normally better to have his military career discussed in prose form, and mention his promotions as and when received also, that just a list plonked on the page for reference, which feels a bit disjointed.
 Done - Decorations, awards, and badges
  • There has been much debate over using these type of image-based sections, and I don't want to open a fresh can of worms, but if you're aiming for FA, you can bet someone will have their gripes about it. Given that Murphy is notable for his decorations, and these are not just here for show, they are important. However, my view is that the current setup is poor. The three-part table is not visually appealing, and more-importantly not informative. The tables contain images and their names. Firstly, we can see these in the infobox, so it's repetition. Secondly, they don't relate to Murphy. There needs to be detailed notes regarding how/where/when he was awarded each of these, so they have biographical relevance otherwise it's just a non-relevant picture gallery of awards.
Audie Murphy honors and awards to include Other Honors, and still needs work— Maile (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As done as it can be, all things considered. I've added extra sourcing where I can find it. But the fact remains the the Audie Murphy memorial site and its Audie Murphy Research Foundation is the best sourcing. They have all the military records on PDF, and not a whole lot of that information is available else where. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Movie career
ALL sub-sections
  • Very thin on references, a few scattered citations, but not strong enough.
I'll see what I can dig up on this to make it better. — Maile (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see if this is OK. The article is getting too long and is difficult to edit because of that. I moved the entire movie career section to a child article Audie Murphy/Films and television work. It's written as though it were a separate article on its own if you care to move it. But making it a child article seemed to be a safe place to put it for the time being. I know the subject matter still needs work. When re-working it for the move, I found some repetition of information and one paragraph that belonged under his family life, and have taken care of those items. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the use of child articles is non-standard procedure, as the / removes the content from main space into a sub-article. It should either be in the main article itself or titled something like Audie Murphy filmography, as is common practice. Would recommend it be moved to such a title asap, before someone uninvolved in the article upgrade does it and potentially messes it up. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Maile (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now the section will need a WP:SUMMARY style paragraph on Murphy being an actor, rather than just a link to the new article.. I don't think FA would allow just a link, even though they are common on Wiki I don't think it's recommended practice; there should always be a little bit of background on the main page, covering the main points. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it taken care of. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Autobiography To Hell and Back
  • Given that this was originally a book, and only made a film six years later, is seems strange only to focus on its success under "movie career". Perhaps splitting the section, with more discussion about the book earlier in the article, then address the movie version under this section.
I've done the split. And at the bottom of the page I added a printing history of the book. If this should have been done otherwise, please feel free to change. — Maile (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Filmography
TV credits
  • Should be converted to a wikitable consisting of headings: Movie, Year, Role, Notes rather than a list. See: WP:FILMOGRAPHY. At FA quality, people want to know more about his acting career than a few titles.
Filmography (TV and list of movies coverted to wikitables) — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Music career
Moved to its own section below Movie career — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Unmade films
  • Seems to be back-to-front, unmade films should follow his acting career, then move onto music.
Moved — Maile (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Personal life
  • Possibly needs renaming to Later life, given that it covers his post-war period, rather than personal life as a whole.
Renamed to Later life — Maile (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Post-war emotional problems
  • I feel that this comes too late in the article. First we get his childhood, then his military career, then his movie career, then his post-war trauma. I think there needs to be something between the two, discussing this his trauma, his move to acting, perhaps his book autobiography, and other similar biographical information, and then come to his acting career.
Moved this up to "Military career"
 Done - Audie Murphy clubs
  • Mainly one reference used throughout. More would be better.
Moved this up to below "Military honors and rank" - will work on referencing and try to find more clubs
I've updated the references - the old ones were dead. Maybe it brief. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Other honors
  • Lot of copy-editing needed to tidy this up, hyphens to endashes particularly.
  • Lacks references, many of these honors need citing, to prevent this looking like a WP:TRIVIA section.
Inserted endashes, but don't particularly like the look. Working on sourcing and etc. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
[edit]

Marcus, thank you for this. Some of this I can probably take care of - maybe not all. As you've probably noticed, there have been many editors over the years, and it was in even worse shape before I started trying to upgrade it a couple of days ago. I want to do what I can. I believe Audie Murphy as a subject is worthy of FA, but the article needs work. How long can we leave this notice here before it is closed? I'd like to go through your list one by one and see what I can improve on. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from what I can gather, as long as a peer review does not become inactive for two weeks or is not older than a month with 2 days inactivity, it will remain open for further comment. Don't feel bound to have to deal with "all" suggestions in reviews, though bear in mind that what you don't do may be asked in more formal assessments for grading. I don't do class assessments, especially not FA, so whoever does that when you get there might consult this peer review and note anything you missed. There is a lot needs doing, I think the article should be at least 2 or 3 times bigger, in terms of prose and biographical detail, more about Murphy that is notable, factual, informative. The current article feels light-weight, and poorly attended for a man with the tag of "most decorated soldier". Is a real shame... unfortunately, I don't know all that much about him, apart from having seen To Hell and Back, but I grew fond of him from watching his Westerns, and thought him a sincere actor. Despite his humble nature, I have heard one of his post-war radio interviews (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PstvNQVP3Zk) and would have thought that a man so well-know and respected, a LIFE cover hero and film star, would have done more interviews and had more publicity photos taken. Would be nice to see more quotes, images, citations that include these, and any other primary sources available. Would like to know more about his thoughts on the war, on his acting, his fav. roles, war anecdotes he told, things like that.. more intimate info. about the man himself than just general "he did this, he did that" background info. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of feel the same way you do about Audie Murphy. Thanks for the link to the interview-interesting. I agree with everything you've said. And I think a Wikipedia article on him should be top of the line. We'll see how much I am able to contribute towards that. I see there is a petition out there to get Audie the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and I'm hoping to find a centralized link to that rather than the scatter-shot blog links. I'm going to the library to check out "To Hell and Back", which is only referenced directly once, and that's in the lead. It would be good to get a perspective from the horse's mouth, so to speak. If I bring this to a larger article of the size you envision, the mere size would necessitate breaking it off into sub pages for things like filmography and awards etc. I'd like to find more on his personal PTSD - I remember reading a bio of him years ago that said he'd have nightmares in his sleep about the German children whose fathers he killed. I've done much on WP regarding non-military Texas history, geography and personalities. But I think this article should be one that can be respected by the military veteran readers. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to have added more about his acting career, on behalf of WikiProject Westerns (which I started, last August), but most of my books only mention him in passing. This is mostly as a result of the films he was in being B-movies, and therefore not particularly notable – not really his fault – even though he did star with the wonderful James Stewart in Night Passage, it still gets very little coverage when put amongst all the bigger Westerns with Wayne, Eastwood, et al. If, however, WP:BIOGRAPHY or WP:MILHIST are able to identify enough material regarding his personal life and military career, I think that would get it at least to GA level. I think there would need to significantly more regarding his acting though, given that it covers more than 20 years of his later life, to attain FA where "it neglects no major facts or details" is part of the criteria, whilst GA only requires "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", specifically footnoting the lesser requirement to be as detailed as FA. I personally don't feel FA should be the ultimate goal of all articles, and would consider a GA-grading and a successful A-class review (at MILHIST standards, that is) a very respectable achievement, possibly even necessary stepping stones before pushing for FA, especially if there is a lack of obvious sources, as those A-class reviews can be useful as MILHIST members may contribute extra content, bringing it not far short of FA quality. Whichever way you prefer to do it though, I support its success. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left talk page messages at WP: United States and WP: Military History requesting editorial input from those who would be knowledgeable in military history. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Be interesting to see if those medal tables are developed or disappear given the current divide in opinion and lack of consensus over their usage. But there will need to be some detailed information regarding his awards to account for his "most decorated" title, as that is basically when his notability originated, and probably what FA reviewers will want to see also, to pass it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have done a lot of copy-editing, tweaks and such, hopefully that should tidy a few bits up. A lot of citation overkill present, with the same refs being used in the middle and end of sentences, which is totally unnecessary.. once per sentence should suffice in such cases, and not the same ref after every sentence, as was also the case in some areas, so I've reduced them too, making it a little neater. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/suggestions by AustralianRupert
[edit]

G'day, good work so far. I had a quick look and made a few minor tweaks. Please check you are happy with those. Overall, I'd say this article has considerable potential for a higher rating, but it will need a bit more work. I have the following suggestions:

  •  Done, and thanks for the idea - you might be able to reduce some of the whitespace below the lead by using a table of contents limiter such as {{TOC limit}};
  • once you are happy with the content, I'd suggest asking someone to copy edit the article before taking it to GA or A-class as I think the prose could be a bit tighter in places;
  •  Done a few more citations are probably needed. I marked a few places with a "citation needed" tag where I felt they were needed with this edit: [3]
  •  Done - this is an awkward sentence that probably should be rewritten: "The next day, January 26 (the temperature was 14 °F (−10 °C) with 24 inches (61 cm) of snow on the ground), his..."
  •  Done - date format inconsistency. For instance compare: "5 October 2010" with "September 29, 2010" and "2012-03-14".
  •  Done - what is the difference between the References and Sources section?
  •  Done in the References section, the web citations should have publisher, author and accessdate information added if known;
  • in the Sources section, ISBNs, ISSNs or OCLC numbers should be added (these can be found at www.worldcat.org);
  •  Done - the See also section probably doesn't need so many only loosely related links;
  • the sources/licences for the images will be checked during a GA or A class review. I suggest making sure that they are good to go before then. I had a look at a couple, and found that there is no date or actual source (i.e. what book was it scanned from, or what website did it come from?) for this File:Audie Murphy.png, additionally I think that the author is incorrect. The author is the person who took the photograph, which in this case (please correct me if I am wrong) would not be MarcusBritish, who was the uploader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated photo/sig images. The derivativeFX uploaded didn't work properly, useless script, so I had to do it all manually and clearly didn't get everything. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AustralianRupert, thank you for this, and for the edits you made to the article. I'll go through the list and hopefully be able to take care of it all. The more I read and re-read the article, the more I see what you and MarcusBritish are seeing in the way of work to be done. And the overall flow of the article could be better. Right now, it looks like what it has been - a piece-meal work by editors who over the years added a part here and a part there. I'll do what I can.— Maile (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments copied over from the article's talk page
[edit]

Per your request on the WPUS talk page. Feel free to put this wherever is most useful for you.

  •  Done It might be better to create a separate article (similar to Service summary of Douglas MacArthur) with the awards (military and civilian and maybe even the long list of movies) and then summarize it in paragraph format in the article.
  • Since he was a Medal of Honor recipient you might want to glance at Kenneth Walker and see how that article is written.
  •  Done - Some of the references need expanding such as 4, 17 and 41
I'm working on all the references. Some were dead links, some references are not necessarily representative of the text they reference. So, I'm going through the article slowly and checking as I go. — Maile (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this gets closer to FA I think that some of the citations will be called into question. For examples, 23 and 50 (IMBD), 63 (Flickr)
  •  Done - I recommend replacing the Medal of Honor citation reference with
    • "Medal of Honor recipients". World War II (M - S). United States Army Center of Military History. June 27, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
  •  Done - Move the Medal citation into the Medal of Honor action and valor awards section with the description of the action
  •  Done - Drop the Other decorated combat soldiers, World War II section, its really irrelevent to the article
  •  Done - Change the Portal links to be like the ones on Kenneth Walker
  •  Done - Remove the Audie Murphy legacy link, it redirects back to the article
  •  Done - I don't think we need all the refs in the infobox, the info in the infobox should be in the article and cited.
  • Move the Audie Murphy clubs section under Other honors

Good luck with getting the article promoted. If you ask User:Hawkeye7, he may be willing to help out. He has gotten several of the other Medal of Honor recipients to FA status. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 01:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility Toolkit

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

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

I've found the content of this article misleading and I'd like to correct/improve it.

New content proposal:

In computing, Accessibility Toolkit (ATK) refers in particular to the GNOME ATK.

ATK is the toolkit created by the GNOME Project to enable accessibility for users needing extra support to make the most of their computers. ATK defines interfaces that exposes accessible representations of the toolkit’s graphic objects on the side of the applications. This representation is an almost a 1:1 match with the objects and interfaces defined by AT-SPI. The main difference between both representations is that ATK is process-bounded so the parent/children relationships in the ATK hierarchy are modelled by actual references (pointers) between objects living in the same process.[2]

GAIL (GNOME Accessibility Implementation Library) is the implementation of the accessibility interfaces defined by ATK for GTK+, the widget library of GNOME. Initially, GAIL was an independent module mapped to GTK+ but since GNOME 3.2, GAIL has been merged into GTK+.[3]

The development of ATK has been led by the Accessibility Program Office (APO) of Sun Microsystems, Inc. (now Oracle) with contributions from many community members. When Oracle acquired Sun in 2010 they cut developer jobs of full-time developers working on GNOME accessibility components like the Accessibility Toolkit ATK and the Orca screen reader. Since then, ATK is mainly running by volunteers, lead by Alejandro Piñeiro[4].

Apart from GTK+, other graphical toolkits has implemented ATK in order to be accessible like Java Swing[5] and SWT[6] , OpenOffice[7] /LibreOffice[8] , Mozilla’s Gecko[9] , Clutter[10] and WebKitGTK+[2].


Peer Review is inappropriate at this stage, where the article scarcely exists. I suggest you remove this information to the talkpage and get a discussion going there. I am closing the review Brianboulton (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ "London mayor: Boris Johnson wins second term by tight margin5 May 2012 Last updated at 01:35". BBC News. 5 May 2012. Retrieved 5 May 2012.
  2. ^ a b Sánchez Prada, Mario. "Accessibility in (WebKit)GTK+". Retrieved 19 February 2013.
  3. ^ "GNOME 3.2 Release Notes". Retrieved 19 February 2013.
  4. ^ Willis, Nathan (December 21, 2011). "GNOME plans an accessibility push for 2012". Linux Weekly News. Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  5. ^ "Java Access Bridge". Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  6. ^ "Eclipse 3.0 - New and Noteworthy in SWT". Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  7. ^ "OpenOffice ATK wrapper code". Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  8. ^ "LibreOffice ATK wrapper code". Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  9. ^ "Mozilla Accessibility Architecture". Retrieved 24 February 2013.
  10. ^ "Cally web page at GNOME". Retrieved 19 February 2013.

Jjmarin (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philomela

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would eventually like to bring it to FA and look forward to improving the article with this goal in mind.

Thanks, ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: This looks like a well-researched and comprehensive article, and I can certainly see it as a future featured article. I have not yet looked in detail at the prose, but there are a some general issues that need to be addressed:

  • There are at least half-a-dozen uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs. See, for example, "Variations on the myth", para 1; "Elements borrowed...", para 2; "Appearances in the Western canon" introduction; "From antiquity and the influence of Ovid", para 3 - and others besides. At FAC, conventions regarding citations are observed very strictly, and you will find that any such "open-ended" paragraphs are quickly seized on.
  • It also seems that not all citations cover the full preceding material. For example, in the "From antiquity..." section the citation which follows the three lines of verse is to Aeschylus's poem, but the preceding prose lines:, "Most notably..." etc, are not cited to anywhere. This problem may recur elsewhere in the article.
  • I see in that same extract a couple of POV phrases: "Most notably", and "the great playwright". These are editorial judgements which a neutral emcyclopedic article seeks to avoid. I have glimpsed others, e.g. a reference to Eliot's "most famous poem".
  • There are a number of issues with the format of the references:
  • The list looks much tidier in columnar format. I have done this - three cols
  • The online links should be incorporated into the titles, rather than shown separately. To indicate what I mean, I have done this for the first reference.
  • Journal and other print sources should be italicised.
  • There is unnecessary use of parentheses, in dates and retrieval dates. Refs would look tidier without them
  • Every ref requires a publisher
  • Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens
  • For standardisation in ref formats, it is sometimes useful to use citation templates
  • You should reorganise the bullet point section (in "In Classical and Romantic works") into normal prose.
  • I have not checked all the image licenses, but there could be problems with the Eliot photograph. Do we have a source for this, and do we know that it has not been published?

These are all things to be getting on with. I'll check out the prose later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Jack

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've made some major improvements and would like to get this up to GA status someday.

Thanks, Paper Luigi T • C 06:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The characters of Jack and Aku are voiced by Phil LaMarr and the late Mako Iwamatsu respectively." Shouldn't this say "were voiced" instead of "are voiced"?
  • I don't think it is necessary to include the quote at the beginning of the Plot section.
  • In the second paragraph of Plot, it seems a bit unbalanced to discuss one episode in such detail without mentioning any others. I suggest trimming out unnecessary details, or incorporating other episodes.
  • "beyond what is available in our current time" Avoid using first-person pronouns.
  • "Aku himself is obviously supernatural" Why would this be obvious? See MOS:OPED
  • "Regardless of the setting, the simple, minimalistic art style employed resembles ukiyo-e paintings." This claim belongs in a Style or Influences section, not the Setting section.
  • "The only time Young Jack has spoken is in Episode XXXI." Useless trivia.
  • Why is the Characters section entirely unsourced?
  • The Style and cultural references needs more references as well.

If you find this sort of feedback helpful, leave a note here and I'll continue. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Thermal Generating Station

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article did a good run on DYK on January 25 and has a good GA potential. I also want to make sure I've met all the requirements before hitting the GAN list. Thank you in advance for your interest.

Thanks, Bouchecl (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62
  • "Hydro-Québec's property" What is Hydro-Quebec? Why are they relevant?
Fixed I think I fixed it by removing HQ from the sentence. Briefly introduced the company in the first paragraph of the History section.
  • "Construction of this oil-fired generating station" Avoid using "this" and other pronouns when it is not clear what they refer to. This is particularly important for opening sentences of paragraphs, and doubly so for opening sentences of sections.
Fixed two or three occurrences of this :)
  • "Construction of this oil-fired generating station was undertaken in the early 1960s by the Shawinigan Water & Power Company to meet increasing demand in its service area and to mitigate the lack of potential for the significant expansion of hydropower on the Saint-Maurice River." Too many details crammed into one sentence. This could easily be chopped into two sentences
Fixed. I wrote a new lead paragraph for the History section.
New problem: "Quebec utilities are faced with rapid demand growth" Why is this written in the present tense? Same here: "The company initiates an ambitious construction program". Present tense bad. Past tense good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed again. Thanks again for reviewing. I blame my oversight on stylistic differences between the French and English Wikis. Présent narratif is a convenience in French but an hindrance in English. Duly noted. Bouchecl (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't the first paragraph of History presented in chronological order? It starts with "the early 1960s", then goes back to "February 1959".
Fixed the chronological issue in the new paragraph.
  • Avoid short one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those throughout Technical overview and the beginning of Retirement and dismantlement.
Fixed the two paragraphs you mention.
  • "The plant ceased operations at the end of the 2010-2011 winter season to be mothballed." What does it mean to be mothballed? Also, perhaps related, why did the plant cease operations?
Fixed Explained the meaning of mothballing in industry parlance. Second question: "It was officially retired on March 1, 2011."
It is problematic that the explanation of mothball appears after several uses of the term in the article -- there's one in the lead and one in the Operation section. Ideally, the explanation should appear immediately before or after the very first usage. Alternatively, just rewrite those sentences to avoid using the term at all. The purpose of this article is not to familiarize the reader with "industry parlance." The purpose is to give information about Tracy Thermal Generating Station that anyone can understand. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed once and for all. I eradicated the term mothball. :) Bouchecl (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Generation statistics section is a pretty clear example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I suggest either summarizing important figures in full sentences, or removing it altogether.
Fixed Section removed. Added cites to the table in 2 places.

I'll be watching this page, so if you would like clarification or more feedback, just drop a note here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'll go through each point on your list starting tomorrow. Bouchecl (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article as per your suggestions. Bouchecl (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Demolition Night

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… we intend to take it to FAC soon, possibly with a view to get it through in time to be an April Fools' candidate.

Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492
Just to get this out of the way: I don't watch baseball, and am not a big fan, so some things which may seem obvious to fans might slip past me.
  • After mentioning films we should have a year, like Saturday Night Fever.
  • famous - Not good. Regarded, perhaps
  • rock n roll - Article is at rock and roll
  • The sound known as disco descends from music at inner-city New York clubs in the early 1970s, where disc jockeys would play imported dance music to get the crowd moving. With roots in African-American, Latino, and gay cultures, disco, as it came to be called because it was popular in discotheques, became midstream by the mid-1970s. - This is a little confusing. Perhaps "The sound known as disco, named for its popularity in discotheques, was started in inner-city New York clubs in the early 1970s, where disc jockeys would play imported dance music to get the crowd moving. With roots in African-American, Latino, and gay cultures, disco became midstream by the mid-1970s." or another way to cut back on the commas.
  • Worried about underlinking (i.e. gay culture, Latino music, and African-American music could all be linked in the above two paragraphs)
  • all the rage - Sounds too colloquial
  • Some felt the music too mechanical—Time magazine deemed it a "diabolical thump-and-shriek"—but others hated the music for the scene associated with it, feeling that in the disco scene, personal appearance and style of dress were overly important. - Perhaps this could be split. Certainly we should avoid scene ... scene
  • "you can draw more people with a losing team plus bread and circuses than with a losing team and a long, still silence". - Losing/losing? Hmm... I would have thought it would be more powerful with losing/winning (but that's just me, if he didn't say it no problem)
  • Lots of quotes which can be paraphrased. "to make sure that when you visit Comiskey Park you'll see more than a baseball game … whether we won or lost you will have had fun" is one example.
  • Link important terms at first mention in the body (team's names, etc.)
  • Alright, I'll stop there for tonight. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, and I appreciate your sparing the time from your resumption of studies. I agree with most of these and will change them. I think "all the rage" is OK for purposes of this particular article, in which rage at disco played a major parts of events. What Veeck is saying is that if you are stuck with a losing team, by getting the fans to have a good time at the ballpark you can still have good attendance. He was known for stunts, most notably this and also in the 1950s sending a, er, little person, to the plate.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done those. I don't think it necessary to paraphrase quotes which were in reaction to the outcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are done. I'm looking for a good fair use for infobox still.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40–46 - Perhaps link Winning percentage, or use {{abbreviation}}? Remember, whenever this shows up on the main page our British readers complain.
  • turnstiles - What is this? Perhaps a link?
  • some four feet by six feet by five feet tall - Use {{convert}} for our non-US readers
  • Lorelei - Last name?
She later adopted the last name Shark, but she hadn't at that time. Professional name.
  • also flew - A less idiomatic term may be preferable
It's the logical backup to "thrown". Sailed, I think, is worse.
  • (according to Dahl, lovingly) - Is this really necessary?
No. But otherwise it looks rather hostile to be throwing what they did at him.
  • reeeeeeal goooood - Emphasis in original?
Yes, and I just listened to him do it on YouTube, it's justified.
  • "PLEASE RETURN TO YOUR SEATS" - All caps in the original?
Yes, scoreboards did not yet have lower case capabilities.
  • The bit about Michael Clarke Duncan, although interesting (and perhaps as a footnote) does not seem important to the overall events at the time.
  • Reaction and aftermath is heavy on quotes.
It's a reaction section. I think the reader should know what was said at the time. And what is said is so opinionated (Gaynor's comment, for example) that I hesitate to avoid a direct quote.
  • jai-alai fronton - Should have at least one link
  • he continues - As of?
  • The unplayed second game remains the last American League game to be forfeited. - As of?
To have a major league game forfeited is so unusual that in the event there was another one, I have no doubt editors would look at the articles on baseball forfeits (this and Ten Cent Beer Night) and update as necessary. It just doesn't happen. I don't think it's necessary to put in an "as of 2013".
  • The last game in the major leagues to be forfeited was on August 10, 1995, when a baseball giveaway promotion at Dodger Stadium went awry, forcing the Los Angeles Dodgers to concede the game to the St. Louis Cardinals. - Perhaps make the difference between American league and "major leagues" clearer for non-baseball fans. Also, do we have an article on this promotion?
It seems not according to Forfeit (baseball), which only names this and Ten Cent Beer Night. I will work through the others, or comment on them. Thank you for your help. Good luck with the classes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. The ones I haven't objected to, I've changed. Appreciate this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I've reinserted the Michael Clarke Duncan bit. I think it's an interesting part of this. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Maybe we can figure out a way of doing it so that it feels more integrated into the text. The two suggested notes; I think we should await further comments from reviewers. Or possibly a hidden note for the caps on the scoreboard?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Rebellion

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have made a major expansion over the last few days and hope to put it up for GA soon.

Thanks, — Rod talk 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some points to reconsider?

1. Lead section: Perhaps this should simply set the stage for the rebellion, rather than retaining the second paragraph summarizing the evolution? Alternatively, try to maximize summary like: "The rebellion ended with the defeat of Monmouth's forces at the Battle of Sedgemoor on 6 July 1685, at forces led by Earl of Feversham and the Duke of Marlborough. Monmouth was executed for treason on 15 July, 1685"

2. "Context" section: Material good, but perhaps rearrange? Rather than bring in Monmouth as early as you do, present at first the material showing how "resentment" and fears of a Catholic king is present. Then bring Monmouth on the stage.

3. On Royalist reaction:

a) What is the evidence for Faversham's limitedness? I'm not denying your source claim here, but I cannot see that that particular charge is highlighted by any action of Faversham. (Was he bungling in battles? Not able to coordinate opposition to Momouth? Not interpreting intelligence correctly, or too late?)

b) Was it ever relevant that he is "highly loyal"? (Was he approached for bribes, or something?)

c) References of "royalist" opposition, in particular Faversham, seem scattered about. I believe that a synthesis that makes it clearer that at first, it was mere local militia that opposed Monmouth, and only gradually better organized troops under Marlborough and Faversham squashed the revolt.

Okay, these were the main points of criticism I had on a very interesting article! Arildnordby (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"King James was soon warned of Monmouth's arrival, having previously received intelligence about the impending plot." This sentence is awkward, because: You immediately thereafter go into detail on how the warning is relayed to King James (the first factoid of your sentence), but ignoring in the following the chronologically earlier intelligence report which is written as the last part. My proposal is rewriting this like: "King James had earlier received intelligence about the impending plot (add reference here on intelligence report!!), and was soon warned of Monmouth's arrival"Arildnordby (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant details: 1. "The Battle of Sedgemoor is often referred to as the last battle fought on English soil, but this depends on the definition of battle, for which there are different interpretations. Other contenders for the title of last English battle include: the Battle of Preston in Lancashire, which was fought on 14 November 1715, during the First Jacobite Rebellion; and the Second Jacobite Rebellion's minor engagement at Clifton Moor, near Penrith in Cumbria, on 18 December 1745. The Battle of Culloden fought on Drumossie Moor to the north east of Inverness on 16 April 1746 was the last battle fought on British soil.[citation needed]" Belongs in Battle of Sedgmoor, not M's rebellion?

2. "(an elderly nephew of Turenne, who had spent some time in English service and later became a Knight of the Garter)" Arildnordby (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Tim Riley
  • General
    • You need to decide whether Royalist/royalist is capitalised or not. At present it varies.
    • WP:OVERLINK – I don't think your readers will find it helpful to have links to such terms as English Army, Holland, customs officer and pitchforks. And there are two many duplicate links.
  • Duke of Monmouth
    • The second para opens with "He", which I suggest you change to "Monmouth". The last person mentioned before the "He" was Charles II, so there is ambiguity.
  • Context
    • "Earl of Shaftesbury" – I think you need a definite article for the noble earl.
  • Plan
    • "William of Orange, had neglected to detain them" – neglected? It isn't clear that he was negligent in not detaining them.
    • "amongst" – a fusty word, and the sense is unchanged if you omit it here
    • The Rye House plot is linked here and in the previous paragraph with a few explanatory words at each mention. The second is surplus to requirements, I think.
    • "Minister, he was" – a stronger stop than a comma needed here
    • "uttering 'seditious' words" – Wikipedia's preferred style is for double quotes rather than single, as here
    • "gaol" – pleasing to see the older form of the word, but you have "jailed" in the previous line, and they don't sit well in such close proximity
    • "Monmouth pawned many of his belongings and jewelry" – two points here: first, do you definitely prefer the American spelling of jewellery? (The OED admits it, but even so…) And secondly, was not the jewellery/jewelry part of his belongings?
  • From Lyme Regis to Sedgemoor
    • "pitchforks): one famous" – semicolon, not colon, wanted here, I think.
    • "swords point" – possessive apostrophe needed
    • "With the local militias assistance" – ditto" – whether militia's singular or militias' plural I know not.
    • "attack the city of Bristol" – second wikilink to Bristol in this section. One too many.
    • "the second largest and second most important city after London" – this doesn't say what I think you mean it to say. If Bristol was the second largest city after London, what was the largest? Omit both "second"s and all will be well.
    • "the final outcome of the rebellion may have been very different" – "might", rather than "may", I think. And having piqued our interest you really ought to say in what way the outcome might have been different.
    • "musqueteers" – a spelling new to me. I see from the OED that Walter Scott used this spelling, but I think most of your readers will be expecting "musketeer".
    • "each side, however each side" – stronger stop than comma wanted
    • "a rebellion in Scotland, led by Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll" – this repeats information you've already given us; it repeats a wikilink, too.
    • "arrived, however" – comma inadequate here. Moreover this is a very long sentence and would be better split in two, thus "arrived. In the light"
    • "meant that" – the inclusion of these two words makes no sense after "in the light" etc earlier in the sentence.
  • Battle of Sedgemoor
    • "with Lord Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough" – it's a bit late to tell us that now, having called him Duke of Marlborough at all previous mentions

That's my lot. I hope these few suggestions are useful. Regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your helpful comments which have helped to improve the article. I must admit it is not the first time my apostrophe abuse, and other grammar aberrations have been picked up by helpful reviewers. I will leave this open for a couple more days in case you or other editors have further comments and then close it and go for GA.— Rod talk 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yoy're welcome! If you could find the time to look at my own peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Impalement/archive1, I would be grateful..:-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel each of these two distinct claims will benefit from direct inline citation? " The south west of England contained several towns where opposition remained strong. (Add ref!) Fears of a potential Catholic monarch persisted, intensified by the failure of Charles II and his wife, Catherine of Braganza, to produce any children.(Add ref!)Arildnordby (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Monmouth section: "That marriage produced no surviving children." You repeat that factoid in the next section, where it is of direct relevance. I think it is unnecessary in DoM section. Furthermore, you double link on catherine braganza.Arildnordby (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both (hopefully) dealt with. I will take a look at Impalement when I get a chance - probably tomorrow.— Rod talk 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential question: Why wasn't Monmouth hanged, drawn and quartered? Too closely related to King, perhaps? (What about others in the Bloody Assizes?) I'm not saying you should add anything on this, but HDQ was, after all, used on Irish and Scots into the 18th century?Arildnordby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting question which has sent me back to the books. No trial was needed because parliament had declared him a traitor on 13 June with the Bill of attainder. His family were allowed to keep the estates (& some titles) because he wrote a letter denying his claim to the throne, but I can't find any explanation (or even discussion) about the selection of a particular format for execution - presumably, as you say, it was because of his royal lineage.— Rod talk 21:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the HDQ article, some 200 of Monmouth's followers were hdq'ed: "In less than a month over 200 of them were hanged, drawn and quartered.". Now, I do not know if that is correct, but if it is, it does contrast rather starkly with the merciful aspect of DoM's own death? Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On Bloody Assizes it says less than 300 (with 2 refs) - I may expand that article later.— Rod talk 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a gory detail after all, but anyhow, the decent historian Macaulay notes that upon reading the lists from judges sent to the Treasury, there were 320 sentenced to be "hanged" (p.225). If you are to expand on the Bloody Assizes article, he has a rather lively account of it, and Jeffrey's behaviour on the pages there. History, MacaulayArildnordby (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links 53-58 are clustered together. What do any one of them refer to?Arildnordby (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all support the claim that "Several historians have speculated that if Monmouth had marched as quickly as possible for Bristol at this point, when it was only protected by the Gloucestershire militia, he would probably have been able to take the city and the final outcome of the rebellion might have been very different. Once Bristol had been taken, more recruits would have been attracted to the Rebellion and a later march on London would have been possible." As it is speculation I've given loads to show that this is a common thought among the authors.— Rod talk 14:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps collect them together in a single reference that reads: "For example, see A, B, C..." where A,B,C.. are the references now present?
Comments by Magicpiano

You've made much progress since my brief comment at WT:MILHIST; well done. You're not too far from GA; I do have a few comments, though.

  • Churchill was not duke at the time of these events; he should not be referred to as such (except at some point to mention that he received the title later). His title of the time (baron?) should be used. (I've not checked the titles of others like Feversham and Shaftesbury to see if the same issue is the case with them.)
  • Feversham is mentioned generically ("Earl of Feversham"), then mentioned by full name ("Louis de Duras, 2nd Earl of Feversham")
  • I would make a more than passing reference to the failure of the Scottish rebellion. (One or two sentences outlining relevant events should suffice.)
  • I suspect "rhyne" is always going to be clicked on (unless it's really a common word in BritEng); a parenthetical definition ("drainage ditch") should be given.
  • Who did the bill of attainder target (was it only Monmouth, or were others included)?
  • According to the article on Percy Kirke, there seem to have been "irregularities" (or at least allegations of mistreatment of prisoners) after the rebellion was put down. Can these be characterized? (Since I don't know the history, I'm assuming this is not directly related to the Bloody Assizes.)

--Magic♪piano 15:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments - I hope I've dealt with most of them but I suspect the last one probably does sit with the Bloody Assizes article.— Rod talk 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You had, at one point, a tiny mention that expected rebellions failed to materialize in certain parts. I think that the "Plan" section could benefit from a paragraph on why and where DoM expected rebellions might flare up (he didn't go to war unless he thought he had "sufficient" potential support?), and that the failing to materialize of such rebellions could be placed in conjunction with your "flagging of morale" part.Arildnordby (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a sentence of this.— Rod talk 11:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"were considered as potential locations for the rebellion" Potential locations for the rebellion?? Is a) "potentially favourable locations for the rebellion" better? or b) "..potential locations in which the rebellion might spread"? or c) "were considered as potential locations for rebellion" better formulations? From what I see (do I misunderstand?), the point here is that these area were places Monmouth did NOT directly intervene in, or have agents at, but where he hoped sympathy would generate local rebellions (that eventually could suppport and stengthen the momentum of his own directed campaigns). Personally, I favour something along c), dropping the "the" in your own sentence.Arildnordby (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help with this. I'm closing the peer review & aiming for GA soon.— Rod talk 09:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fulham F.C. players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it previously failed a FL nomination, and has been edited and updated to hopefully now be of a good standard.

Thanks, 03md 02:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Done
  • The images of Edwin van der Sar, Jimmy Hill with Maurice Cook, Danny Murphy, Bobby Moore, and Brede Hangeland all need alt text. The welsh flag could probably literally use alt=Flag of Wales.
  • Yep I'll sort those
  • "Fulham Football Club is an English professional football team based in Fulham in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham." Can this be reworded to have more to do with the players, and/or can "Fulham Football Club" be bolded?
I'll do that
  • The whole intro's first paragraph seems like it would be better as a history section than an intro
  • In most cases I'd agree, but it is modelled off other football featured lists, which have this an intro.
  • "Figures are mostly taken from Fulham: The Complete Record by Dennis Turner (published in 2007). UEFA Intertoto Cup, UEFA Cup and UEFA Europa League appearance statistics for the 2002–03 and 2009–10 seasons are taken from Soccerbase, along with all other statistics from the 2007–08 season onwards." instead of this, can you include citations in the citations column or is that too much?
  • Will do.
  • Sonny Gibbon's flag is missing text, it's just the flag
  • I'll sort that
  • Suggestion: This isn't a requirement for featured list or anything, but since my focus on wikipedia is dog related articles, the featured lists I am most familiar with are List of Best in Show winners of Crufts and [[List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show] - in these lists, there is a column for pictures of most of the dogs that won. Is it possible to include pictures of the footballers for which we have them available in the table, or is this not practical?
  • That is a good idea - the dog articles I've seen do it well - but this is not common in football featured lists so I will probably stick to images outside the table.
  • Criteria 5.a of the featured list criteria states that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." Is it possible or practical to stub out some of the player articles?
  • I will try to do as many as possible.
  • Can the Soccerbase refs get more complete references or is that a no?
  • I'll address that

That's all I noticed for now. Other than that it looks pretty good.--TKK bark ! 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of NK Maribor players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… a lot of effort by several editors has been made to improve this article for the eventual Featured list nomination. However, before we do that we would first like a feedback to see if the list can be improved further (or fixed in case of existing problems).

Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written and performed by Avril Lavigne

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to work on eventually getting this to FL and would like some feedback for improving it before I nominate it. I'm particularly wondering if the lead should be shortened at all or if it's good as it is, and of course any other suggestions and critiques.

Thank you! Rorschach 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this list on accident (I've never been to it before) and was impressed by the work, so I was happy to see it was up for peer review. I cannot give a full and solid peer review because I am unfamiliar with lists and what is expected of them in general, but I will say that it looks superb. I went through the lead and added missing quotation marks around song titles, and I find three column references difficult to read, so I changed that to 30em, which should allow the browser to make the decision for you.
I do, though, have a few suggestions.
  1. In the lead: regarding the sentence, "She also worked with Max Martin and Shellback, who co-wrote all three of the album's singles." There is possible confusion as to who co-wrote the three albums: "both of whom", or just Shellback (the latter)?
  2. The next two sentences after the above are, "She again wrote several songs with Evan Taubenfeld. Though he and Lavigne had been divorced in 2009, Deryck Whibley produced seven tracks on the album." When read linearly, the phrase "Though he and Lavigne" becomes confused with Taubenfeld. The last sentence isn't problematic on its own, but with Taubenfeld's name immediately named, that's who I thought the sentence was referring to at first. It would be more confusing (even if only for a moment) for someone unfamiliar with her marriage history.
  3. In the list, I am not a fan at all of song titles that capitalize the first letter of all words. I lowercased "the" in one of the song titles in the lead, but I think you should go through the entire list and lowercase in accordance with WP:ALBUMCAPS.
I did not give the list a deeper look than this, so I haven't checked your citations or wikilinks or anything else. This is just to help you get going, and hopefully someone will come along and give you a deeper review. If you haven't helped out on other peer reviews, you should, as it's good etiquette to give just as much as you take ; ) I'll make more corrections if I see any. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did have one question. As I'm unfamiliar with lists, shouldn't this list be mentioned or linked to in Template:Avril Lavigne? Or is this not standard procedure? I only discovered this list because I was going through categories. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind regarding the paragraph above, I see that this list is linked in the AL template. Just a quick glance, I did see some other things that need to be changed.
  1. WP:OVERLINK — For example, every example of "Avril Lavigne" in the actual list links to her article. This goes for all the other names as well.
  2. WP:ALLCAPS — Article titles in the References section (e.g., "VOA NEWS: JOHN LENNON'S MUSIC TO HELP DARFUR") need to be written and capitalized properly (use your judgment in these cases); also I saw the name PUFFY in the list and References a few times, he needs to be lowercased, no matter how his name is stylized.
  3. Consistency — in the References, I noticed Discogs.com and discogs.com... capitalization should be consistent.
  4. Typos — in the References, for example, I found Disogs several times (instead of Discogs). Also, it should be Discogs.com as the full name; Reference #75 reads "Playl Will Be"... is that a typo?
  5. Work vs. Publisher — the website should always be listed in the work parameter. I found Discogs, for example, listed under the Publisher parameter a few times. The result is the website does not appear italicized in the actual References section, which it should be.
  6. "O Holy Night" is missing an original artist, and the link does take you to the names of the composers. Maybe they can be listed?
  7. "Fine" doesn't have a writer listed, and its link goes to [4], which I cannot access because I don't have an updated Flash player. Accessibility is not an issue, but good faith is, so I'm assuming its an interview with Lavigne where she mentions the song "Fine"... though I'm not sure in what capacity. "Fine" has been mentioned several times in the past. In the current Avril Lavigne article, the citation for "Fine" leads to a magazine interview. This is again another accessibility problem because I don't have that magazine, but I did find it (at the time) scanned and uploaded to Bandaids. "Fine" is again mentioned here (bandaids) during an interview on "The View"—I presume this is the TV show. Maybe you can hunt down a good source that says AL was in fact the author of this song.
Hopefully some of this helps you again (I had some time to kill). – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to get this up to the status of a Featured Article and I wanted to run it through peer review to see what I need to work on. Thanks, The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedlington Terrier

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've more than doubled the size of this article and made some dramatic rewrites to it, and I'm hoping to eventually push it to good article status. I'm mostly worried that the appearance section might be too technical, and the health section might not be comprehensive enough.

Thanks, TKK bark ! 13:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenrothes

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for a peer review because i'm convinced it can reach FA status. However, i feel the article still needs a lot of work done. Some of the sections in the article, such as history, culture and community, geography and landmarks, go into too much detail. There is also still an overly enthusiastic tone to the article as well. Both of these issues have been brought up in previous peer reviews.

Overall, the article is really strong with appropriate citations and some very good pictures

Thanks, Kilnburn (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/February_2013&oldid=548062054"